[bigeasy_70118]

While I agree with you the brevity of the Pope's comments is telling, I would rather not have to use term brevity to describe the Pope's comments. Non-existent would have been just fine.

[paladinan]

[bigeasy_70118]
> While I agree with you the brevity of the Pope's comments is
> telling, I would rather not have to use term brevity to
> describe the Pope's comments. Non-existent would have been
> just fine.

That's not what I meant by the reference to "brevity" (though that's a very good point); I meant that Catholicism is not a "sound byte" religion, and its context is vast. Any given "sound byte" from the Vatican (or any other source claiming to represent Catholicism) will be positively anemic, for want of the immense body of Catholic teaching which explains it.

Think of it this way: for the Church, the definition of "love" is "choosing the best good for someone else." It has nothing, whatever, to do with feelings. It's possible to love someone who repulses you (such as Arafat); loving doesn't mean affectionate, pleasant feelings... nor does it even require that you have anything to do with that person at all (except pray for their conversion and salvation). It's possible even to kill someone, and not surrender love of them... if lethal force is necessary to stop that person from committing a proportionately serious crime.

Hollywood has done a rather thorough job of indoctrinating the US into thinking "love is a mixture of good feelings, desire, hormones, etc." What a shame.

The Pope loves Arafat (in the true sense, not in the hollywood "sentimental" sense), though he certainly hates the evil Arafat has done; and the Pope will certainly be the first person to pray for Arafat's wretched soul. I *do* think that the "gushing" about Arafat's charisma (which is technically true... Hitler had charisma, too), etc., was uncalled for... but nobody ever claimed that the Holy Father had to be perfect. He makes mistakes, too... though usually on the side of generosity.