Skip to comments.
Pope puts pressure on US
Guardian ^
| 4/21/03
| Owen Bowcott
Posted on 04/21/2003 1:33:09 AM PDT by kattracks
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 201-204 next last
To: showme_the_Glory; BlackElk; Bonaparte
I am far from anti-Catholic. I am only anti-political-Pope.
And then a mere SIX posts later:
He should have just said I support it [the war] of [or] shut the hell up!!!!!
Can you appreciate how contradictory you are here? This confusion on your part illustrates why the TRUTH and FACTS are required back-up when one is inclined to opine. You've not posted yet a direct quote from JPII, have you?
I am going to "go out on a limb" and speculate that this example does not bode well for the persuasiveness of your opinions, and it raises questions about your prejudices [or supposed lack thereof].
To: geedee
If you post things that are not true about the pope, then I will call you to account on the truth. I repeat that I have no intention whatsoever of intimidating you. If you deny the truth, and post error repeatedly, you are doing more to you than I can. As to your opinions, ask me if I care. You assumed I was anti-war. I am not. You assume a lot and often you are quite wrong, as here.
As you concede, you don't know much about the Catholic Church (and it shows).
The fact that you feel inclined to make an argument, doesn't mean that there is an argument worth paying attention to. I won't take you seriously if you claim that the sun appears to rise in the west either.
That's still not much of a quote and, before you jump to impertinent conclusions you ought to know more.
Vatican City is a nation. Vatican City is a quite moral nation, whether you think so or not. In fact, it is the standard, whether you think so or not.
While you are congratulating yourself on the notion that the US is a moral nation (which it certainly is as to the war) bear in mind the 45 million little folks slain by Roe vs. Wade and the virtual paralysis of our country. We could have killed more Iraqis than did Saddam. We could have killed them all. We did not and, in fact, we killed relatively few and did a darned good job of keeping the casualties low. And a darned sight better job than the presidents, the Congresses or the SCOTUS have done to minimize the turning of babies into bloody hamburger.
I would not put Saddam Hussein in the same league with: Mao Tse-Tung, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Leonid Brezhnev, Nikita Khrushchev (the butcher of Ukraine), Josef Stalin, Yuri Andropov and a wide variety of others, communist and non-communist alike or Herod Blackmun for that matter. Saddam was worth squashing like a bug but definitely a minor leaguer compared to those.
When you speak falsehoods against the pope, you are anti-Catholic. There, it's just that simple. That you make a mountain out of a molehill of an insufficient quote is your problem and that you ignore Tony Blair's remarks at the end of your second cited article (that he and the pope are in agreement) also speaks volumes. Was Tony Blair a good ally in this war, or what? You cited it. I didn't.
Finally, since I am in agreement with you (and maybe then some) on the war itself, you seem to be one of those guys who just can't take yes for an answer.
122
posted on
04/21/2003 3:50:51 PM PDT
by
BlackElk
(Viva Cristo Rey! Ubi Petrus Ibi Ecclesia (Where Peter Is, There is the Church!))
To: GirlShortstop
You go, girl!
123
posted on
04/21/2003 3:51:57 PM PDT
by
BlackElk
(Viva Cristo Rey! Ubi Petrus Ibi Ecclesia (Where Peter Is, There is the Church!))
To: BlackElk
The hubris of the self-important and pious is rather humorous. Your entire argument is doctored BS wrapped in a shield of anti-Catholic-busting outrage . . . but BS still. You wanted facts and links, I ask for the same.
You continue the name-calling garbage and trying to slop anti-Catholic paint on me . . . now back it up with facts! Check every sentence of my ORIGINAL post and document by facts and links proving your claims that I stated falsehoods and anti-Catholic comments.
My simple and original post . . .
We didn't listen to the Pope before the war . . . I suspect we won't listen to him now. It still amazes me that the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis who were murdered by So-Damn Insane never fits into the supposed "moral-based" edicts issued by the Pope. I guess a war where hundreds of innocents were killed is more abhorrent than the hundreds of thousands who lost their lives before we got involved.
