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.
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.