Pope John Paul II may ask to personally address UN Security Council to stop Iraq war

AFP via Babelfish translation ^ | March 3, 2003

[O6ret]

Now there's charitable response for you...but it's hardly Catholic bashing to state the truth. The Pope and the Catholic Church would be better served if the Holy See directed this much energy and concern towards solving its internal problems.

[Dirk McQuickly]

I agree with the assessment that this will act as a counter to the assertion that this is a holy war between Christians and Muslims.

I don't believe that the Pope should step down, by any stretch. Just think about how scandalous it was when Jesus told his disciples to basically stop worrying about the Romans and start worrying about their neighbors and themselves and the Kingdom of God.

I'm an orthodox Catholic and I have a hard time swallowing the notion of letting Iraq off the hook.

But this guy (the Pope) is at a spiritual level I can't even hope to attain. That said, all we can do is pray for a better understanding of what the Pope is asking for. I don't understand it, and part of me doesn't want to understand it. I believe this is a just war. I believe that we are confronting evil. I believe that war with the prospect (nay, certainty) of driving Saddam from power is 100 times more humane than leaving him in his insidious seat of power to rape, torture, and drain life and soul from his own subjects...

[Byron_the_Aussie]

..the Pope was against godless communist suppression. I guess the feigned religous brutal suppression by Saddam doesn't cut it...

No, it doesn't.

There is no possible comparison between a pipsqueak like Saddam, and the might of the Soviet Bloc, at the time John Paul II decided to face it down.

Look, I apologise if I went overboard back there. I just feel very strongly that we Freepers should show a bit of respect for someone who has accomplished so much; so much, for all of us. Goodnight.

[MEG33]

I thought the post I answered wasn't about Saddam.

[Smile-n-Win]

I just feel very strongly that we Freepers should show a bit of respect for someone who has accomplished so much; so much, for all of us.

I agree with you on this.

[Paul_B]

I remember when the War on Terror was initially launched, one of the Pope's unspoken reasons for not publicly endorsing it was so as not to exacerbate tensions for believers in Moslem lands. There are plenty of vulnerable believers not only in the ME, but in SE Asia as well. I found that to be a very wise and commendable consideration, and I think this remains a major goal of his.

But I think the Pope now takes his position and its advocacy way too far. It quite seems that he does not appreciate the danger an aggressor like Hussein would be once imbued with nuclear capability, which surely is on the horizon. Resultantly, he, who more than anyone is the curator of Just War Theory, disallows the validity of the concept of a preemptive Just War. It is exactly there that I believe he has erred philosophically.

In short, he's wrong on this one. Probably sincerely so, but nonetheless wrong. And now he's attempting to press the point, in spades.

[Beck_isright]

Hmmm, to my memory, I don't recall the Pope saying word one of prayer for all of the women and children being raped, experimented on with biological and chemcial weapons, having limbs cut off without regard or shot without trial. But I guess being with the communists in favor of the one world government solution to all problems in the world is more important than Iraqi civilians.

[Beck_isright]

If the Pope is such a warrior against communism, why is he siding with the UN, a blatant attempt at a one world communist government which desires to dictate economic and personal behavior to all member nations?

[CatoRenasci]

Given the current state of the American Church, at least, the moral authority of the Holy See is pretty low right now. This is a bad move. The Church should clean its own house before going on a moral crusade to support Islamism and socialist dictators like Saddam. Very sad.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Consider this, from Hobbes' Leviathan, in 1668:

Part IV. Of the Kingdom of Darkness

Chap. xlvii. Of the Benefit that proceedeth from such Darkness

[21] ...For from the time that the Bishop of Rome had gotten to be acknowledged for bishop universal, by pretence of succsession to St. Peter, their whole hierarchy (or kingdom of darkness) may be compared not unfitly to the kingdom of fairies (that is, to the old wives' fables in England, concerning ghosts and spirits and the feats they play in the night). And if a man consider the original of this ecclesiastical dominion, he will easily perceive that the Papacy is no other than the ghost of the deceased Roman empire sitting crowned upon the grave thereof. For so did the Papacy start out of the ruins of that heathen power.

[22] The language also which they use (both in the churches and in their public acts) being Latin, which is not commonly used by any nation now in the world, what is it but the ghost of the old Roman language?

[23] The fairies, in what nation soever they converse, have but one universal king, which some poets of ours call King Oberon; but the Scripture calls Beelzebub, prince of demons. The ecclesiastics likewise, in whose dominions soever they be found, acknowledge but one universal king, the Pope.

[24] The ecclesiastics are spiritual men and ghostly fathers. The fairies and ghosts inhabit darkness, solitudes, and graves. The ecclesiastics walk in obscurity of doctrine...

[livius]

Please note that this is Pio Laghi talking, telling us what the Pope wants or might do; even Renato Martino didn't seem certain about this. See my post #21 for details about Pio Laghi, a notorious Church left-winger and liberal.

He is technically retired. But since the power struggle in the Vatican between the liberal wing (represented by the German now-Cardinal Kasper) and the conservative wing (represented by Ratzinger) in which Ratzinger lost and the liberals won with the appointment of Kaspar, the left has come into power at the Vatican again.

I don't think the Pope who destroyed Communism in Eastern Europe is in charge any more.

[Bulldogs22]

Maybe a false profit. I hope not.

[Bulldogs22]

Maybe a false profit. I hope not.

[Matchett-PI]

"There will never be a "religious war" as the Muslims believe is already happening, until the day that a nuclear bomb or other horror takes out a Western European city." ~ wildandcrazyrussian

Maybe in Europe that would be true, but if you meant to include the United States in your comments, I have a different "take" on it.

There will never be a "religious war" involving America, as long as this "Free Republic" and the Constitution (and the rule of law that undergirds it), is upheld and defended:

"In terms of population alone, a high percentage of the pre-revolutionary American colonies were of Puritan-Calvinist background. There were around three million persons in the thirteen original colonies by 1776, and perhaps as many as two-thirds of these came from some kind of Calvinist or Puritan connection" (Douglas F. Kelly, The Emergence of Liberty in the Modern World — (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1992), p. 120.

The U.S. Constitution is a Calvinist's document through and through.

And because it is, we have a Republican form of government and Americans can be sure that one man’s liberty will not depend upon another man’s (religious) conscience (as in Europe) --- as long as the Constitution is upheld!

Dr. George Bancroft, arguably the most prominent American historian of the 19th century — and not a Calvinist — stated:

"He who will not honor the memory and respect the influence of Calvin knows but little of the origin of American liberty"

The 55 Framers (from North to South):

John Langdon, Congregationalist (Calvinist)
Nicholas Gilman, Congregationalist (Calvinist)
Elbridge Gerry, Episcoplian (Calvinist)
Rufus King, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
Caleb Strong, Congregationalist (Calvinist)
Nathaniel Gorham, Congregationalist (Calvinist)
Roger Sherman, Congregationalist (Calvinist)
William Samuel Johnson, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
Oliver Ellsworth, Congregationalist (Calvinist)
Alexander Hamilton, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
John Lansing, Dutch Reformed (Calvinist)
Robert Yates, Dutch Reformed (Calvinist)
William Patterson, Presbyterian (Calvinist)
William Livingston, Presbyterian (Calvinist)
Jonathan Dayton, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
David Brearly, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
William Churchill Houston, Presbyterian (Calvinist)
Benjamin Franklin, Christian in his youth, Deist in later years, then back to his Puritan background in his old age (his June 28, 1787 prayer at the Constitutional Convention was from no "Deist")
Robert Morris, Episcopalian, (Calvinist)
James Wilson, probably a Deist
Gouverneur Morris, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
Thomas Mifflin, Lutheran (Calvinist-lite)
George Clymer, Quaker turned Episcopalian (Calvinist)
Thomas FitzSimmons, Roman Catholic
Jared Ingersoll, Presbyterian (Calvinist)
John Dickinson, Quaker turned Episcopalian (Calvinist)
George Read, Episcopalian, (Calvinist)
Richard Bassett, Methodist
Gunning Bedford, Presbyterian (Calvinist)
Jacob Broom, Lutheran
Luther Martin, Episcopalian, (Calvinist)
Daniel Carroll, Roman Catholic
John Francis Mercer, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
James McHenry, Presbyterian (Calvinist)
Daniel of St Thomas Jennifer, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
George Washington, Episcopalian (Calvinist; no, he was not a deist)
James Madison, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
George Mason, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
Edmund Jennings Randolph, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
James Blair, Jr., Episcopalian (Calvinist)
James McClung, ?
George Wythe, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
William Richardson Davie, Presbyterian (Calvinist)
Hugh Williamson, Presbyterian, possibly later became a Deist
William Blount, Presbyterian (Calvinist)
Alexander Martin, Presbyterian/Episcopalian (Calvinist)
Richard Dobbs Spaight, Jr., Episcopalian (Calvinist)
John Rutledge, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, III, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
Abraham Baldwin, Congregationalist (Calvinist)
William Leigh Pierce, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
William Houstoun, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
William Few, Methodist

The founders identified the 13 colonies of their union as "Free Protestant". As Protestants, their Declaration in 1776 that "all men are created equal (in authority) " was consistent with the doctrine of their founder, the man who first openly protested the hierarchy of men (the pope and priests in the Roman Catholic Church) over Christians. His name was Martin Luther. He was a Roman Catholic priest from Germany who began the "Protestant Reformation". He stated the following:

"I say, then, neither pope, nor bishop, nor any man whatever has the right of making one syllable binding on a Christian man, unless it be done with his own consent.

Whatever is done otherwise is done in the spirit of tyranny...I cry aloud on behalf of liberty and conscience, and I proclaim with confidence that no kind of law can with any justice be imposed on Christians, except so far as they themselves will; for we are free from all."

INTRODUCTION TO THE LIBERTY PRINCIPLES IN AMERICAN POLITICS
by Stephen L. Corrigan - http://w3.one.net/~stephenc/fun.html

[Thane_Banquo]

This is not the Middle Ages. The Pope is a clergy member, not a crafter of foreign policy.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

... but the anti-Catholic bigotry has no place here.

I am anti-ecclesiastical dominion, not anti-Catholic.

The Catholic Church had a history of clergy who were warriors and did wage war to beat back Moorish invaders. Why the change now?

[pollywog]

I absolutely agree with you this_ol_patriot. The Old Testament if FULL of wars, and even the Holy Bible says " there shall be WARS and RUMORS of wars". I am not Catholic, I am Evangelical Protestant, but even if one of the highest leaders in the world was Evangelical Protestant, I would protest against this, and I say that with all due respect to the Pope.

[Domestic Church]

"This may further damage the Church in America if that is even possible now."

Between the media spin and the Gramscian undertow(perhaps this was Cardinal Laghi's forte) in the Church, I, too, expect this will have a detrimental effect.

[concerned about politics]

What happened to separation of church and state? Where's the liberals drawing up law suits? Oh yeh. The pope is one of theirs.
It looks like the lefts church is going even farther left. It probably isn't going to last much longer after the old man dies.

[Matchett-PI]

"Now there's charitable response for you...but it's hardly Catholic bashing to state the truth." ~ O6ret

It's a quite common game that the emotion-driven shallow ?thinkers? in both politics and religion play.

Certain political/religious "beliefs" are held by various sides. The sides which aren't able to logically defend their beliefs in the face of legitimate questioning, will always resort to accusing the other side of "bashing" their beliefs, rather than just giving them up in the face of irresistible facts. For instance:

Quote:

"The game being played now in the media, if you're in a minority group, is that if you can't win the debate, you demonize the person reporting the story by calling them anti-whatever. I'm not playing that game." ~ Bill O'Reilly

Excerpted from here:

Tangled Terror Tale (Two Liberal Reporters BACKPEDALING On USF Professor Al-Arian)
Washington Post ^ | March 3, 2003 | Howard Kurtz
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/855657/posts