ANTI-WAR CROWD EXPLOITS THE POPE

Catholic League ^ | March 28, 2003 | William Donohue

[RobbyS]

You are an idiot. I have a son who is going to the Gulf to fight, and I don't mean from behind a desk. It is a fight I think was inevitable necessary but scary. Stow all the intellectual crap; there's a real world out there.

[sinkspur]

You attribute malice to the Pope where there is none.

The Pope is not pro-Saddam. He never condemns heads of state; he even went to a country headed by a brutal leader, Fidel Castro.

The Pope is concerned about a Muslim-Christian war, so his circumspection is understandable.

I've condemned the Pope for speaking. He should simply pray for peace and urge Catholics to pray for peace. No comments about "negotiation" or the UN.

Seeming to weigh in on one side has, as you said, given cover to Hussein and the French to fracture any hope for a united front against this butcher.

The Pope blew a unique opportunity to stay above the fray here. He also should silence those in his Curia and employ who actually scorn the United States, like the reprehensible Archbishop Martino, and the rag La Civilta Catolica.

[ultima ratio]

What I posted cannot in any way be construed as opposing anyone serving in the military, let alone your son. I understand why you have reason to be scared, but not why you would defend the Pope's morally-blind position.

[RobbyS]

It is you who are morally blind. War produces evils that are impossible to calculate in advance. The Civil War freed the slaves' it also unleased cupidity on a vast scale and physically wrecked the lives of millions. I can support the war on the ground of necessity, but that entails a leap of faith. I think George Bush is rightly making a gamble, because the region is so unstable that if Saddam stays he has the potential to cause ruin everywhere. One can reasonably oppose the war, however. The pope is right to believe that the Muslims may be driven mad by defeat here. Or the shock of light may clear their minds, as it did those of the Germans in 1945. What will be, will be.

[ultima ratio]

It is indisputable the Pope's timing in denouncing the US was meant to undercut Bush's diplomatic efforts in the UN vis a vis the French and Russians. He has blocked Bush at every turn in recent months, squandering moral capital to give aid and comfort to European anti-Americanism. His secretary of state afterwards even condemned the US as aggressors--clearly using a double-standard since the Vatican had never condemned Saddam when he invaded Kuwait. Nor has the Pope ever condemned Saddam's horrific atrocities which have claimed over two hundred thousand Iraqi victims. It is clear to me that both Bush and Blair have responded to meet the challenge of such pure evil in a way the Pope has not. This should be truly embarrassing to any Catholic.

[ultima ratio]

You argue against something I never said. Wars always include unanticipated consequences which are in themselves evil. Life is not neat in that way, nor do I imagine it to be. Saddam is now arming ten year olds. Do we shoot them before they shoot us? Harry Truman dropped the bomb--in order to avoid millions of more casualties in a war that had already claimed 53 million people. That is the nature of war and it is dirty and ugly. But some evil can grow and metastasize if not confronted. That is where we are now with Saddam and it is MORE evil to appease such a man than to finally say, NO MORE, you will kill no more innocents. Had we stopped Hitler early-on--do you imagine he would have gone on to conquer all of Europe? But instead he was appeased--and his appetite for blood and horror thereafter knew no bounds.

[sinkspur]

It is indisputable the Pope's timing in denouncing the US was meant to undercut Bush's diplomatic efforts in the UN vis a vis the French and Russians. He has blocked Bush at every turn in recent months, squandering moral capital to give aid and comfort to European anti-Americanism.

I agree with your post, but I especially agree with this. Surely the Pope, and Chirac, and Putin, and Schroder, knew that, after 1441, a united front for a war would have prevented a war! The Arab League would have joined a totally united front, and Hussein would have been forced to seek exile, or been totally destroyed with the world arrayed against him.

The Pope joined an unprincipled cabal of self-serving nations in offering Hussein a way out: kill time with meaningless weapons' inspections. I believe His Holiness used the word "negotiation." Just what the hell was the UN supposed to negotiate?

The Pope is usually pretty savvy diplomatically, but he blew this one, big time.

[ultima ratio]

Right. Many lives could have been spared. But Saddam took heart from European anti-Americanism--led by France--and the cover offered by the Vatican. Tragic. Things will never be the same in the West. Everything's been shaken-up.

[Aloysius]

Nothing will convince you of how wrong-headed this pope has been.

Did it ever occur to you that George W. Bush could be wrong? Don't blame this one on the Pope. There's hundreds of millions of people in the world that think Bush has gotten a little too big for his britches on this one.

