Replies

Baloney. I must have a sado-masochistic streak to talk with you about this subject -- your hatred of the Pope has been made abundantly clear numerous times -- but he did not SIDE with tyrants. Are you on crack?! Can you honestly believe that the Pope sits there and thinks, "Hey, you know, this Saddam guy, he ain't all that bad -- so what, a few hundred thousand, maybe more than a million, murders...What's the biggie? I think I'll try taking his side and see what happens."

I know you can't be thick-headed enough to realize the complexity of the situation, and that accusing the Pope of "siding" w/ these tyrants would be like trying to paint the Mona Lisa w/ a paint roller.

The Pope does not favor tyrants. He does not favor dictators who oppress and murder his people. He does however, believe in the power of God, Jesus Christ, and that peaceful avenues of resolution had not been exhausted.

This pope favored Saddam over the United States. He invited Saddam's envoy, Tariq Aziz to the Vatican in a deliberate effort to undermine Bush's diplomacy at the UN. By doing so, he gave legitimacy and stature to a tyrant and undermined any effort to get Saddam to step down peacefully. It was the Pope's Secretary of State, moreover, that accused Bush of waging a war of aggression and it was the Vatican that published the accusation that the United States coveted Iraqi oil. The Pontiff--like other leftists, including Chirac and Shroeder--viewed the United States with more alarm than Saddam's Iraq which had already waged two wars of conquest against neighbor states and had held its own people in horrific bondage for three decades. The pope has reason to feel shame.

As for the ridiculous accusation that I "hate the Pope"--I have only this to say: there is a difference between hate and legitimate criticism. I criticize the Pope because he has been harmful as a leader of the Church and has a reputation far in advance of what he deserves, given his lack of accomplishments in ecclesiastical affairs. I say again, he has elevated apostates and charletans, men of little faith and quirky libidos. I will grant the Pope helped galvanize the Poles which eventually brought down the Soviet Union, but I will not grant he has ever done anything comparably constructive within the Church. He has not protected the Deposit of Faith and has allowed belief to dwindle and for this he is answerable.

What "complexity"? Liberals always mock the clarity of right and wrong. For them everything is complex, shades of gray--except where the US is concerned, in which case we're always wrong--no shade then except black.

The Iraqis suffered horrific evil for thirty years. Saddan violated a UN truce for twelve. France and Russia and Germany--supported by the Pope--would have been content to spend another twelve chasing after moonbeams while they cynically raked-in billions through sweetheart deals with Saddam. Meanwhile people were being shoved alive into giant shredders. Kids were tortured before their parents, wives raped before their husbands.

And while we're at it, what is the "complexity" behind the Pope's failure to condemn the despotism of Castro, do you suppose? The Cuban dictator is going around giving life sentences to librarians for speaking against the government--not ten, twenty years, mind you, but LIFE. He is executing people for the crime of wanting to leave the giant prison of which he is the warden forever. What gives Castro his legitimacy except brute force? Why is the Pope not outraged, why doesn't he support his own Vatican agency which calls for him to condemn Castro--tapping the tyrant on the wrist in a weakly worded letter?