***I didn’t say you did. But you are at the very least justifying his inaction according to your own logic.***
I have done nothing of the sort. And, yes, in order to justify FDR’s action or inaction, you have to discuss FDR.
Look, all of you Catholics are free to think that the campaign we call WWII was a colossal failure for all I care. It has nothing to do with any Pope. Which is why I had and have no intention to discuss FDR.
Discuss it all you want. All it does it make you, well, sound just like a liberal. Go ahead if it floats your boat.
***We are? According to whom? Are you just making things up now?***
Fine, prove me wrong. Start talking critical about the Vicar of Christ. We will see just how critical you can be of your Popes. If you feel that your duty is not to defend the Vicar of Christ, but, rather it is your duty to be critical of him and attack him, then I away the performance of your duty.
***Apparently you have a rather starry eyed view of the former presidents and American history in regard to Jews around 1938-1945. I don’t.***
Yes, my refusal to discuss FDR’s action means I have a starry-eyed view of him. LOL! This is bordering on the absurd, which, lucky for you, is why I continue to read. It is entertaining.
You wrote:
“I have done nothing of the sort. And, yes, in order to justify FDR’s action or inaction, you have to discuss FDR.”
Actually you did essentially try to justify FDR according to your own logic.
“Look, all of you Catholics are free to think that the campaign we call WWII was a colossal failure for all I care.”
Whoa, whoa, whoa! Is that what any of us EVER even remotely suggested? No. So why imply that we did?
“It has nothing to do with any Pope. Which is why I had and have no intention to discuss FDR.”
But you responded to a post that mentioned FDR. You made a false distinction and now you don’t want to deal with it.
“Discuss it all you want. All it does it make you, well, sound just like a liberal. Go ahead if it floats your boat.”
And again, the false implication. Defending Pius does not make anyone a liberal since it is liberals who are pushing the lies against him. And aren’t you acting like the liberal by making false implications, false distinctions, and then refusing to discuss what you yourself posted?
“Fine, prove me wrong. Start talking critical about the Vicar of Christ.”
What? So, to prove you wrong I have to prove you right? I have to attack a pope (which one?) just to show that I am not duty bound to defend the popes? What if I choose to defend the popes of my own free will rather than because of any supposed sense of duty? Did that even occur to you? No, of course not. And, by the way, what exactly am I supposed to attack? Should I attack the personal sins of popes - their illegitimate children and greed in the Middle Ages perhaps - or should I attack their defense of Catholic doctrine? I have no problem whatsoever admitting that some popes have been terrible sinners who horribly abused their office. I have no doubt whatsoever that that was the case for several popes and that many more popes, although not the worst sinners, were bad enough men, and poor administrators to boot. I have no difficulties, however, with their defense of Catholic doctrine.
Now, I can freely, and easily admit that some popes were terrible men. If only one-tenth of what was said of Pope John XII was true then he was a rotten man and a terrible pope. I have no problem whatsoever saying that. Even the current pope, Pope Benedict XVI, has been too lax for my liking. He believe he has given the SSPXers too many chances. He should simply excommunicate them. I think he should act faster to regularize sedevacantists who want to come home like Terence Fulham. I think Benedict XVI is probably wasting his time with those Muslim scholars because they don’t actually represent Muslims since there is no such thing as a structure within Islam. I hope Benedict XVI slaps the American bishops in the head about giving communion to pro-abort politicians!
Now, I have no problem saying these things about popes when they are warranted. I wouldn’t even have a problem saying it to the pope’s face if I had the chance - and most popes actually have been open to such conversations believe it or not.
“We will see just how critical you can be of your Popes.”
Again, you’re assuming I need to be critical. I have listsed some of my criticisms of Benedict XVI. Will you claim they are not up to your standards now? Is that it?
“If you feel that your duty is not to defend the Vicar of Christ, but, rather it is your duty to be critical of him and attack him, then I away the performance of your duty.”
Neither is my duty. My duty is to the truth and its defense. I have no duty to defend any pope when he is wrong. I have every duty to defend anyone anytime he is right. I await your apology. Will you have the class and grace to offer it? You have been wrong about me since the beginning.
“Yes, my refusal to discuss FDR’s action means I have a starry-eyed view of him. LOL! This is bordering on the absurd, which, lucky for you, is why I continue to read. It is entertaining.”
Your refusal to defend your own ideas is what is entertaining. Will you have the courage to apologize for being wrong about me or will you try to worm out of it?
Let’s see.