Incidentally, I note for the record that the position of Pope Benedict XVI, Bishop of Rome, is the same as that of Congressman Ron Paul on the subject of Iraq (indeed, if anything, the Peop's anti-war position is more strongly worded):
As a Cardinal, the new pope was a staunch critic of the U.S. led invasion of Iraq. On one occasion before the war, he was asked whether it would be just. "Certainly not," he said, and explained that the situation led him to conclude that "the damage would be greater than the values one hopes to save." "All I can do is invite you to read the Catechism, and the conclusion seems obvious to me..." The conclusion is one he gave many times: "the concept of preventive war does not appear in The Catechism of the Catholic Church."
http://www.cjd.org/paper/benedict.html
Ergo, I shall now apply your words against Congressman Paul with Pope Benedict XVI substituted:
What the Successor of the Prince of the Apostles did years ago does not sanitize his current anti-American paleopantytwaistism... I don't know what motivates your delusions on this but I had a bellyful once and for all with antiwar traitors of the left during the Vietnam War and I see no reason whatsoever to make exceptions for the likes of the Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Pope Benedict XVI just because they are Catholics in Name Only when they ally themselves with the pro-Islamofascist and antiAmerican antiwar left... You can repost your delusions as often as you please but your repetitions will not change the fact that the Vicar of Christ is a paleowhatever who has allied with the antiAmerican antiwar left even if he poses as a "Catholic" in the process.
If you really meant what you said about Ron Paul's position on Iraq, we must presume that you mean the same about Pope Benedict XVI (with his identical, or even more anti-war, position on Iraq). I guess you were really an SSPX Sedevacantist all along, eh, BlackElk??