Is the Pope protesting US policy?

[SoCalRC]

I thought it odd that the White House is holding a dinner to honor the Pope, but the Pope won’t be attending:

ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-BMdyBE1OTgcAGkicARRoO_-kSQD9003I0G0

The ‘Raw Story’ report contains a partial transcript from the press briefing, and a link to the Pontiff’s schedule, which has no conflicts.

rawstory.com/news/2008/Pope_to_skip_White_House_dinner_0411.html

Last fall, when the Pope refused a meeting request from Condi Rice, I didn’t think much about it, since audiences are rare during the Pope’s vacation:

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0705338.htm

It was still a snub, because of the nature of the request and the subject at hand, but still not that big a deal. Coming to the US, and declining to dine with the president seems a bit more serious.

 

[Dale_M]

“He’s on a very ambitious official schedule,” Anita McBride, Mrs. Bush’s chief of staff, said Friday. “He’ll be meeting with U.S. bishops that night” at a university in Washington.

I understand his schedule is tight (who wouldn’t want to have dinner with the Pope?), but this seems very awkward for President Bush and those who will attend his dinner.

 

[lwest]

Personally, and I realize my personal opinion means nothing, I would like to see the Pope attend the White House dinner. it could easily be seen as a slap int he face…especially after Pres. Bush is meeting him athte airport…something he’s never done before for a visiting leader. I knwo the Pope’s schedule is tight but Pres. Bush is our country’d leader…never to be considered equal to Our Pope, of course, but a leader nonetheless. And after all the effort he’s going through, even though he’s not Catholic. but I’m sure the Pope has his reasons and I pray they are good ones.

 

[joseph_virgen]

he’s going to be eighty-one years old. that, is old. he needs all his God given streangth for more important things than to sit and talk with a bunch of millionairs. is it a statement? of course it is.

he, and rightly stated so, is more interested in the sick, the poor, and the lonely.

and trust me, the president knows this fact.
hopefully others will too.

 

[rlg94086]

Nice gossip thread. I’m sure the pope would approve.

 

[lwest]

At least we’re not out there with signs protetesting for gay marriage or married priests. (how silly is that, huh?) I respect and trust the Pope’s decision but, politically, it doesn’t look good. I think it’s cool how President Bush is meeting him at the airport. Something that he hasn’t done for anyone before and he’s not even Catholic!! (If I’m being redundant, it’s because i’m not quite awake yet…still need more coffee)

 

[AndyF]

I thought it odd that the White House is holding a dinner to honor the Pope, but the Pope won’t be attending:

ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-BMdyBE1OTgcAGkicARRoO_-kSQD9003I0G0

The ‘Raw Story’ report contains a partial transcript from the press briefing, and a link to the Pontiff’s schedule, which has no conflicts.

rawstory.com/news/2008/Pope_to_skip_White_House_dinner_0411.html

Last fall, when the Pope refused a meeting request from Condi Rice, I didn’t think much about it, since audiences are rare during the Pope’s vacation:

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0705338.htm

It was still a snub, because of the nature of the request and the subject at hand, but still not that big a deal. Coming to the US, and declining to dine with the president seems a bit more serious.

I’m glad he isn’t. I wouldn’t want a “Jackson” type side taking Pope either.

AndyF

 

[lwest]

a “Jackson side taking Pope thing?” Huh?

 

[rlg94086]

a “Jackson side taking Pope thing?” Huh?

Took me a minute, but I think he is referring to a pope acting like Jesse Jackson and taking sides politically.

 

[lwest]

Thus inviting the question: Is having dinner with someone synonomous with taking sides with him? Did Pope JPII have dinner with Castro when he went to Cuba? I saw them in a picture together (which doesn’t indicate dinner, I know). Not sure what the Pope rules are.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

At least we’re not out there with signs protetesting for gay marriage or married priests. (how silly is that, huh?) I respect and trust the Pope’s decision but, politically, it doesn’t look good. I think it’s cool how President Bush is meeting him at the airport. Something that he hasn’t done for anyone before and he’s not even Catholic!! (If I’m being redundant, it’s because i’m not quite awake yet…still need more coffee)

I think it’s for show.

What I want to know is what did Bush say to the world leaders around him during the Sign of Peace at JP2’s funeral?

And yes, I’ll admit it. I don’t like Bush. I used to. I voted for him once and have regretted for the past five years.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I suspect that if the Pope wants to express disapproval of U.S. policies in some manner, he’ll do it straight up, like JPII admonished Mr. & Mrs. Clinton about their pro-abortion policies. Guess all we have to do is listen to what the Pope actually says.

 

[system]

I think it’s for show.

This pope just gets more and more interesting!

Remember the very carefully worded reponse to the Muslim world after he quote a pope from centuries ago? He was diplomatic, but stood his ground.

Also with the Jewish world when some of them were outraged that the Catholics would pray for their conversion. The pope was diplomatic, but did not change our religion to suit anyone else.

So, yes, this latest “scheduling conflict” is in a way “for show”

This pope and the one before him warned of the human tragedy that comes with war, but was ignored by Bush. as I recall this administration even hired lawyers to see how the Iraq thing could fit into the “Just War” principles of the Catholic faith.

