Posted on 06/03/2004 11:25:25 AM PDT by Notwithstanding
President Bush will award Pope John Paul the Presidential Medal of Freedom Friday, the highest U.S. civilian award, a U.S. official said Thursday.
The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the pontiff was being honored for "years of fighting for freedom and for his important moral voice."
(Excerpt) Read more at wireservice.wired.com ...
Great Post, Gilliam!!!
It is necessary to read the text provided by CNN and linked by Gilliam (above) and CONTRAST the text of the address with the AP story and headline to see how much the event was twisted and manipulated by AP's "reporter."
"Chances are it will be a conservative (but not too conservative) bishop from a non-European country."
Signed twice -- once for me and once for my hubby!
.
...Thank you and Thank you again...
...for signing our U.S. 7th Cavalry's Petition for President BUSH to award Lifesaving Hero of the Battle of IA DRANG-1965, World Trade Center Bombing-1993 and the World Trade Center Airstrikes-2001...
...RICK RESCORLA...
...his fully earned Presidential Medal of Freedom.
http://www.lzxray.com
.
>>>>Many things have changed on earth, but Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity do not.
The use of a Tiara is none of the above.
A Tiara is not Jesus Christ, it is not the Holy Trinity. Its a hat. Get over it.
patent
A despical slander on this holy and courageous pope! To what length do anti-Catholics go to slander the pope and the Catholic Church! Please provide proof with links to authoritatic sources for your view! Where did you get your story from -"Chick"?
It's nice to hear that I'm in good company.
If I mistakenly included your comment as one of the
envious pope-bashing posts on this thread, my apologies.
Thank you for providing the link to the pope's actual address. I knew it had to be better than the AP made it out to be.
JPII needs better advisors.
What can I say. The pope has some idiots working for him as much as any one does. We can only hope he's taking them to task.
But, let everyone know that the pope loves America. And, just like any true friend, he is not forever lauding complements upon us.
Indeed what?
Thank you, Barnacle. I'm pleased we can reason without any of that "your-anti-Catholic" rant.
I freely admit that the Pope did not "lambast Bush for all the evils of the world", as I irresponsibly predicted in my first post. Frankly, that prediction was hyperbole on my part, a visceral reaction to all the anti-Americanism coming from the Vatican, and I'm sorry.
However, I watched O'Reilly tonight. And, in one of his segments, he reported that "behind the scenes", the Pope was extremely critical of Bush and his Iraq policy. (But, as of yet, I have no secondary source to confirm this.)
Let me be clear. I truly respect the Pope for his fight against Communism, and I wouldn't have been opposed to his being awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedeom in 2001 -- or earlier. But after all the Vatican's "anti-war" comments vis-a-vis the Iraq war, I think maybe now is not the appropriate time (especially if the Pope really did lay into Bush "behind the scenes").
Why can't the Pope, the "Highest Authority", reign in his underlings in the Vatican? Who sets Vatican policy? Who pronounces Vatican policy? And who answers for Vatican policy?
P.S. I'm not anti-Catholic. My wife, a Catholic, assures me of this.
your = you're
God bless our President.
1) There is a story this AM (either ZENIT or AP..) which indicates that Congress passed a resolution encouraging Bush to award the MoF to the Pope, which may have something to do with this.
2) You don't really expect the Pope to encourage war, do you? He lambasts terrorists and encourages reconciliation between differing parties. Fits your basic religious leader perspective.
3) Your take, that there are some wonzos on the Vat staff, is correct. However, unlike in US corporations, it is VERY rare for a Cardinal to 'get fired' for idiotic remarks (which are not directly heretical.) Political observations are not part of doctrine/dogma.
One last thing: I have learned over the last few years that Bill O'Reilly's stories are SOMETIMES correct.
O'Reilly claims to be a Catholic. However, his understanding of doctrine and dogma is extremely shoddy.
Summarily, O'R is more a sensationalist than a newsman, and (from a recent exchange with Anne Coulter) one can also deduce that he's losing the PM radio ratings war BigTime to Limbaugh and O'R intends to skewer Rush, one way or the other.
In short: I do not take his words too seriously any more.
If there is anything that the pope has been critical of himself on, it was on being lax on discipline. Though it's best to lead by example, one must be prepared to kick @ss when necessary. I think we can all think of some parents who are like that. But, let’s remember that when he first arrived at the Vatican, the place was so infested with Soviet operatives that he fired nearly the entire staff.
As to; But after all the Vatican's "anti-war" comments vis-a-vis the Iraq war, I think maybe now is not the appropriate time (especially if the Pope really did lay into Bush "behind the scenes").
Well, I can understand that opinion. But, I must admit, that a great deal of my staunch support for the war was based on flawed information on the WMDs. If that was removed from the equation, I'm not sure where I would have stood on it.
Sure Saddam had WMDs and some still exist somewhere. But, we were lied to as to the urgency of the situation due to ongoing weapons production facilities, mobile labs, etc. If the truth were fully known, I may have been of the opinion that we should focus on stabilizing Afghanistan instead of becoming involved in a new and major military operation.
So, JPII was not a proponent of us going into Iraq. Oh well, even as I believed that we needed to go, I was still glad that the pope wasn't behaving like Pat Robertson who was on TV standing in front of tactical strategy maps like some kind of 4 Star General wantabe.
Promoting war is not the pope's role. Promoting peace is. Let's remember, he and Ronald Reagan defeated the Soviet Union, a much greater threat than Saddam, without a military conflict. (Those who doubt this fact should read an article Reader's Digest article on the subject).
Let's also remember that there continue to be anti-Catholic posters on FR who go back to the Crusades to criticize the Catholics for being warmongers. The curious thing is that America is now fighting that same enemy 800 years later.
As to JPII laying into Bush "behind the scenes". I’d like to hear the reliable source for that. There are people who want us to believe it. Who are those people? Leftists. Why do they want us to believe it? Because they hate America and they the Catholic Church. Why do they hate America and the Catholic Church? Because they are the two greatest obstacles to achieving their objectives. The last thing the Leftist want is for us to be allies against them.
So, when you hear bilge like that, question your source. Case in point. President Bush presented the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Pope John Paul II yesterday. How did ABC News report it? (paraphrased) “The President got an ear-full from the pope behind closed doors today.” They said nothing about the Medal of Freedom or how they knew what was said “behind closed doors”.
The Leftists are doing their best to create animosity between Americans and Catholics. Well, I for one feel very lucky to be both an American and a Catholic. And, will work to heal the rifts created by those who hate us.
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.