Don't put so much faith in a man who is seperated from the Holy Roman Catholic Church. The very fact that he doesn't have the true Faith demonstrates that you shouldn't place so much faith in him.

Oh, yes. I know you like to check your Catholicism at the door when it comes to political decisions. Ted Kennedy wont get away with that and neither can you.

[ultima ratio]

The facts speak for themselves. Saddam's is the face of evil. The Pope ignores this whereas Bush and Blair do not. That is simply the way it is. Bush has not gotten "too big for his britches" as you suppose, he merely is defending his country against those who would destroy us by means of weapons of mass destruction. You won't recognize this because you place your worship of this Pope before the truth itself. But the Pope is not the Catholic faith--something you need to remember--just as you need to remember that this pope opposed us all the while he was providing diplomatic cover for a butcher like Saddam. That is morally deplorable and it does not make a Catholic less of a Catholic to say so.

[drstevej]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/879151/posts?page=35#35
Ping to Cardinal Ultima

[Aloysius]

But the Pope is not the Catholic faith--something you need to remember--

Your criticism of the Pope for matters related to the Faith are generally well-founded. He should be criticised for those decisions. Criticizing him for not supporting a war, indicates how your animosity towards John Paul II has clouded your thinking.

UR, go back and count the number of times you have mentioned "weapons of mass destruction" in your posts. Next thing you will be referring to tobacco and Big Macs as weapons of mass destruction. Planned Parenthood has more weapons of mass destruction that Saddam could ever dream about. You are starting to sound like Geraldo Rivera or Sean Hannity. Hysteria has overtaken sound logic.

Just to set the record straight, I don't worship the Pope. But if you can point to a single negative post you have written about George W. Bush, perhaps you can convince me that you are not infatuated with Bush.

[ultima ratio]

What is there to be negative about? Bush is a fine president. He puts the protection of America first. He has integity and is full of common sense. He respects other people, regardless of station. He is also a natural leader of men. If you want to believe he is evil, fine, I can't stop you. If you want to believe he is dumb, fine as well. If you want to believe he is lying to the American people, fine. But none of these prejudices will make you right when the facts refute you.

[ultima ratio]

I will pray for your son from now on. God bless.

[RobbyS]

Thank you. Also for the men under him and above him.

[Aloysius]

Bush is a fine president.

That says it all. What has he done to stop abortion? How many innocents will die while he gingerly straddles the fence and tries to please everybody. At this pace, maybe 100 years from now (if the world is still here), there will be some progress in the fight to save unborn babies.

Any president that proclaims to be pro-life but can't show up once a year for the March For Life is either a political coward or doesn't care about the sanctity of innocent human life.

[ultima ratio]

You are ridiculous if you think a president can by fiat stop abortions. A president is not a king. He does not rule absolutely. If you don't understand this, you need to learn about democracy and how it works. Yes, Bush did not show up at the pro-life rally in D.C. And yes, there are admittedly political reasons for not showing up. But pro-lifers are only a part of a complex political spectrum and the President knows he must appear to represent the whole of that spectrum if he wants to stay in office, however much he may sympathize with one part.

This is because the first rule of politics is to gain the center--otherwise you're finished politically in this country. It has nothing to do with personal moral beliefs, it has to do with being politically savvy. Christ, remember, advised us to be crafty like serpents, to learn from the children of darkness, to observe their ways in order to win out over them. In modern parlance, Christians can't afford to be naive if they want to compete successfully in the rough-and-tumble of party politics.

So when Bush does not attend a pro-life rally personally, this does not mean he is rejecting his Christian beliefs, and it is naive to believe so. It simply means he is being politically smart and not appearing to identify too closely with one end of the spectrum and thereby alienating a host of others. By being crafty, he will stay in office. By staying in office, he will be able to nominate conservative judges and help nudge pro-life laws through a closely-divided Congress--all of which is far more important than attending a pro-life rally personally.

You need to wise up politically.

[Aloysius]

By staying in office, he will be able to nominate conservative judges....

He's not staying in office because he doesn't stand for anything...except the same things that Daddy stood for...and you know the rest.

[Aloysius]

This is because the first rule of politics is to gain the center--

No, the first rule is to protect your base. It's not all about winning the next election, it's about doing something while you have the chance.

[ultima ratio]

You know nothing about politics. Bush's base is secure. You one-issue fools would lose time after time because you don't know the difference between tactics and strategy. If you want to win elections, you have got to gain the swing voter. This is because the country is divided into thirds: a third is conservative, a third is liberal, and a third is centrist. Neither the right nor the left can win without the middle. Politics 101.