Posted on 08/10/2003 2:18:56 AM PDT by Liz
Edited on 05/26/2004 5:15:52 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
In spite of all the old church ladies trying to organize protests, the last official statement I saw from the Vatican laid the responsiblity for avoiding conflict squarely where it belonged: at the feet of Sodamn Insane.
Very true. That was the only thing "binding" in the whole affair. The Holy Father's strong desire to settle the conflict peacefully should have weighed heavily on decisions to support the war. Beyond that people could come to different conclusions.
There's a good thread on this topic which can be read here. The lead-in sentences read,
"The true story of a condemnation that never took place ............(s.m.) ROMA - There’s war in Iraq. A war strongly opposed up to the last minute by the Catholic Church. Opposed but never condemned, judging by what was said by its supreme authority, the pope."
In addition, there's a great compendium of articles on the vatican and the war at zenit.com -- around 260 articles, I think. I haven't had time to read them all. I haven't found one yet where the Pope himself condemns the war. The list can be read here.
It seems to me that the last few years have shown what severe violence priests can bring to children. Sexual abuse, ignoring claims of abuse and hiding pedophile priests are heinous. The church needs to stop scapegoating homosexuality and focus on healing its parishes.
I hate to break it to you, Mr. Baszanak, but nearly all of those aforementioned priests were...gay.
Good thing the US Constitution was written or we would still have to live by God's law.
The religious vote is so important that even the evil Clintons had to resort to carrying Bibles and going to church on Sunday even though it must have nearly killed the venal duo.
The Dims sub-rosa anti-religionism has been brought into sharp relief by the homo marriage issue. Most people oppose homo marriage and nearly all the Dim prez candidates were forced to come out against it even though they genuflect at the altar of the homo agenda.
One way to stick it to the religio-phobic Dummycrats is to stay on the anti-homo marriage message. Bush will put the heretofore hidden Dims anti-religionism under a glaring spotlight.
Popes usually don't declare themselves for or against a particular side of a conflict in modern times. Even in seemingly clear-cut cases, eg the Spanish Civil war, Pius XI was careful not to endorse one side or another too quickly. He worked for peace, which is the Pope's primary job in these conflicts. Express anathemas are rare. I don't argue here that the Pope was some sort of closet supporter of the war; surely he worked hard to avert it. That doesn't mean he declared it unjust.
Careful about asking the Pope to denounce Saddam and his regime. Pius XII tried that tactic against Hitler in WWII. Speaking out only intensified the persecutions in Belgium and Holland. Afterwards Pius worked mainly behind the scenes to save Catholics and Jews during the holocaust and was much more effective. Likewise JPII's main concern was with the small Christian minority in Iraq and their somewhat precarious position in Saddam's regime.
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.