Posted on 12/16/2003 5:54:51 AM PST by sitetest
Edited on 12/16/2003 7:13:44 AM PST by Lead Moderator. [history]
[LM's note: This thread is degenerating a bit into Catholic bashing and general flaming, and is in risk of being moved to the smokey backroom. Please stop. I've locked it once, and it has continued. Any more and it is gone. Thanks.]
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - A top Vatican (news - web sites) official said Tuesday he felt pity and compassion for Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) and criticized the U.S. military for showing video footage of him being treated "like a cow."
Cardinal Renato Martino, head of the Vatican's Justice and Peace department and a former papal envoy to the United Nations (news - web sites), told a news conference it would be "illusory" to think the arrest of the former Iraqi president would heal all the damage caused by a war which the Holy See opposed.
"I felt pity to see this man destroyed, (the military) looking at his teeth as if he were a cow. They could have spared us these pictures," he said.
"Seeing him like this, a man in his tragedy, despite all the heavy blame he bears, I had a sense of compassion for him," he said in answer to questions about Saddam's arrest.
Martino was referring to the videotape released by the U.S. military which showed a grubby, bearded and disheveled Saddam receiving a medical examination by a military doctor after his capture in an underground hole Saturday.
Martino was one of the Vatican officials most strongly opposed to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq (news - web sites).
"It's true that we should be happy that this (arrest) has come about because it is the watershed that was necessary... we hope that this will not have worse and other serious consequences," Martino said.
"But it is not the total solution to the problems of the Middle East," he said.
Martino said the Vatican hoped the arrest of Saddam "can contribute to promoting peace and the democratization of Iraq."
He added: "But is seems to me to be illusory to hope that this will repair the dramas and the damage of the defeat for humanity that a war always brings about."
The Vatican did not consider the war in Iraq "a just war" because it was not backed by the United Nations and because the Vatican believed more negotiations were necessary to avoid it.
Martino said the Vatican wanted an "appropriate institution" to put Saddam on trial but he did not elaborate.
U.S. forces were keeping the ousted 66-year-old dictator at a secret location for interrogation before he is put on trial in the months ahead. He could face the death penalty.
The news conference was called for Martino to present the World Day of Peace message, in which Pope John Paul (news - web sites) took a swipe at the United States for invading Iraq without the backing of the United Nations.
No you haven't. Your comments have been limited to statements not made by Cardinal Renato, which is very odd.
It's easy to play your game. Given that over 5000 innocent Iraqi civilians have died since the U.S. initiation of hostilities, are you willing to condemn the U.S. government?
Given how cozy you feel with Cardinal Martino's UN/Old European far leftist ideals, I'm sure you're willing to condemn the US.
Jesus would no doubt abhored what Saddam has done to his victims while knowing it was influenced by Satan.
In the next breath, Jesus would have preached for us to love Saddam.
I think I'll like him.
Your adoration of the leftist peacenik Martino shows me you and he have no compassion for the victims of the Butcher of Baghdad.
See, I support our troops. You don't. I support our President. You don't. I support the desire of Iraqis to be free of Saddam and his Stalinist henchman. You don't.
Well, JPII will soon be kibitzing with St. Peter on 'how to run the place,' and Card Ratzinger, for all his endearing qualities (and liberal sentiments, BTW) will be retiring.
The field will then be clear for a rehabilitation of the proposed Saint Tomas.
We are hardly concerned about the polls of American Catholics on the topic. And if we were, a good solid re-education in Catholic principles will make Torquemada a Saint by acclamation.
Last but not least, we recognize that this effort may take time. You will recall that the Assumption, accomplished in roughly 50AD, was only solemnly proclaimed 1900 years later.
LOL. I never heard of Cardinal Martino until yesterday. Is it possible for adoration to develop in such a short time span? I do respect and give due deference to the opinions of Europeans, like Cardinal Martino and Pope John Paul, who experienced, first hand, the deprivations and tragedy and senseless death and destruction of World War. Their opinions in fact, on the matter of war, should be regarded with all seriousness and be understood with the knowlege that their experience might be beneficial to those of us who have not shared in their experience. Indeed, it is a hallmark of conservatism to pay homage to those who can teach us about what is good in the world and what should be avoided. If you dislike someone because he prefers peace to war, than you have more in common with Saddam than you accuse others of having.
Your inability to stray from your mantra indicates to me that you have been hopelessly brainwashed. I will reiterate the fact that this war was never about Hussein's brutality. Closing his torture chambers were never conditions to avert the invasion. Dismantling his "rape rooms" and shredders were never part of UN resolutions that President Bush felt compelled to enforce. No. The compassion you are so obsessed with was an afterthought when the stated reasons for the invasion and the facts to support those reasons were found wanting. No one laments the freeing of a brutalized people, but the accidental consequences of an ill-advised, short-sighted, long term occupation doesn't justify your rank moral superiority.
Since you bring up the term leftist, it should be pointed out that it is the left that likes to go around righting social wrongs. It is the left that likes to get involved with nation building. It is the left that would liberate the oppressed. Were you as enamored with President Clinton when he bombed Belgrade as you are President Bush?
See, I support our troops. You don't.
You are as clueless as to what I support as you are about what Cardinal Martino thinks about brutalized and oppressed peoples throughout the world. Tell me what it means for you to "support the troops", then I might tell you about my service as a medic in the army and how it colors my perceptions of war and peace.
I support our President. You don't.
I see your support as not tolerating the slightest criticism of the president, and buying into every thing his government tells you. If you define support as gullibility, then you are correct. I don't support him. However, I am very proud of him for a number of virtues he has displayed. God willing, he will begin to put them to use to some conservative principles in his next term.
It is more difficult to track errant clergy in non-Catholic churches than it is in the Catholic Church.
Hmmm ... I don't know ...
The Catholic Church has done a fairly good job of keeping all this under wraps for a very long time.
It's easy to play your game. Given that over 5000 innocent Iraqi civilians have died since the U.S. initiation of hostilities, are you willing to condemn the U.S. government?
Hmmmm ... given that Saddam had over 300,000 innocent victims under his belt, ... do you think that the U.S. was wrong to go in and stop him from adding to that number ?
Not really. Such things were known by observant Catholics for quite some time. The things you could read in the Wanderer even today might place you 10 years ahead of the rest of the country.
Furthermore, Dallas settled a lawsuit ten years or so ago, but the mass media in this country didn't feel any need to really cover it. It was only in Boston that the media started waking up.
Your statement is only true in the sense that "more Americans get their news from ABC than from any other source."
And, incidentally, "the Catholic Church" didn't keep anything under wraps. Some rogue bishops did.
SD
Nope. I would have to say, rather, that "if you post publicly, you invite response from readers".
That may be. However, that was precisely the context of this whole discussion. I gave my opinion that the great majority of Catholics would oppose such a move. For this, I was attacked. However, neither you nor BlackElk have provided any evidence to demonstrate that my opinion is incorrect.
So, tell me what you think, ninenot. Do you agree with me, or do you disagree, that the great majority of Catholics would oppose the canonization of Torquemada? The question of whether or not these Catholics are right in their position is not the matter being debated here.
Well, JPII will soon be kibitzing with St. Peter on 'how to run the place,' and Card Ratzinger, for all his endearing qualities (and liberal sentiments, BTW) will be retiring. The field will then be clear for a rehabilitation of the proposed Saint Tomas.
Hmmm... are you insinuating that John Paul II's position in this matter is somehow faulty, something to be rectified by a "right thinking" successor?
It's no secret, BE.
SD
Are you serious? I thought you were funnin' me. Click here.
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.