Skip to comments.VANITY: Pig-headed Vatican Pacifists Doomed Christianity in Spain
Posted on 10/05/2004 3:12:10 PM PDT by dangus
The Catholic Church is horrified at events now going on in Spain, where the newly elected Premier is moving to squash all outward signs of Spain's religion, and impose a radical, left-wing, anti-religious government which permits every sort of perversion and evil. Read about it at this post: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1235221/posts
The responsibility for this nightmare, however, lies nowhere else than the Vatican itself. Spain was led by a decent, Christian conservative. Now, this Satanic minion, Jose Luis Rodrigo Zapatero has taken over the country. And the reason is that the Vatican State Department declared war on the allied coalition against Iraq.
Zapatero wouldnt have been within 10% in the election without that terrorist attack.
But lets continue on with the myth that it is all the Catholic's fault...
Yep. JPII's minions, led by the despicable Archbishop Martino, accused the United States (and by implication, the entire coalition) of conducting a "criminal" war.
Lay the loss of Spain at the feet of the Eurotrash Cardinals of the Roman Curia.
This is a sidebar issue to this story, but liberalism is destroying the Catholic church and really the church everywhere, as it is bringing destruction to everything else in society.
Christian liberalism, in a nutshell states that doctrine and practice ought to adjust itself to a changing society, which is nonsense.
The Church, a living organism establish by God, should never change, especially in doctrine and practice, but should through the Grace of God change people and society, no matter the season, not the other way around.
People always seek a strong foundation to stand upon, not one that is ever shifting.
Liberalism would seek to rip the heart from the church and thus weaken it.
Sorry for the preaching, been doing it too long to change now...
Let me please clarify one point, MikeinIraq: What I am mourning is the LOSS of Catholicism in Spain. It is a pity that certain Vatican officials have hindered the church's own efforts in Spain, but without the faithfulness of many of the church's people, the conservatives in Spain would never had stood a chance! It's just sad that the Vatican's anti-war effort confused and thereby diminished the political action of the Church.
Your tone seems sarcastic (I can't condone phrasing such as "JPII's minions," for instance), but yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.
The Vatican State Department deliberately misconstrued statements out of Iraq, and distorted even the Pope's own words. If you read the Pope's statements about war in Iraq as the war was approaching, the first thing he said was that was was evil and the BEST WAY to prevent war was to end abortion. The State Department twisted that into sounding like a call for political activism against the politicians who supported the war, who in nearly every case represented their nations' moral conservatives. (Tony Blair being an obvious exception.)
If he had, perhaps Hussein would have folded. Instead, the Pope's words allowed Hussein, and Chirac, and Schroeder, to hide behind his skirts.
Why? That's what they are, and they were off to the races after JPII condemned the war.
Truer words were never spoken...God bless you...
The terrorists are responsible for the attack and the election of the horrible Zapatero. The Vatican, however misguided its prudential judgment on Iraq may have been is not responsible, nor is Bush, as many Spaniards and Leftists seem to think.
The Vatican was on the side of the French, the Germans, and the insurgents. That's the bottom line.
The Vatican contributed to the atmosphere that produced a socialist win.
Given this, it is utterly unsurprising that they have elected the government that they have. It is simply a reflection of the prevailing mentality in the country.
As for Iraq, the Pope was absolutely right. He pleaded with us not to go. We turned a deaf ear. Now when things are not running according to plan, we turn around and blame him. He was right. As usual. The Catholic conditions for a just war were far from being satisfied with respect to Iraq. The Pope told us so and we told him to shove it.
Contrast this with Afghanistan. Afghanistan, through its proxy, al-Qaeda attacked the US. Intervention was justified. As a result, a country which the Soviet Union could not overcome was subdued in weeks, the terrorists were rooted out and the country has been stabilized. Weeks go by with little or no reports of death or trouble.
What are we bringing to Iraq? Christianity? No. The secular god of "democracy" instead and which the Iraqis probably do not even want. When we finally realize that there is not an American waiting to get out of the inside of every foreigner, we will be far better off.
In case I'm not being clear, let me summarize.
It is the fault of the Spanish that they are now in servitude to atheists and agnostics in government and it is our fault that we are now mired in a war with no foreseeable end and which may ultimately serve the cause of Islamic fundamentalists.
Did you read the article?
But in the Vatican, there is further cause for alarm. It is feared that what is happening in Spain will be reproduced in Rome and Italy. And the Church is uncertain how to face this.
The Pope was wrong on Iraq. He opposed the war because of the Chaldean Christians. Hussein murdered nearly a million Iraqis.
The Pope opposes war, on all fronts.
Had he thought this through, he might have considered that his opposition to the war, along with the French and Germans, allowed Hussein to hide behind JPII's skirts.
Had he remained silent, Hussein might have folded and avoided the war.
I was under the impression that opposition to this ill-conceived adventurism (a characterization similar to that of the senior Mr. Bush in the first war, when he warned against getting mired in a "nation-building" exercise) in Iraq was pretty much forbidden at FR, which is among the reasons why I promised myself some time ago that I would not post here again. However, I am willing to risk banning to let you know, publicly, that you are not alone.
I am not surprised, of course, to find the usual RadTrad suspects willing to swallow any anti-Papal or anti-curial propaganda they are predisposed to believe. Such rubbish is indispensable to their idea that their schismatic disposition is justified due to an (imaginary) "emergency".
There is very little new under the sun, and we've seen this foolishness before. It is nothing more than the "paranoid style" being played out in the public arena, unfortunately misleading those who cannot or will not do the necessary homework to unearth the flaws in their analysis. (This is especially the case for some of our well-intentioned, but mis-informed, young people.)
