Pope John Paul II, Assisi and Religious Liberty debated

This is just the introduction. Please the see the whole debate for a facinating discussion between CAI's current president and CAI's former vice-president.

ping!

This is an excellent debate! Let's get this bumped for you ... Pinging the catholic freepers.

The Vatican might have hosted the event, but that is a far cry from saying that it agrees with the false views of its participants - which is what you are trying to convince us of.

Catholicism is about obedience and faith...and humility. I am very proud to sing a different song if the Lord asks me to - otherwise I'm just my own Pope.

Come on in, the water's just right!

***otherwise I'm just my own Pope. ***

Hey, that's my line! I am not my own pope, YET!

"Catholicism is about obedience and faith."

No, obedience is way down on the list of virtues. It is primarily, above all else, about THE FAITH. The New Church suppresses and subverts the faith. It is to be resisted. And as Pius IX advised, "If a pope should ask you to deny the faith, do not follow him."

The New Church

New? Church! The Catholic Church is 2,000 years old ... hardly qualifies as new.

The New Church suppresses and subverts the faith.

It is evident that you have not read through the entire dialogue posted at the link, provided by Theosis. Consider this ....

" have you ever considered that John Paul is using his papal office to speak influentially to people of other religions? He does so by forging alliances with the leaders of these religions in order to consolidate and protect the Christians from extreme elements within these religions. This is how geo-politics works. We have no way of knowing the imminent dangers and threats which exist in these religions. Islam and Hinduism are hotbeds of extremism right now, and the Pope knows better than anyone else that this sucker might blow us all to smitherenes. And this is not just hot air, Robert. Just this week I heard a very high prominent Muslim cleric telling Muslims to cool their jets against the Christians and guess who he cited for his comments? Drum roll please...John Paul II. "

Islam and Hinduism are hotbeds of extremism right now, and the Pope knows better than anyone else that this sucker might blow us all to smitherenes

"forging alliances", "geo-politics" - the world is in turmoil and this pope, despite his age, is working to forge alliances in order to prevent the self-destruction of humanity.

" have you ever considered that John Paul is using his papal office to speak influentially to people of other religions? He does so by forging alliances with the leaders of these religions in order to consolidate and protect the Christians from extreme elements within these religions. This is how geo-politics works. We have no way of knowing the imminent dangers and threats which exist in these religions. Islam and Hinduism are hotbeds of extremism right now, and the Pope knows better than anyone else that this sucker might blow us all to smitherenes. And this is not just hot air, Robert. Just this week I heard a very high prominent Muslim cleric telling Muslims to cool their jets against the Christians and guess who he cited for his comments? Drum roll please...John Paul II. "

I notice he wasn't too much interested when Saddam slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocent people. He still pretty forcefully opposed that monster's toppling by the U.S. We just dug up another mass grave of 200 corpses--all of them children from Kirkuk. How does this fit in with JPII's "geo-political" strategy? Was Saddam supposed to go on murdering hundreds of thousands more? Where does this fit in with fundamental Christian morality? Give me a break.

I notice he wasn't too much interested when Saddam slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

Nice try, but the Holy Father opposed the war because of his strict adherence to the traditional Catholic principles of Just War Theory. Shalt I begin going down the list of those within the SSPX hierarchy who also opposed it? In fact, the Remnant put together a rather exhaustive list if I recall correctly.

I know of the SSPX stand. In these non-faith matters, nationality counts. The French are the French are the French. And the Pope, being European, sided with the French. The Pope was wrong. So were the French. Bush did the right thing--he deposed an evil man who went on a thirty-year-long killing spree. Bush had the authority, the capability--and the moral right. And he did waged his war with a relatively minimal loss of civilian life. None of the exaggerated consequences the Pope had feared ever transpired. So he was wrong--very wrong--as usual. He is also wrong about the UN, but that's another issue.

"Was Saddam supposed to go on murdering hundreds of thousands more? Where does this fit in with fundamental Christian morality? Give me a break."

Ultima Ratio raises a good question concerning Pope John Paul II. Let us examine how the SSPX answered this question, as read from the following FAQ posted to their official American website entitled Just War in Iraq?

-----

Could a US attack on Iraq be considered a just war?

This question is sometimes simplified to the question of whether we condone or condemn the actions of Saddam Hussein. However, this is not the essential question here, even if the legitimacy of his authority were to be questioned.

The morality and conditions for a just war were very well explained by Fr. Iscara in his erudite article in the July 2002 issue of The Angelus (pp.2-16), inspiring himself from Saint Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, Q.40, Art.1). He there points out that the application of these principles to determine the morality of a particular conflict can be very difficult, given the complexity of actual situations (p.11).

