Pope: Enough With Slaughters in Iraq

AP ^ | 3/16/2008 | NICOLE WINFIELD

[stevio]

Hopefully the Islamists don’t think that killing a bishop is the way to get noticed by the Pope.

[SkyPilot]

I spoke out against anyone who made that accusation without proof. If you can make the accusation and back it up, go for it, is what I said. If you can't, then you're just a common, cheap gossip, as well as a violator of the Eighth Commandment.

No - that is not accurate. Go back and search.

Let's speak plainly. You told me of your association with him, and you complained to the moderator and had a post removed where I accused Cardinal McCarrick of being homosexual removed.

Then, you wanted to bring the conversation into the private realm through Freepmails.

I told you then priests who had worked with McCarrick divulged he was "gay."

You went (in my opinion) ballistic.

It turns out I was correct. The "proof" you ask for is akin to a videotape of OJ murdering Nichole.

Let me remind you, the Cardinal's position on "Homosexual Unions" is contrary to the Bible itself:

Card. McCarrick’s Acceptance of Homosexual Civil Unions

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 18:22

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

Romans 1:26-27

[SkyPilot]

That's all I needed to know. Thanks,

You don't like Evangelical Christians?

If you believe in Christ, and believe that He died for you sins, and believe in Him - then you are my brother or sister.

I am sorry you won't extend to me the same.

[sitetest]

Dear SkyPilot,

“No - that is not accurate. Go back and search.”

I really don't have enough emotionally invested to bother.

Obviously, this has been bothering you a very long time.

As you have previously misinterpreted my posts herein, it wouldn't be surprising to me that you're not correctly interpreting a conversation from some time ago.

If I asked the moderator to remove the comment, it was because it was done without evidence.

And saying, “I know some folks who told me it's so,” isn't evidence. It's gossip. Low, cheap gossip.

sitetest

[SkyPilot]

I really don't have enough emotionally invested to bother.

Apparently, you do - because you keep responding to me. But, you won't go back and search, because you know I am right.

Obviously, this has been bothering you a very long time.

No - not at all. We are all accountable for what we do and say. You know that - it is in the Bible. Right?

I also have a very good memory.

As you have previously misinterpreted my posts herein, it wouldn't be surprising to me that you're not correctly interpreting a conversation from some time ago.

Oh, believe me - I don't think I am "misinterpreting" you right now. I got it. You are against people like me, Rev Billy Graham, and all Evangelical Christians. I got that Loud and Clear sitetest.

If I asked the moderator to remove the comment, it was because it was done without evidence.

Nope. That is not what you said. Go back and find it.

Of course, a former priest who comes out in an article and says McCarrick is gay - that isn't evidence either because you want the videos. That is the only thing that will convince you.

And saying, “I know some folks who told me it's so,” isn't evidence. It's gossip. Low, cheap gossip.

Now, you sound like a Democrat.

[sitetest]

Dear SkyPilot,

“Apparently, you do - because you keep responding to me.”

It's easy enough to jot down a few lines, but I'm certainly uninterested in doing the heavy lifting you apparently have done.

“You are against people like me, Rev Billy Graham, and all Evangelical Christians. I got that Loud and Clear sitetest.”

Nah, I love Billy Graham, and respect his religious views, even if I don't entirely agree with them. But he didn't leave the True Church over a misunderstanding of the scandals that erupted a few years ago, and now needs psychologically to retroactively justify that decision by continuing to misinterpret and distort the events of recent years.

“Nope. That is not what you said. Go back and find it.”

More work than I desire.

“Of course, a former priest who comes out in an article and says McCarrick is gay - that isn't evidence either because you want the videos. That is the only thing that will convince you.”

Video evidence would be persuasive, yes. But I'd accept direct testimony. The problem is, folks who have been willing to go on the record, publicly, with their names out there, have been few and far between. For everyone I see that has been willing to publicly say this with his name attached, I'm told there are 10 more “in the closet” who will anonymously make the same accusations.

That makes me puke.

And then, when I look at the occasional one who gives his name to the accusation, the witness doesn't appear terribly credible.

So, no, the testimony of a small number of incredible witnesses combined with the alleged testimony of an alleged larger number of completely anonymous witnesses is not adequate to me to even publicly post an accusation against a cardinal of the Church.

At that level, it's low gossip.

'As Ronald Reagan said, 'There you go again!'"

"Spoken like Walter Mondale."

“Now, you sound like a Democrat.”

Again and again, all you can really do is insult.

Well, it's been real. It's been fun. But has it been real fun?

You can have the last word.

sitetest

[SkyPilot]

You can have the last word.

Sigh.

I don't want the "last word" sitetest.

I want what Christ would want.

What He would want is that you and I agree that belief in Him saves people from Hell.

"Enter through the narrow gate.
For wide is the gate and broad is the
road that leads to destruction, and many
enter through it. But small is the gate
and narrow the road that leads to life,
and only a few find it"

Matthew 7:13,14

_____________________________________________________________________

Don't you agree?

[markomalley]

Did you even read it? Can you now tell me Christ was dictating that children had to call their parents by their names, or was He telling us what He demands vis a vis religious figures? I am not saying the Pope is not serving the cause of Christ – but don’t violate what Christ Himself teaches.

Is that so hard?

