US, Backers Responsible Before God on Iraq - Vatican

Reuters | 3/18/03

[kattracks]

March 18

— VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - The Vatican said Tuesday that countries which decided to wage war on Iraq without the consensus of the international community were assuming great responsibility before God and history.

"Those who decide that all peaceful means that international law makes available are exhausted assume a grave responsibility before God, their conscience and history," said Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls.

Navarro-Valls comment was the Vatican's first official reaction to Washington's ultimatum to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to go into exile within 48 hours or face war.

[uncbob]

Bottom line from what I've seen is, we promised to help the Kurds and we didn't do it.

YOU can thank Clinton for that and where was the outrage at the UN when it was happening or for that matter did the Pope issue condemnation against saddam and ask the UN to enforce the cease fire agreement

[uncbob]

And this one: "No country that permits abortion will ever have peace."

I guess you didn't read my post about that International Organization the Pope so admires and thinks we should follow PUSHES ABORTION

[GraniteStateConservative]

Abortion which I oppose, is far less heinous than what Hussein does to people who have the ability to remember-- an ability which even infants don't possess.

We didn't "create" Hussein. We supported him in conflict with Iran since Iran was viewed as a more serious threat to our national interests. Countries take sides in conflicts all the time. The French helped us end the Revolutionary War during the Battle at Yorktown. The French may not have loved us, but they loved the British less. Do the French have responsibility for our 30 years of abortions? No, of course not.

We shouldn't and don't engage in every civil war. We should save people who are being tortured and killed because of their thoughts and words. Every time we fail to do so, we fail to defend liberty-- our highest calling as a superpower.

[Southack]

"Vatican terms invasion a crime VATICAN CITY, March, 17: Military intervention against Iraq would be a crime against peace demanding vengeance before God, the head of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace said Monday."

This is coming from the same Vatican that failed to criticize Adolph Hitler's invasions and genocide. The same Vatican that failed to raise an army to liberate Europe and save the Jews.

And when it comes to peacenik, Left-wing, Eurocentric "issues", the Vatican has no reservation about issuing immediate proclaimations...

But it takes a good 20 years or more for the Vatican to even admit (after first openly lying about it) that it has a massive pedophilia/homosexual problem that has consumed its own ranks and oppressed its own people.

Sheesh. The Catholic church needs to focus on its own internal redemption, as foreign affairs are clearly outside its capability and expertise.

In effect, leave "saving the world" from tyrants to the U.S.

We've certainly got a much better track record on it.

[Consort]

So, what's the bottom line? Is the Vatican going to send any troops or not?

[uncbob]

Abortion is evil. Our country has adopted abortion as a right. Our country, I believe, by doing this, has called evil "good."

And of all the major countries of that great UN that the Pope so loves the USA is the only one where there is an internal movement to prevent abortion

In Russia who opposes this war Abortion was as common as going to the dentist .
Check out the articles on their birth rates and their barren women who now can't conceive because of mulitiple abortions

[miss marmelstein]

I wish I could say the same about Italy - I just returned from two weeks spent in Italy. I was assailed all over the place about "BOOOOSHHHHH" as he is called. It took me awhile to understand that Italians have an outlandishly childish "bogeyman" attitude towards our President which has no basis in reality or knowledge. One friend said: "BOOOOOSHHHHH is for war, Saddam for peace." My husband's Italian improved miraculously after that remark.

Their attitude towards the Jews is no better. Lots of peace-loving graffiti like "Juden Rauss" (sic) & "Israeli Boia" (Israeli executioners). Yuck!

[samuel_adams_us]

Is God even interested in hearing from the Vatican these days? Does God condone the molestation of children and the corruption that goes on within the Catholic Church?

"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with the same measure you use, it will be measured back to you. And why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank that is in your own eye? Or how will you say to your brother, let me remove the speck out of your eye; and, look, a plank is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first cast out the plank out of your own eye; and then you will see clearly to cast out the speck out of your brother's eye." (Matthew 7:1-5)

[houstonian]

I don't know why, but it seem that the Vatican has always had a soft spot in its heart for countries that hate Israel.

You have this exactly right.

The reason for the anti-Israel policy--and it is Vatican policy--is due to Vatican teaching that Christianity has replaced Israel as the people of God. This also points to why the Vatican supports Arafat against Israel, why the Vatican supports a divided Jerusalem, and even why the pope would infamously kiss the Islamic bible, the Koran.

To be fair, many of the mainstream Protestant denominations also believe that Israel has been supplanted by Christianity, and is the root of all anti-semitism. The exceptions to this theological idea are the conservative fundamentalists and evangelicals who believe that Israel will never be cast off by the God of Israel.

[Dirk McQuickly]

I am a conservative Catholic. I am devout. I pray the rosary daily. I go to adoration daily. I have prayed and prayed and prayed -- and I cannot understand the position of the Church. I keep thinking of Scripture and how Christ made enemies by telling everyone to turn the other cheek. How His teachings flew in the face of conventional wisdom at the time. I keep thinking, "there's something I'm missing -- what is it??"

As much as I want to blanket agree with whatever comes out of the Vatican, my conscience is killing me. Where did the UN -- as a DEMONSTRABLY flawed organization -- get the moral authority to determine war and peace?