Take, the example of the Catholic Senator, Joe McCarthy. He was right: there were Communists in government and in Hollywood, and they were a threat to the stability of our nation. Had he kept his mental balance, he would be remembered for having performed an indispensable service to our country. Instead, he began to "find" a Communist in every pot and two Communists in every garage, and his name has become a byword for political insanity. It also had catastrophic effects on his personal life, and he died a broken, embittered, alcoholic.
St. Paul advises us to "test everything and retain what is good". Had both Sen. McCarthy and the current crop of paranoid "traditionalists" taken this admonition to heart they might have learned that self-governance which is necessary to keeping on the mentally and spiritually healthy side of the fence.
See post three. While the Tradbashers accuse me of Bashing JPII (Something I have NEVER done), they wink and nod at their own for posts like this. Blaming JPII for Spain is way off, imho.
"The Pope should have kept his mouth shut, just as he did when we went into Afghanistan."
Hmmm .... be careful, he may unfrock you!! For once in his life Wojtyla was right in opposing the attacks on Iraq. His
sense of morality is not exactly that of American big business, convoluted protestantism and the ulterior motives of some ambitious Jews. The chief concern for America should be world opinion not any particular Vatican stance. And the Christian world is not entirely preoccupied with the 'righteousness' of American foreign policy.
LOL! Yeah. Let's compromise our safety because we're concerned about the friggin' French.
the ulterior motives of some ambitious Jews
Sedevacantists have a reputation for anti-semitism. You further that reputation.
Failed your logic course, did you?
I was not addressing the linked article.
Do you think that
meetingtea party he had with Tariq Azziz before the war had anything to do to influence his decision to speak out?
And I was responding to your post #14.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church has this to say about a just war:
2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.
The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
I don't believe that any of these points were satisfied with respect to Iraq, but especially point #1 "..........lasting, grave and certain."
Not "possible", "probable" or "highly likely". Certain.
Iraq is on the way to becoming an Islamic state. "Democracy" will be a very poor bulwark against this spiritual onslaught and time will show the folly of our actions, if it hasn't already.
Sorry, I'm one of those Catholic subversives whose first reaction to a problem is find what the Catechism says about it, rather than the US Constitution or the GOP manifesto.
The French intelligence agency, as well as Germany, Russia, Israel, and the United States, were all CERTAIN that Hussein had WMDs.
They were also certain that he had violated 14 UN strictures.
Taking him out was simply an extension of Gulf War I, another war that the Vatican opposed.
The Vatican has no answer to the war on terror, except to take the issue to the UN. The Catholic Catechism is also out of date in dealing with murderous Islamists. Waiting for Kofi Anan to approve of our actions is a prescription for death.
As to what will happen in Iraq, neither you nor I have any idea about the future, except that we will have bases there for a very long time. And that is a good thing.
Thanks to both of you for telling the truth.
>>>"And the reason is that the Vatican State Department declared war on the allied coalition against Iraq."<<<<
>> Failed your logic course, did you?<<
I guess you did. I never implied a syllogism.
I wouldn't blame JPII personally, but the Vatican State Department did politically align itself with the leftist, nihilist scum of Europe in attempt to thwart the war.
Iraq invaded Kuwait. That plainly created a just-war situation. A ceasefire was negotiated on the basis that Irq would dismantle its warmaking ability. When it became clear that Iraq had violated the terms of the peace agreement, the United States, who had fought virtually alone to win PG1 contrary to modern legend, moved in to conclude the war which Hussein had been raging against his own people since 1991.
The socialist myth is that the sanctions were starving Iraqi people. The reality is that Hussein was, making billions for himself while he SHUT THE WATER OFF so that the his own people could not plant their crops.
The damage done to the Kurds, the Marsh Arabs, and the Shiites was lasting, and grave.
I've gotta butt in on that statement.
I think both the Pope and the President played their roles as anticipated by the Catechism. The Pope kept urging us to try one more time to settle things without going to war and the President, who actually has the responsibility (according to the Catechism), made the judgement that we had done everything that was reasonable, we had made the extra efforts and there was no possibility that Hussein would agree to abide by the truce terms without us going to war.
However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."
The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
While the Vatican's position may have been a contributing factor, it is not the exclusive factor as your statement implies. That is why I cannot accept your conclusion.
Also please note that the Vatican State Department is NOT the Catholic Church!
What is it?
That the Church is "unsure how to face this"? Dithering Vatican ninnies, in other words?
The Church will "face this" in the same way that it has faced every other crisis in its history. With the Gospel of Jesus.
And it will triumph.
But, what about the threat of terrorism, and what of nations that support or shelter terrorists?
By the standard of the Catechism, it would seem that we must sit idly and allow the murder of innocents through terrorism.
I think this is something the Church needs to address more explicitly.
"Sedevacantists have a reputation for anti-semitism. You further that reputation."
Hmmm .... you seem to use the anti-semitism card as readily as others use the race card. That is bad and lazy reasoning; the kind of thing Mel Gibson has to deal with in that cesspool called Hollywood.
But what I have noticed is your tendency to malign Wojtyla (e.g. over Iraq) and to praise him to the heavens (e.g. when on one of his Assisi-type trips). Remember, no-one outside (or inside for that matter) America is duty bound to support its grand designs .... Coca-Cola and McDonalds is not a fair exchange!
No they're not. But they're also not going to stop the United States from protecting its interests and defending itself from threat.
That ought to be clear as a bell by now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.