No harder than for St. Paul or St. John. If they can identify themselves as spiritual parents, then maybe they understood what Our Lord meant a little better than whoever taught you that perverse interpretation. (check out 1 Cor 4:15 for just one example of this)

The problem is that the question is already answered in the context of the section you printed: 12For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

As St. John Chrysostom said,

But wherein are they earnest, and vigorous? In the things forbidden. For, “all their works they do,” He saith, “to be seen of men.” These things He saith, accusing them in respect of vainglory, which kind of thing was their ruin. For the things before were signs of harshness and remissness, but these of the mad desire of glory. This drew them off from God, this caused them to strive before other spectators, and ruined them. For whatever kind of spectators any one may have, since it hath become his study to please these, such also are the contests he exhibits And he that wrestles among the noble, such also are the conflicts he takes in hand, but he among the cold and supine, himself also becomes more remiss. For instance, hath any one a beholder that delights in ridicule? he himself too becomes a mover of ridicule, that he may delight the spectator: hath another one who is earnest minded, and practises self-government? he endeavors himself to be such as he is, since such is the disposition of him who praises him.

Or, as St. Augustine facetiously stated: each should as matter of course be also compelled to deny that the apostles had fathers on earth; since He gave them an injunction in these terms: “Call no man your father upon the earth; for one is your Father, which is in heaven.” (de Fide, 4)

Point is, before you start pulling scripture out of conext (especially funny when you quote the context), you should make sure that you understand the context. Otherwise, you can explain why Job, Abrhaam, the levite with Micah, Eliakim, Paul, John, etc., etc., etc., are all referred in the same, exact context as Catholics use toward priests and bishops.

Maybe, just maybe, the Catholics are the more scriptural here in this context.

(Or maybe you should consider looking at Pastor ___ or Brother ____, who place themselves above God, and extend the context of Matthew 23 a little bit)

[Patriotic1]

As a devout Catholic, I see nothing wrong with what he has said. Perhaps a bias against B16 is at play here?

[Patriotic1]

Perhaps his plea is aimed at the terrorists, and not the US military? I mean, he knows which group kidnapped the Archbishop.

[LordBridey]

A very fair post - thank you.

Thank you. Yours is probably the most cordial post I have ever recieved on FR. Am I in the right forum? :o)

While loving your enemy and your neighbor are wonderful teachings from the Lord, they are not the heart of the Gospel.

While I appreciate the emphasis you place on faith alone, I would disagree that Christ's teachings on love and forgiveness are merely wonderful. But to delve into all that would open all kinds of cans of worms concerning grace and free will and man's response to grace, etc. etc. ad nauseum. Who wants to get into that? Not me.

Thanks again for your uplifting response.

[SkyPilot]

I found nothing in your post that could refute what Jesus said in Matthew 23.

Your quote from St. John Chrysostom added nothing to the argument, and I am still scratching my head as to where you think the context of that applies.

This is even more bizarre:

Point is, before you start pulling scripture out of conext (especially funny when you quote the context),

??????

I posted the link and the text of the entire Chapter of Matthew 23 - and asked you to read and comment on it. Then, you accuse me of context?

Quite frankly sir/ma'am - I do not think you are capable of grasping it yourself.

[markomalley]

Quite frankly sir/ma'am - I do not think you are capable of grasping it yourself.

Well, I guess all there is to do is to pray for the Holy Spirit to open your eyes. I will be more than happy to do so.

[rmgatto]

I'm happy that he at least fell short of calling for a timetable for withdrawal. Sure--surrender this war and spawn ten more. I'm "prejudiced" against the leader of my faith like I'm prejudiced against the politics of another noteworthy Catholic, John Kerry.

Benedict's predecessor stood fast against the great threat of his time, avoiding obvious appeals for politically correct actions.

[LordBridey]

I'm happy that he at least fell short of calling for a timetable for withdrawal. Sure--surrender this war and spawn ten more.

Fell short? Benedict wasn't commenting on any particular policy; he was giving voice to the universal lament over the senseless violence that pervades that country, and offering the only prescription that will eventually end it. Withdrawing or leaving troops has nothing to do with what will eventually have to happen there. With or without US troops.

I'm "prejudiced" against the leader of my faith like I'm prejudiced against the politics of another noteworthy Catholic, John Kerry.

It would be a mistake to compare the public pronouncements of the pope with that of a politician. A politican is going to cater to his constituents and hold positions that oppose his rivals for the sake of...well...to demonstrate a difference. Any moral component will take a back seat to those criteria. It is especially evident in the case of a man like Kerry.

On the other hand, the pope will always start from a moral dimension, and will speak in terms of an authentic Christian witness. He will not be pandering to any particular constituency, nor is he creating a paper trail that will assure his viability in his next quest for a temporal position of political power. Those distinctions are extremely important to keep in mind.

Benedict's predecessor stood fast against the great threat of his time, avoiding obvious appeals for politically correct actions.

John Paul, like Benedict now, is outside the PC constructs. Our political projections shouldn't be misapplied to the pontiffs. Their point of view, and those views are consistent with one another, derive from the magesterial dictum that all humans share an intrinsic dignity and right to life that shouldn't be abbrogated. That might come into conflict with our national impulses, our materialistic bents, and our all-too-human-thus-flawed desire for justice...even vengeance, but our Christian sense should be perfectly comfortable when these men speak as they do.