The first condition for a war to be just is that it is declared by a lawful or legitimate authority. It is certainly true that the US Congress has the authority to declare a war for the self-defense of US territory or citizens. It is also certain that its concern for the common good of the US also means that it must have some concern for the common good of the globe as a whole, given the mutual interdependence of nations. However, it does not at all have the authority to act as an international policeman, for the international common good is not its responsibility. For it to do so would be to attack the sovereignty of other nations. No nation has the right to declare war on another nation that is not a threat to it. Furthermore, a body of nations cannot have the authority to make such a declaration of war, since it has no sovereignty. It is true, however, that the people can rebel against an unjust ruler who has lost his right to rule, and appeal for foreign aid. This does not appear to be the case in Iraq, with the exception of exiled liberal dissidents. The US would have the moral right to declare war on Iraq only if Iraq posed a real threat to US security (or to that of US allies). This has not at all been demonstrated. The existence of weapons of mass destruction or Iraq’s ability to use them has not been demonstrated, nor has the use of Iraq as a base for terrorism.

The second condition for a just war is that there must be a just cause, such as defense against an unjust attack or recuperation of what has been unjustly taken. A presumed, imaginary, or even possible problem of terrorist bases or the existence of weapons of mass destruction could not constitute a just cause. Another aspect of the just cause is that it must be proportionate to the evil, death, destruction, and human suffering that could be caused by the war. Since modern wars are indiscriminate and attack civilians just as much as military personnel, it cannot be conceived that a war of this kind could be successful without a great deal of suffering for the citizens of Iraq. There is a manifest lack of proportionality here that makes any reasonable person wonder what the real, underlying reason for such a proposed war or invasion could be. If it were, for example, US self-interest by guaranteeing the supply of oil, then it would be manifestly unjust. Here it is also to be mentioned that a war is only just if there is a good chance of a rapid, successful victory with a minimum of casualties. The specter of Vietnam makes one wonder if this really is the case.

The third condition described by Saint Thomas for a just war is a right intention, and this in the objective domain, namely that it be truly the re-establishment of justice which is aimed at. However, this is not at all the case. Iraq has done no injustice to the US. The absence of a right intention is also manifest by the fact the US is not insisting that Israel live up to UN demands as it is with Iraq. To the contrary, the embargo against Iraq has caused the death of many children, estimated by some as many as one million. In this regard, a war can only be just if all other avenues of resolution have been exhausted. This does not at all appear to be the case, which is why other nations, that do not stand to gain as much, are not interested in participating.

Consequently, the proposed war on Iraq is not morally licit. This does not mean, however, that American serviceman could not fight in such a conflict, even if they were aware that it is not based on moral principles. It is their duty to defend their country, and once a war were declared it would be necessary for them to do so. It is rather strange that it is the Arab country that has been most tolerant towards its relatively large Chaldean Christian minority which is being threatened in this way. One hopes that it will not be a repeat of Kosovo, in which the NATO invasion brought as a consequence the destruction of over 100 monasteries and churches, most of which had survived 500 years of Moslem rule. [Answered by Father Peter R. Scott]

-----

For a more entertaining explanation of the SSPX's opposition to the war, please see the following letter written by Bishop Williamson. Regardless, I notice that Fr. Scott (the former American superior) and Bishop Williamson (in my opinion the defacto American superior) were not too much interested when Saddam slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocent people. They still pretty forcefully opposed that monster's toppling by the U.S. We just dug up another mass grave of 200 corpses--all of them children from Kirkuk. How does this fit in with...yadda...yadda...yadda...

In these non-faith matters, nationality counts. The French are the French are the French. And the Pope, being European, sided with the French. The Pope was wrong. So were the French. Bush did the right thing--he deposed an evil man who went on a thirty-year-long killing spree. Bush had the authority, the capability--and the moral right. And he did waged his war with a relatively minimal loss of civilian life. None of the exaggerated consequences the Pope had feared ever transpired. So he was wrong--very wrong--as usual.

Since we agree so rarely, I didn't want the opportunity where we do agree to pass.

The Pope was also wrong about Gulf War I, in which an even broader coalition sought to free a sovereign nation from Saddam Hussein's domination.

I don't recall if the Pope opposed Clinton's actions in Kosovo. My guess is he did, and, if he did, he was wrong here as well.

The point is, ultima is minimalizing vis-a-vis the SSPX what he attacks the Holy Father over.

The point is, ultima is minimalizing vis-a-vis the SSPX what he attacks the Holy Father over.

Yes, and if you pin him down--which is, admittedly, hard to do--he will say he disagrees with the SSPX on the Iraq war as well.