Sentence 1. Did the Pope talk us out of going to war? Nope. Anything false or anti-Catholic? Nope.
Sentence 2. Find me some facts and links documenting where the Pope considered the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis So-Damn Insane murdered before the Pope came out and said the war would be "immoral, illegal, and unjust." Anything false or anti-Catholic? Nope. If the thread had been about comments from a Methodist Preacher or a Mullah or a Satan Worshipper, my comments would've been the same.
3. Really just an extension of Sentence 2 . . . but if you want to break it down or, since you're obviously omnipotent -- at least in your own mind, tell me what I "meant to say" that made this sentence false or anti-Catholic, feel free. I know you like to hear yourself talk.
Only someone with a preconceived agenda can even IMPLY that any of my comments were false or anti-Catholic. And as far as my admitting I don't know much about the Catholic Church . . . some of us mere mortals aren't afraid to admit we don't know or care about things that don't affect us. But the arrogant can never admit a weakness.
124
posted on
04/21/2003 4:36:26 PM PDT
by
geedee
To: sd-joe
But it seems to me, that by going out of his way to oppose those (the US) who would remove the oppressors and stop the oppression, that he is on the side of the oppressor, in fact if not in intention. (I don't believe that intentions alone matter.)
In my assessment your first point here is an uninformed opinion. You may not like the adjective I've chosen, and I hope you're not too offended, but it stems from your failure to supply a quote from JPII. I had hoped for a quote because it would have been informational and it would have clarified for me why someone would bring negative opinions of JPII into this thread. Alas, hopes are dashed. :-)
Consider this, if you will: GWB and Tony Blair ALSO attempted to achieve a peaceful resolution to the Iraqi situation. Notice that I *did not* jump to a conclusion, and label their efforts as SUPPORTING oppression. JPII did what he needed to, and is expected to do (calling for prayer and exhaustive peace attempts), the sovereign leaders did what they had to do.
The Vatican did send an envoy to try to stop GWB. That is a fact.
Really? It is a FACT that JPII's emissary's mission was TO STOP Bush? No "ifs, ands, or buts" eh?
It is also a fact that no other actions or discussions taken in the last 12 years have stopped the oppression. If someone then trys to stop the one action that will effectively stop the oppression, and thus would enable the oppression to continue, in my viewpoint that person is effectively on the side of the oppressor.
I'd say that what you've outlined fits the definition of an "enabler". Is it pertinent to JPII given the facts that we've seen? You know my answer. Once more, consider the FACT regarding the actions/inaction of Tony Blair, GWB, et al as I've noted above. They would be lumped into the Oppressor Support Crew by your estimation, wouldn't they? Twelve years for those Iraqis living in hell is certainly not JPII's fault. I'd guess it could be argued that JPII had *done more* with his prayers for those poor people (maybe many prayers have been answered!) than political leaders had done in twelve years. My responses to you have been my attempt to challenge you to question, and/or recheck your "facts" that lead to what I perceive as criticism of a good Christian man.
Please note that I have respect for you too: you've maintained a very civil tone in our "exchange". Thank you. FReegards.
To: Bonaparte
Comment #127 Removed by Moderator
To: kattracks
"I'm curious to know if the pope has made any public statements of condemnation as to the atrocities, lately come to light, committed by the Saddam regime?" Of course not.
To: tuna_battle_slight_return; GatorGirl; maryz; *Catholic_list; afraidfortherepublic; Antoninus; ...
Can someone post what His Holiness actually has said about the war in Iraq, about Sadaam's regime and about post-war Iraq?
129
posted on
04/22/2003 4:28:38 AM PDT
by
narses
(Christe Eleison)
To: kattracks
The pope, his messengers, and the vatican does not understand FREEDOM. Never has, never will.
130
posted on
04/22/2003 4:47:29 AM PDT
by
PGalt
To: kattracks
Pope puts pressure on USThe Pope should have put pressure on the U. S. (Bishops) decades ago before they went completely out of control!
