Posted on 07/05/2009 12:30:31 PM PDT by presidio9
Watch Raymond Arroyo’s show at the beginning on EWTN on Friday evening called “The World Over” - if anyone catches the mood or tidbits out of it he will have it from the Vatican view. He is very witty. Good friend of Laura Ingraham I believe.
***Obama isn’t pretending to be a Catholic, so the Pope is less likely to read him the riot act.***
That reminds me: a year ago, the press was full of speculation that GWB would convert, much as Tony Blair and Newt Gingrich wound up converting.
But to the matter at hand; Obama doesn’t act like a Christian, much less a Catholic.
There was a lecture/homily on EWTN about the result of education without virtue: Men begin to think they’re God.
Here is a study in contrasts!
“Sooo, dumpkopf, you sink you are Messiahh, ya?”
Yes it was, and many here forget, he was the first sitting President to do so. Just one of my many beefs with GW, along with Open borders, and allowing our troops to be put on trial, by fake civilian charges.
Anything short of that? I`m not interested, sorry.
Well, you weren't very persuasive in your argument in your choice of article to link. I had thought your point was that Barak Obama and Pope Benedict were the only two world leaders calling for the so-called "two state solution" in Israel, so I pointed out that President GW Bush had also done so. Your response was a convoluted article from the Times of London. Leaving aside the fact that the Times has a long history of taking every anti-Catholic position available, I could have found you a dozen articles that made a better case for the charge I assume you are grasping at.
The clear point that the Times is making is that some people in Israel think the Pope is an anti-Semite, and they may be right. The article says that the right-wing government was angered by "his call for a Palestinian homeland," but it fails to quote the man directly (in a long article). Even the Israelis would go along with a two-state solution if the right conditions were met. The press did the same thing with John Paul II, when he called for peace in Iraq and the MSM implied that he was calling Saddam Hussein an OK guy. For a Christian, the Pope's reaction to any diplomatic crisis is 100% predictable: He has WWJD tattooed on his eyelids. Sometimes he gets it wrong, but that's his only blueprint for any controversy. Obama might call for two states out of fundamental character weakness. The Pope always argues from the strength of his convictions. That's how he got to be Pope.
The rest of the article recycles several tired anti-Catholic prejudices (BTW, Jews can also be guilty of bigotry). The article implies that some Jews are mad that the Vatican is making Puis XII a saint. Interesting that some (unnamed) people feel that way, but it is a lie based on a falsehood. Only the Pope can make the decision on beatification (he has not). Elevation to sainthood takes miracles, which no Pope can supply. These days, if all sainthood required was a Pope's approval, Mother Theresa would already be a saint. And the myth that Puis XII somehow collaborated with the Nazis, or even did less than was in his power to end the Holocaust has been thoroughly debunked. Sixty years ago prominent Jews like Golda Meir and Alfred Einstein had already come out on the side of the Catholic Church concerning this controversy. I don't know if Puis XII was a saint, but the man has been completely exonerated to all but conspiracy theorists. Leave it to the Times to bring it up again here. I don't remember Israel's government doing so. Just like the Times reporting "some demanded the Pope be arrested" over supposed Jewish treasures hoarded by the Vatican. A pretty strong accusation, but the writer failed to identify the "some" or anything about the nature of the stolen treasures. I hope you see the pattern here.
I posted you to rebut a dumb point you made. I offered the facts, and took no side in the argument. That didn't stop you from making assumptions about me. I have no love for the Palestinians -and, yeah, that's the name they're going by these days. So unless you're prepared to start referring to the Italians as "Romans," you're just going to end up sounding ignorant and inconsistent to a lot of people. Calling them by their current name doesn't make you a sympathizer. That being said, I see nothing wrong with hoping for a day when they can be allowed to have their own state. I don't see that happening, but it's a nice thought. That was George Bush's thought, and the Pope's too. It does not lump any of us in, as you so simplistically did, with Arafat or Obama. If you fail to grasp the simple logic here, you have zero standing to pass judgment on any of us.
Looks like you missed the same point. See if post 47 helps.
The Pope is not in a position to disqualify anyone from "the Christian faith." He could tell Obama that he has automatically excommunitcated himself from Catholicism through his pro-abortion legislation, but I doubt that Obama, a non-Catholic, would care very much. The Pope will undoubtedly offer a strong rebuke against abortion, but, again, I doubt he will care very much. Some presidents have had relationships with Popes, but this is nothing more than a photo-op.
He will. Obama won't care.
You come off sounding like a person who forms an opinion without reading the facts too closely. The Vatican REJECTED at least three ambassador candidates from Obama that I can think of. The Pope has zero control over what goes on at so-called "Catholic" universities. They are controlled by boards of directors. Before he was Pope Joseph Ratzinger was the loudest voice in opposition in the Vatican (and thus probably the world). As Pope, he has not wavered in the conviction of his statements. You come across sounding like someone who is a little unclear about what it is a Pope should and should not do.
Thanks. I’m flattered that you took the time to write a detailed response.
But there is no so-called “palestine”, nor any so-called “palestinians” but for various conglomerations of predominatly islamist arabs who should preferably be killed en masse. Of the survivors wishing to remain they would be required to sign a loyalty oath to the Jewish State. All others would be expelled and dumped in some arab country where I’m sure they would be well cared for (not). Or they can wander in the Sinai for forty years - which was good enough for the Jews - where a future generation might just make something of Gaza (which should be held in perpetuity as a future “arab” state).
But Judea and Samaria are...or should be Jewish. Who named them after all?...
And I’m not even Jewish, but Noachide. Though of the Kahane school I guess.
**(Obama will help the Catholic Church find its footing in the world)**
ROFL.
The Pope is on his fourth book — published this month. I think he already has a firm footing on the world through Faith, Hope and Charity.
What an idiot Obortion Obama is to think he has anything at all to offer Pope Benedict. He needs to be on his knees asking for forgiveness for all the babies he has facilitated the killing of.
Sorry, but that’s just your opinion. We here in NY became Americans on July 4th, 1776. Before that, we were NYers. Before that New Amsterdamers (or something to that effect). Before that the people here called themselves Mohegans and then by various local names. The point is, the people here WERE what they called themselves, regardless of what their enemies thought of them. Calling the Palestinians “Philistines” won’t make they go away.
Thank you for being flattered that I responed to you post to me. You picked the most innocuous topic to continue our dialogue. It that an admission that you understand how wrong you were to lump the Pope in with Obama, or did you just not bother to read everything that I had to say?
** He will do what he has to for the photo op, **
I am hoping that Pope Benedict will not offer him a photo op — just like he wouldn’t have his pic taken with Natty Pelosi.
I join you in prayers for the Pope.
Pray for the Pope ping!
Hubris (/hjuːbrɪs/) (ancient Greek ὕβρις) is a term used in modern English to indicate overweening pride, superciliousness, or arrogance, often resulting in fatal retribution or nemesis. In ancient Greece, hubris referred to actions which, intentionally or not, shamed and humiliated the victim, and frequently the perpetrator as well. It was most evident in the public and private actions of the powerful and rich. The word was also used to describe actions of those who challenged the gods or their laws, especially in Greek tragedy, resulting in the protagonist's downfall.
"His earlier calls for the establishment of a Palestinian homeland also put a damper on the high-profile trip...."
Sorry, but that’s just your opinion.
You're right.
God's grace to You and Yours....
I don't
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.