 AFP Photo |
Posted on 03/04/2003 11:42:42 AM PST by RCW2001
|
||
Pope John Paul II stepped up his crusade against a looming war in Iraq, urging the world's Christians to stage a fast for peace on the same day as his envoy is to meet US President George W. Bush.
The pope said the day of fasting on Wednesday would remind people of the long years of suffering endured by Iraqi citizens as a result of the international embargo against the country.
The fast will coincide with a meeting Wednesday between Bush and the pope's special envoy, Cardinal Pio Laghi, who the pope has entrusted with a special plea to restrain the US leader from waging war against Iraq.
The fast is the latest in a series of efforts to avert a war by the pope, who has emerged as one of the most prominent opponents against a US-led conflict with Iraq.
In recent weeks, he has received leaders ranging from Iraq Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz to British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the US' key ally on Iraq, and Tuesday held talks with Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.
The pontiff said the day of fasting Wednesday should "provide greater understanding of the difficulties and sufferings or our brothers confronted by hunger, misery and war."
The appeal has also been passed on by World Council of Churches in Geneva and the Synod of the Church of England.
An informal opinion poll carried out on a private Italian television channel also found that 55.7 percent of viewers said they were willing to follow the appeal to fast.
Laghi's meeting with Bush Wednesday comes amid insistences from Washington that the pope's anti-war pronouncements will not be able to sway the United States from its hardline stance on Iraq.
Jim Nicholson, US envoy to the Holy See, on Tuesday confirmed that the pope's appeal through Laghi would not influence American thinking.
"Cardinal Laghi's mission may be useful, but Iraq must disarm," he said on the private Italian television channel "La 7."
"If Saddam Hussein were to leave his country, that would be a perfect solution," Nicholson added.
Meanwhile, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, a firm supporter of the US stance on Iraq, became the latest of the world's leaders Tuesday to hold talks on the crisis with the pope.
Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls said that the meeting "allowed an exchange of views on the current international situation, with special emphasis on the crisis in Iraq."
The pope had already held talks Thursday with Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, another key supporter of the US position on Iraq and holder of a crucial seat on the UN Security Council.
Officials at the Vatican have said the 82 year-old-pope has thrown all his energy into efforts to stop the war, despite the crippling effects of his Parkinson's disease.
"He has been more alert in the last few days, as though he wanted to give us more strength," Laghi said.
The pope has adopted a vocal stance of principled opposition against a military conflict with Iraq, saying the future of humanity can never be ensured by the logic of war.
"Marred by long-standing and seemingly relentless conflicts, the world stands on the brink of yet another war," the pope wrote last month in a pessimistic message to newly-enthroned Anglican leader Rowan Williams.
Separately, the Vatican Tuesday denied that the pope had planned to make a personal address to the United Nations Security Council if his envoy failed to deter Bush from going to war.
"There are no plans for the Holy Father to visit the United Nations," a spokesman told journalists.
100 Billion? Man, I guess the priest lawsuits are costing more than they originally thought.
No where near the tax dollaors we are paying right now.
You are completely right here and I do agree. A force to deal with it is also something that is badly needed. However the Muslims themselves are badly fractured the Sunnis and the Shia don't agree on much. There has been some positive movement but as long as the extremists block out the intellectuals and some of their Mujtahid continue to hijack the Shari-a it will be a long road. But I think there is some hope. But the Muslim themselves must be the ones to bridge this. If anyone outside the Muslim faith try's this is will just be viewed as an attack on their faith. We can assist but not be seen as the prime mover. This is one of the Problems with the current US Strategy.
Yes. I'm feeling the urge to run for the Free Methodist Church again--something not involved with the WCC/NCC, at the least.
Praise the Lord!
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you can't be dumb enough to believe that the Vatican is a real, legitimate sovereign political state. I'll give it a test. Say a renegade band of Moslems storm Vatican City and take it over. Do the citizens of this so-called sovereign state call out their Army, Marines and Air Force to take back their nation or do the call a real sovereign state, like Italy to do it for them. I think we both know the answer to this one.
Bush has to listen to them because of internal US politics (wanting votes of all those RC sheep), not because they are in any sense a legitimate "country".
The reason I used the Elvis example is because his empire (Graceland) is based on the same religious zeal as your Vatican City and has the same legitimacy of "sovereign state". The real difference is that Graceland is based purely on greed and not a power-grab, so they haven't needed to declare itself an independent state. (Note, this does not mean that the Elvis religion is equal in truth to your RC church, but is equal in legitimacy as a real state.)
I'm a lot dumber than you think. So, apparently, are many countries in the world and the US. As are the foolish folks in the Italian mint, who make Euro coins for the Vatican, distinct from the Italian or French or German coins. Likewise, the idiots who enter the Vatican and get their passports stamped.
There's this thing, this treaty, between Italy and the Vatican that does indeed give sovereignity over the Vatican City sate to the Pope. It is an established fact. Only a red-blooded bigot would fail to see this fact.
I'll give it a test. Say a renegade band of Moslems storm Vatican City and take it over. Do the citizens of this so-called sovereign state call out their Army, Marines and Air Force to take back their nation or do the call a real sovereign state, like Italy to do it for them. I think we both know the answer to this one.
So, a state, in order to be "real" must have an army. Is that your contention? I thought a state, to be sovereign, had to have sovereignity. Silly me.
For what it's worth, the Vatican does indeed have security forces prepared to handle affairs for a state of its size. It is not like the Pope needs to project his force with bullets into the world.
And, also, in your example, the Vatican City state happens to be within the territory of the state of Italy. A Moslem invasion force would need to first occupy parts of Italy in order to attack the Vatican. So it would be a concern of Itay's as well.
I also recall a much larger sovereign state calling in help from the US and the world when it was run over. What was it? Oh, yeah, Kuwait. Is Kuwait not sufficiently military to meet your criteria as well? What of Luxembourg or Lichtenstein?
Also, as much animosity as there was in the past, Italy and the Vatican do cooperate to a much larger extent than, say, an ignorant American fundamentalist would like.
SD
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.