In fact, UR provided some of the most spirited and reasoned defenses of Iraqi Freedom on this forum before and during the conflict.

Yes, and if you pin him down--which is, admittedly, hard to do--he will say he disagrees with the SSPX on the Iraq war as well.

Yet why so quick to condemn the Holy Father, while so careful to minimize the exact same position when held by the SSPX hierarchy?

1. The United States did not "act as an international policeman," it acted to protect itself against terrorism. It is true we haven't yet found WMD, but the entire world community believed they then existed. Moreover, we DID find Al Qaeda operatives working hand-in-glove with the Ba'ath Party with the official sanction of Saddam. So we had proper authority under the norms for a Just War: pure self-defense and the memory of 9/11.

2. Bush also meets the second norm--a just cause. Who can doubt eliminating mass terrorism of innocent people and subjecting them to decades of slaughter and torture of the most unspeakable brutality is unjust, that it would be just to end this horror. Nor was the means used to do this more destructive than necessary or beyond that of the evil redressed. The evil of Saddam was not routine: Small girls were tortured in front of their mothers; small boys had their eyes gouged out; wives were raped in front of their husbands and fathers; people routinely had their tongues cut out. This regime knew no limits--and they used mass slaughter of hundreds of thousands of its own citizens to impose and secure their steel-like grip on the populace. How can anyone with common sense think it was not just to put an end to this? Especially when the means used were so humane--with unprecedented care taken to minimize loss of civilian life and to prevent irreparable damage to Iraqi infrastructure.

The inference, moreover, used by this priest and even more openly by the Vatican itself--that it was OIL that the U.S. coveted, ignores the entire history of the United States. We don't go to war for material reasons. We fought two world wars to oppose tyranny, without asking for a penny in return and without taking an inch of territory. We are not a people interested in other peoples' material goods, but get fire-up by just causes. The President has said countless times the Iraqi oil belongs to the Iraqi people. Most Americans believe him. If the Pope and others do not, that is because European cynicism cannot comprehend a nation such as ours which acts out of altruistic motives.

3. The idea that we needed another twelve years of foot-dragging by Saddam before we waged war against him, is nonsense. So is the idea that "Iraq" meant no harm to the U.S. But it repeatedly violated its truce agreement, signed at the close of the first Gulf War--and we struggled for 12 years to have it comply. By such a standard no war could ever be justly waged. Other means were tried--and Saddam had always found a way around it. What does this priest think was the motive behind the embargo--it was THE other means. It is a contradiction to decry the embargo in one breath, then say we must resort to other means in the next. Yes, the inspectors might have gone on forever. But troop ships can't wait forever, men must be deployed and this takes logistics and strategies of great complexities. They can't wait on the UN's further shilly-shallying. The war was just. Saddam was given a twelve-year holiday from answering the piper. Finally his bluff was called and his people are free.

Finally, the Pope and the Vatican act as if Saddam had a sovereign right to rule over 24 million people. But no single man may exercise such tyranny and remain legitimate. Ultimately, the state's legitimacy resides in the people governed, not a single individual. Saddam did not rule by divine right--though that is how the Vatican behaved in dealing with him--he ruled by terror. It is just and good that he is gone.

Yet why so quick to condemn the Holy Father, while so careful to minimize the exact same position when held by the SSPX hierarchy?

He is quick to criticize JPII on most everything, but he's right about this one. If UR has minimized the SSPX on the war, he shouldn't, since it lines up with the Vatican on this issue.

As far as the SSPX is concerned, it's a schismatic cult, so I could care less what that wingnut Williamson thinks of anything.

Read #17. It's a perfect justification for Iraqi Freedom.

"How can anyone with common sense think it was not just to put an end to this?"

Again, ask Williamson and Scott whom I was quoting.

The inference, moreover, used by this priest and even more openly by the Vatican itself--that it was OIL that the U.S. coveted, ignores the entire history of the United States.

What's the priest's name again? To which religious congregation does he belong? What is his current position and his immediate former position within this congregation?

If the Pope and others do not, that is because European cynicism cannot comprehend a nation such as ours which acts out of altruistic motives.

But I wasn't quoting Pope John Paul II, I was quoting Bishop Williamson and Fr. Peter Scott. Both happen to hold positions of authority within the SSPX. Additionally, I'm not sure where European cynicism comes in, since the first is an Englishman and the second an Australian. England and Australia not only sided with the US, they sent over a substantial number of troops to fulfill active combat roles.

What does this priest think was the motive behind the embargo--it was THE other means.

Again, "this priest"? Doesn't he have a name?

Finally, the Pope and the Vatican act as if Saddam had a sovereign right to rule over 24 million people.

But again, I wasn't quoting the Holy Father and the Vatican, non?