Is the Pope protesting US policy?

[SoCalRC]

As you know, many represent that the Pope says that or thinks it. But neither he nor his predecessor is quoted ever saying it. Given that it is clearly a matter about which people may exercise prudential judgment, it is wrong for people to put into the Pope’s mouth words he never uttered, in order to make it seem opposition to the war is a moral position mandated by the Pope.

Lots of that in here.

Again, it is trivial to find scores of direct quotes, you can even find them in the US mainstream media. For example, from the leadup to the war:

query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A02E6DD1231F937A25752C0A9659C8B63

And, Pope Benedict just spoke publicly again about Iraq on Palm Sunday:

“Enough with the slaughters. Enough with the violence. Enough with the hatred in Iraq!” - Pope Benedict XVI, Palm Sunday 2008

Again, with a flock of a billion spread over the world and a goal of unity and peace, the Vicar of Christ’s message is not as easy to digest as the simplistic rhetoric that passes for public discourse here - but it is well worth the effort.

P.S. It is important to understand that Bishops are not ‘Vicars of the Pope’. There is only one Vicar of Christ. So, when a Cardinal speaks in an official Vatican capacity, or signs something in his official capacity, it is the fullfillment of a religious obligation, not just a public one. In other words, accusing the Prefect or Vatican Secretary of State of missrepresenting the Pope is an accusation of schism and/or heresy.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I knew it. You guys can’t produce a direct statement of either Pope saying the U.S. participation in the Iraq war is immoral or unjust. You can’t do it, because neither Pope said it.

You can quote the NY Times’ interpretation of what their people think the Pope surely meant all you want, and you can invent your own definition of heresy like some proud-as-Lucifer SSPV “bishop”, all you want. And maybe that will distract a few viewers from the fact that:

You can’t do it.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

I knew it. You guys can’t produce a direct statement of either Pope saying the U.S. participation in the Iraq war is immoral or unjust. You can’t do it, because neither Pope said it.

You can quote the NY Times’ interpretation of what their people think the Pope surely meant all you want, and you can invent your own definition of heresy like some proud-as-Lucifer SSPV “bishop”, all you want. And maybe that will distract a few viewers from the fact that:

You can’t do it.

You can’t prove a negative, so you can’ t prove your point. I’ve already conceded that neither Pope has made a public statement condemning the United States’ invasion and occupation of Iraq. That doesn’t mean that he didn’t way anything in private.

I like how SoCal put it…the Pope doesn’t do things the way pols in the US do (doing performances for for masses). He does things like a Father would (after all, he is the Pope…which means Father). What we do know is that people who are close to the Pope have said things that would lead one to believe that both Popes opposed the United States’ invasion and occupation of Iraq.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’ve already conceded that neither Pope has made a public statement condemning the United States’ invasion and occupation of Iraq. That doesn’t mean that he didn’t way anything in private.

QUOTE]

Sorry I missed your concession.

You don’t know what he said in private that wasn’t disclosed either, and you or SoCal or somebody has said that too.

There it is, then.

 

[ribozyme]

Um…that’s fairly close to my definition of “not screwing up anything major,” but then I’ve never liked fascists masquerading as liberals (nor Socrates-poisoning Sophists masquerading as philosophers).

And if “not conforming to one political philosophy” is all it takes to make you have hatred of someone, well A) you’re indistinguishable from al Qaeda on the issue of intellectual liberty, and B) you have a serious infestation of Buddhas that need killing.

That is very uncharitable. You induce that I am a facist based on ONE example. I said I find Bush’s policy to be the antithesis of everything that Rawls stood for. I am able to tolerate the political views of people I disagree with such as some paleoconservatives like Randall Parker, and I could tolerate some Republicans such as Lincoln Chafee. Also, the views of these conservatives are somewhat tolerable for me. I said I only disliked Bush; I never stated I hated everyone that disagreed with me, but go ahead call me a fascist. Every libertarian who thinks “taxes are theft” calls me a fascist.

Negative utilitarianism shares some Buddhist tenets. I learned about it when I was reading the work of David Pearce.

 

[Walt_Oliver]

This thread is closed for cleaning. After removal of the personal attacks and uncharitable posts and the issuance of infractions or suspensions as warranted, the thread will be reopened - if there’s anything left.