Any Pope who couldn't return the Church to conform to the true meaning of "catholic" should keep his nose out of international affairs. It's not surprising that he feels the UN is good and the actions taken by the US to make America and the world safe from terrorist regimes are somehow bad.
To: kattracks
Somebody should put pressure on the Pope TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT PEDOPHILE PRIESTS!!!
132
posted on
04/22/2003 4:58:00 AM PDT
by
Martus
To: kattracks
There's no defense like offense.
To: kattracks
Man, it's easy to attract Pope-bashers.
A London newspaper "interprets" his statement, because on the face of it, it's common sense.
Can't have a Pope making common sense!!!! Nope. That's reserved to Newspaper Editors and Bureaucrats.
For those who cannot read English, please know that the international community INCLUDES the USA, and that the UN can serve a few good purposes in Iraq. Not many, because they are idiots--but a few.
134
posted on
04/22/2003 5:37:31 AM PDT
by
ninenot
To: kattracks
WHY does the RCC have such hots for the UN?
To: BlackElk
He did all this so that mankind could live in the darkness for nearly fifteen hundred more years (and whatever it may seem like I am going to be a lot more polite here than usual) all so that a renegade Augustinian monk with a yen to marry a nun against both of their vows of obedience as well as celibacy, could found His Church and break the news that the book alone or grace alone or faith alone or all three alone or any one of them three times or whatever could get them to heaven. Anyone who says this has no idea what Luther or any other Protestant taught.
To: The Red Zone
Oh yes I do, he was simply and vastly wrong and Western Civilization and Christianity have been paying the price of his unfounded pride ever since. Much of the quoted language has to do with his behavior, BTW, which I note is not the subject of your disagreement.
137
posted on
04/22/2003 11:30:04 AM PDT
by
BlackElk
(Viva Cristo Rey! Ubi Petrus Ibi Ecclesia (Where Peter Is, There is the Church!))
To: Martus
Because we are overdosing on government pseudo-authority nowadays, they don't let the real authority of the Church burn the pedophles at the stake any more. More's the pity!
138
posted on
04/22/2003 11:32:27 AM PDT
by
BlackElk
(Viva Cristo Rey! Ubi Petrus Ibi Ecclesia (Where Peter Is, There is the Church!))
To: kattracks
Who??? I don't respond to enablers of child-molesters, just like I do not support Bill Clinton. Maybe next Pope, but not the guy.
139
posted on
04/22/2003 11:36:50 AM PDT
by
Porterville
(Screw the grammar, full posting ahead.)
To: geedee; ninenot; Cap'n Crunch; Polycarp
You are not getting the message here. Since you know little or nothing about Catholicism as you admit, one tends to believe that you are not Catholic. If you are not Catholic, the pope's conduct of his office is, ummmm, none of your business.
Of course, you have decided that it is your business because, after all, you are entitled to a hearing because you say so. OK. First I am a bit old to learn new tricks and would not know how to post links if I had to which I do not. You have posted links and, as I have pointed out, I will be happy to rely on the last paragraph of your second link, the one on the normally non-Catholic and often anti-Catholic BBC says that Tony Blair says that he and the pope are in agreement on matters concerning Iraq. Unless you think that Blair is a closeted enemy of America in league and secret conspiracy with that nasty old Anti-American pope who seemed to get along quite well with Ronaldus Maximus as well, your own post of the BBC article refutes your claims. If you can't see that, there is no point in further refuting what amounts to invincible ignorance.
If pope-bashing and Catholic Church bashing are your chosen hobbies, bear in mind that the Church will be there long after you and I are gone. It is guaranteed on the Highest Authority (in Matthew).
At the very least, you seem soooooo disappointed that Pope John Paul II does not function under the authority of Colin Powell and the US State Department. Actually, he responds only to considerably Higher Authority, well above the White House. Post some more when you DO understand more about Roman Catholicism.
Buh-bye!
140
posted on
04/22/2003 11:46:52 AM PDT
by
BlackElk
(Viva Cristo Rey! Ubi Petrus Ibi Ecclesia (Where Peter Is, There is the Church!))
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 201-204 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson