Vatican urges Catholic politicians to vote along church lines

Associated Press ... live feed | January 15, 2003

[Support Free Republic]

DONATE TODAY!!!. SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

[NYer]

The guidelines don't mention punishment _ such as excommunication _ for Catholic politicians who fail to tow the line. Rather, they frame the issue as one of ``conscience'' that politicians will have to deal with.

Another example of "catholic lite". How disappointing!

[Desdemona]

In way, though, this is good. Catholics will be more prone to hold some politician's feet to the fire. It's not going to happen overnight.

I am disappointed that Archbishop Gregory is having trouble finding HIS spine, but the Lord obviously has a plan.

[american colleen]

I am disappointed that Archbishop Gregory is having trouble finding HIS spine..

Where has he been, anyway? Guess that five minutes of fame is up.

[Desdemona]

Where has he been, anyway?

I don't know. There's a brick wall which runs down the middle of the Mississippi. Crossing over happens for work, but not much else.

The other thing to remember - according to the media - there isn't much of interest between the mountain ranges, except for the Cubs. They haven't gone looking recently. No big conferences. No major breaks in any of these cases or juicy details.

[Romulus]

This is all very well, but in the end it all comes down to episcopal cojones. If AmChurch bishops are negligent or malfeasant -- and they are -- then the publication of
"new" guidelines is like so much yelling in the face of a hurricane.

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

If you're referring to Wilton Gregory, he's a bishop not an archbishop.

[St.Chuck]

I'm glad to see these guidelines. If nothing else, orthodox Catholics always have the pope in their corner. And this pope does have a paper trail doesn't he? He will be cited for generations to come. Viva il papa!

[APBaer]

The Vatican told Catholic politicians on Thursday they must oppose laws on abortion, euthanasia and gay marriages and can not accept compromises

So what's next?
The Seventh Day Adventists Church told their politicians on Thursday they must oppose blood banks and transfusions and can not accept compromises?

The Christian Scientist Mother Church told their politicians on Thursday they must oppose laws giving access to medical care because only prayer was appropriate and it can not accept compromises?

And late news from Rome,
"The Vatican told Catholic politicians on Thursday that war with Iraq was wrong and they must give Saddam a big wet kiss and can not accept compromises"?

[Desdemona]

And late news from Rome, "The Vatican told Catholic politicians on Thursday that war with Iraq was wrong and they must give Saddam a big wet kiss and can not accept compromises"?

Not at all. Just a demand for a full accounting of why a war would be just and necessary. If it is, the Vatican will back it. They're not convinced yet.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

The Vatican stressed that it wasn't trying to dictate policy or interfere in matters of state...

Can you spot the lie in this statement?

;)

Next to come - Vatican demands that Catholic politicians:

- Oppose the death penalty;

- Mandate the redistribution of wealth;

- Oppose American defense measures;

- Support trade unions;

- Oppose all support of Israel....

And on and on and on.....

[Chancellor Palpatine]

It no longer matters if the Vatican backs the war. The cooncerns of the Vatican are no longer relevant to American foreign policy - a good thing, IMHO.

[St.Chuck]

The cooncerns of the Vatican are no longer relevant to American foreign policy...

President Bush appears to think otherwise. He has gone to visit the pope twice in his presidency and has made numerous visits to American prelates. Apparantly he doesn't share your contempt for the Catholic Church.

[heyheyhey]

The Vatican told Catholic politicians...

That's the humble supremacy of the Christian message; all you need to do is to remind your brethren the precepts of the Gospel.
How many divisions has the Pope...? None!

[Catholicguy]

<> LOL. I am glad it was just "yelling" into the hurricane..."

[Catholicguy]

The End of Bush the Bold




December 31, 2002
To read the conservative and neoconservative press, you’d think that President George W. Bush combined the military genius of Napoleon, the courage of Coriolanus, and the moral wisdom of Confucius. My own view is that he confirms the truth of the adage “Never send a boy to do a man’s job.”

Actually, the presidency is more a Superman’s job. Nobody should be given — or trusted with — that much power and responsibility. Nobody can possibly handle it.