How can the Vatican possibly weigh the benefit of removing Saddam Hussein (which may cost a number of innocent lives in the process) versus leaving him in power (which will cost COUNTLESS innocent lives)? If the Vatican is on the side of the poor and oppressed, why won't they condone the removal of the oppressor?

The United States has its share of flaws, but no other nation on earth has been as concerned about the welfare of mankind. No nation has so readily shed its blood for foreign strangers in foreign lands in the name of justice. Europe has virtually driven out God, and our President is about to outlaw the worst form of abortion known to man.

I can't in any good conscience possibly say that this is immoral. We spent 12 years in diplomacy. We gave final chance after final chance to Saddam since 9-11. We've bloodied our reputation with the world, sworn away any interest in their oil, promised food and medicine, and literally put our general population at risk of a WMD terrorist attack -- just so we can rid the world of Hussein and liberate its people.

Yes, of course, there are economic ramifications that benefit us if Iraq is liberated. But we thrived without Iraq during the '90's.

I'll continue to struggle with this. My only possible rational explanation is that the Pope is completely out of the loop -- that his inner circle is guiding diplomatic policy -- that bowing to the UN is not his idea...

[Illbay]

That isn't what I said. You asked if the "historic" church(es) that existed at the time of the Founders were "true" Christian churches.

I simply replied that they were not. That is my belief. I mean no offense, but if I thought those churches you mention were "correct," I'd be a member of one of them.

My statement is no more an "attack" on the churches you mention, than your not being a Roman Catholic is an "attack" on Catholicism.

[Illbay]

COLUMBIA WORLD OF QUOTATIONS NUMBER: 55130

QUOTATION: The Pope? How many divisions has he got?

ATTRIBUTION: Josef Stalin (1879–1953), Soviet leader. Quoted in Winston Churchill, “The Gathering Storm,” vol. 1, ch. 8, The Second World War (1948).

Said, May 13, 1935, to French Foreign Minister Pierre Laval, in reply to a suggestion that the Soviet Union should encourage Catholicism in order to propitiate the Pope.

[SoothingDave]

The Pope? How many divisions has he got?

Given that Stalin's regime had been placed in the dustbin of history and the Pope's remains intact, the quote seems somewhat ironic, doesn't it?

Yet people today continue to ask it without seeing this irony.

SD

[Illbay]

And that being the case, the Pope ought to understand that Saddam is just "Stalin Light."

[meema]

We will stand before God for our actions, as you will stand before God for yours!

That is how it is, and how it has always been, and will be forever.

May God grant us wisdom and strength.

[k2blader]

My main disagreement with Vatican officials, and any other Christians who think likewise, is that they insist upon a "consensus of the international community" and the inerrancy of "international law."

Since when did "the world" replace the Word?

[SoothingDave]

And that being the case, the Pope ought to understand that Saddam is just "Stalin Light."

I don't think the Pope has any delusions about Saddam. He's not a tottering, senile, fool as many here enjoy saying. He has said his piece to Saddam and his government, and that was that they need to comply with the cease fire agreements.

I suspect that we get more press on the Vatican and the Pope's messages to the US because of 2 reasons.

First, we are Americans, so the subject interests us more.

Second, the Pope knows that we are the "good guys." He can try to appeal to our consciences and to make sure we have exhausted every alternative because we are open to such things.

He does not waste time to appeal to the conscience of a man without one.

SD

[MoGalahad]

<>"Those who decide that all peaceful means that international law makes available are exhausted assume a grave responsibility before God, their conscience and history," said Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls.<>

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless being made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)

I would suggest that you, Joaquin Navarro-Valls, re-evaluate your faith because if you really believe what you just wrote, it is dead. You might also want to rent a movie entitled 'Hombre' and starring Paul Newman which speaks to your blind spot.

[FITZ]

I simply don't understand the invocation of the UN in any papal statement.

That's exactly how I feel. The Church should recognize the danger in the UN, it should be on the side of removing a murderous dictator from his country ----the Church should see that Saddam's arsenal is a huge threat to world peace. Our side is the side that wants peace ---but you only get peace through strength. Reagan was called a war-monger but he had less wars than anyone.

[Matchett-PI]

"That isn't what I said. You asked if the "historic" church(es) that existed at the time of the Founders were "true" Christian churches.

You could have quoted my exact words:

M-PI: "Were the churches America's Calvinist Framers belonged to the Lord's Churches?"

Illbay: "No. They had/have a form of Godliness, but they deny the power thereof. That's not to say they weren't/aren't good people. There are many good people among them. But they aren't the LORD'S church." (Meaning: Only the Mormon Church is "the Lord's Church").

You continued: "I simply replied that they were not. That is my belief. I mean no offense ... My statement is no more an "attack" on the churches you mention, than ..."

I took no offense and have not accused you of attacking any church. I merely wanted you to clarify your position.

But instead, you have contradicted yourself:

[1] You said that none of the Calvinist churches the Framers belonged to were Christian churches.

[2] You said that some of the Framers were Christians.

How can your #2 be the case if none of the Framers were members of the only church that you said is "the Lord's Church"? (The Mormon Church)?

HERE