All that aside, the Pope is the head of a GLOBAL faith of over 1 billion people. My math is rusty, but I think we only have about 4 to 5 % of that faith here in America. And since the pope’s job is based on the saving of immortal souls, his job is actually way more important than the occupant of Pennsylvania ave. always was - always will be. (IMHO)

So anyway, it was good that number 43 of the USA picked up number 265 of the papal line, and offered him a state dinner, but this pope has people to talk to!

 

[Hastrman]

This pope and the one before him warned of the human tragedy that comes with war, but was ignored by Bush. as I recall this administration even hired lawyers to see how the Iraq thing could fit into the “Just War” principles of the Catholic faith.

I’d expect a German and a Pole, especially geniuses like them, to be able to grasp the obvious fact that pacifism causes wars. British pacifism caused World War I (the Germans wouldn’t have invaded Belgium if they hadn’t thought England would stay out), and it also caused World War II (Sudetenland? Heard of it?).

But unfortunately the Church has to be in the world, and the Popes have to work with the worldview they’re given. Once that meant propping up the Austro-Hungarian empire at the expense of Poland and Bohemia (and the faith, actually). Now it means kowtowing to moronic European ideas about war and, especially, crime.

I’m sure one of these days it’ll mean giving in to some stupid American attitude, of course–probably when we’re the only place they can go after the Europeans they’re so concerned to impress don’t intervene to prevent Muslims turning St. Peter’s into a Mosque.

And incidentally, the Iraq War does fit Catholic Just War doctrine, since removing a tyrant is grounds, in and of itself, for a just war, at least in the thinking of, among others, some guy called Aquinas. The question then becomes whether or no it’s prudent.

 

[jmeyer3131]

I read an article elsewhere about this. If I can find it, I’ll link it.

What I read is that the White House already knew that the Pope wouldn’t be able to make it, but went ahead and scheduled it anyway. Nobody was snubbing anybody.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

This pope just gets more and more interesting!

Remember the very carefully worded reponse to the Muslim world after he quote a pope from centuries ago? He was diplomatic, but stood his ground.

Also with the Jewish world when some of them were outraged that the Catholics would pray for their conversion. The pope was diplomatic, but did not change our religion to suit anyone else.

So, yes, this latest “scheduling conflict” is in a way “for show”

This pope and the one before him warned of the human tragedy that comes with war, but was ignored by Bush. as I recall this administration even hired lawyers to see how the Iraq thing could fit into the “Just War” principles of the Catholic faith.

All that aside, the Pope is the head of a GLOBAL faith of over 1 billion people. My math is rusty, but I think we only have about 4 to 5 % of that faith here in America. And since the pope’s job is based on the saving of immortal souls, his job is actually way more important than the occupant of Pennsylvania ave. always was - always will be. (IMHO)

So anyway, it was good that number 43 of the USA picked up number 265 of the papal line, and offered him a state dinner, but this pope has people to talk to!

I was talking about Bush’s showing up today when the Holy Father arrived, nothing else.

I love the Holy Father and despise the pResident.

 

[Hastrman]

I was talking about Bush’s showing up today when the Holy Father arrived, nothing else.

I love the Holy Father and despise the pResident.

I love the Holy Father, am rather fond of the president, and would not waste $0.85 on a bullet to shoot you.

Besides it being an insult to the bullet.

 

[jmeyer3131]

I read an article elsewhere about this. If I can find it, I’ll link it.

What I read is that the White House already knew that the Pope wouldn’t be able to make it, but went ahead and scheduled it anyway. Nobody was snubbing anybody.

I wasn’t able to find the story again yet, but did find an interesting view on why the White House would sponsor this dinner knowing the Pope couldn’t attend:

*Is there another story behind this that political reporters are overlooking? What is the purpose of throwing a big party at the White House if the guest of honour can’t make it? It must be to please the people who attend. And who’s attending? White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said they would be “leaders from the Catholic community from all over the country who are in town for that visit.”

Is there some election year/Catholic vote angle in this?*

This opinon came from here:

blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2008/04/15/anything-behind-the-benedict-white-house-dinner-story/

 

[Hastrman]

If you get your news from Reuters…I got this bridge I’d like to sell you.

 

[system]

Wow! Unexpected rant ?

I’d expect a German and a Pole, especially geniuses like them, to be able to grasp the obvious fact that pacifism causes wars.

And yet, they both spoke out against this war - go figure.

British pacifism caused World War I (the Germans wouldn’t have invaded Belgium if they hadn’t thought England would stay out),

and all these years they’ve been teaching us it was that assassination in Yugoslavia?

and it also caused World War II (Sudetenland? Heard of it?).

Yes - but now you’re just getting personal - ad hominem - heard of it?

I’m sure one of these days it’ll mean giving in to some stupid American attitude,

I have that same fear! But I think we’re thinking about different attitudes

And incidentally, the Iraq War does fit Catholic Just War doctrine,

well, I keep seeing some people try to prove that to others, especially on this board, but both sides end up unhappy.

In any case, this man seems to be a good successor to Peter and is not influenced by politicians, pressure groups, pretend intellectuals, and other outside distraction that could impede his mission. Viva la Papa!