By abandoning our Constitution, in which the legislative branch is supreme, we have permitted the executive branch to assume a centrality it was never meant to have. The president is now said to be our “leader.” He’s expected to provide governance, protection, economic expertise, geopolitical cunning, and inspiration, among other things; and of course he also has to have a talent for raising money and winning elections.

Rare is the man who can master even one of these disparate, unrelated, almost miscellaneous skills. Requiring all of them is like asking a single individual to excel at playing the harpsichord, logical theory, standup comedy, chess, and pole-vaulting.

In these terms, nobody can be a good president. He can only play one on TV. Reagan was superb at this impersonation; Bill Clinton might have been just as good, if only he hadn’t set an unhappy precedent by splashing his personal foibles onto the front pages.

But Bush? For most of his first year in the Oval Office he gave us the impression he was lost in the job. After the 9/11 attacks, however, he seemed to achieve a new stature. Maybe we were right the first time.

In the wake of the attacks, Bush adopted the posture of Gary Cooper in High Noon. He played a resolute hero who knew what he was doing. It flew with the public and most of the pundits; even his liberal critics were impressed. But he quickly diverted from a “war on terrorism” to an irrelevant war on Iraq.

He sealed his obsession with Iraq by naming it one of the three points on an “axis of evil,” along with Iran and North Korea. He said Iraq posed an urgent danger because it was ruled by a cruel tyrant bent on acquiring nuclear weapons and threatening the whole region, if not the whole world.

Well, someone answering this lurid description has now stepped forward, and it isn’t Saddam Hussein. It’s North Korea’s Kim Jong Il.

Kim has nukes, and he’s not hiding it. He’s bragging about it. He dares Bush to stop him. He passes the “cruel tyrant” test with flying colors. He’s a Communist of the Stalin-Mao ilk, permitting mass starvation in his country rather than relaxing his iron grip. He seems quite cheerfully willing to go to war with his neighbors. And this is to say nothing of his funny teeth and haircut: he even looks eerie.

How cruel is he? Well, desperate North Koreans are actually risking their sorry lives to flee to China, making China the first Communist country ever to have an illegal immigrant problem. The North Korean media call Kim “the Dear Leader.”

So how is Bush handling this certified monster? Very awkwardly. In amusing contrast to his tough talk about prostrate Iraq, Bush is treating North Korea as a diplomatic problem, nothing urgent. What about those weapons of mass destruction? Surely we can resolve our little differences like gentlemen. What about the “axis of evil”? Just a figure of speech, it seems. No hard feelings.

Kim seems to feel differently. He may be crazy, but he’s not stupid. When he heard Bush speak of that “axis of evil,” he heard “hit list,” and he figured North Korea’s turn might be coming when Bush was finished with the Middle East.

So Kim decided to upset Bush’s schedule by shaking nukes in his face before he was ready. Why wait for war at Bush’s convenience? Why not challenge him preemptively, as it were? Sure enough, Bush, the brave cowboy, backed off fast. He realized he wasn’t dealing with a mere Saddam Hussein.

So much for Bush the Bold. Yes, the presidency is too big a job for any man, but Bush, it’s now clear, is far, far out of his depth. Publishing his hit list was an act of the most puerile bravado.

[Catholicguy]

<> War with Iraq? You've got to be kidding. This is the Deathstar against a guy on a goat.

Daddy's Desert Storm I took a little over a month; 1/16/91 - 2/27/91.

Any bets thie one ends faster?

Dubya gives State of the Union address Jan.28. The Super Bowl is on Jan 27. Look for Son of Desert Storm I to begin Sunday -late..or early Monday so he can walk into the joint session to tumultuous applause as the "Commander in Chief."

If you are in Vegas, take America and "under" in the 30 days over/under

[Romulus]

I am glad it was just "yelling"

Given that we're talking about something useful issuing from the Vatican, the micturative metaphor seemed, well, unseemly.

[.45MAN]

Well maybe a little disapointing but we as faithful can also push the issue. Holding back the weekly offering and demanding that things be done is in our power....