Is the Pope protesting US policy?

[system]

Hamstring - don’t make me use your own words against you. It’s so easy to do, and you will look so foolish. Trying to practice Christian charity prevents me - at the moment.

First you write a post calling the popes geniuses,(14) and then follow with a post minutes later calling them stupid.(19) And you’re worried about my brain? HA! Many readers are playing armchair diagnosis with that contradiction.

Why would I add you to my ignore? How cowardly are you? I ignore no one and cyberbullies are the most fun to watch - they always self-destruct:thumbsup:

Oh well, maybe just a couple lines:

JPII’s statements on war and the death penalty were tendentious, irrational, had no reference to evidence, and were essentially emotionalistic.

In other words, to be blunt, stupid.

tendentious
word of the day toilet paper, Hammy?

I probably ought not to have said that, out of respect for the chair of Peter, but I was robbed of much of my patience by people who think Pope is a feminine noun lecturing me.

Yes? Really? A poster you called Child, Boy, and Sixth grader ROBBED YOU of your self-control? Says alot about you.

Actually, child, I was simply referring to the fact that your interpretation of the causes of the First World War is not generally encountered after middle school.

Oh - yes, I mentioned that 2 popes spoke out against Iraq, and you brought in strawmen of WWI, WWII. And since your history of those was written by Japanese Anime artists, you must have it right.

As for my hobbies: who’s being ad hominem now?

ME - a poor christian today:blush:

How is it an ad hominem to say, “Events in these Popes’ homelands should have taught them something, but haven’t”?

The arrogance it takes to say that YOU KNOW what either popes learned from wars in THEIR homelands speaks volumes. I can’t outdo that one!

Obviously you don’t read at a high enough grade level to address my points, so please add me to your ignore list.

Points?
Sarcasm - yes.
Strawmen - yes
Derision - yes
points- NONE

For the record - I would tell you some of the places I taught, but you would find a way to ridicule that, too.

Do you spend all your time stringing together irrationalities, and getting Italian wrong?

Si! Tu se una bestia!

I suppose it keeps you off the streets, but maybe you need a hobby. Perhaps you ought to look into comics and anime–those are entertainments that actually engage parts of the brain above the stem. And they keep you indoors and away from 3 card monte scams, which in your case I’m guessing is a plus.

I liked it the first time I read it, but on second reading, it just falls flat. C- hamstring.

 

[Hastrman]

I am no longer rising to your bait, max37.

I admit I was a bit arrogant in dealing with you, and in stating the opinion of a vast number of (Western) historians of the World Wars, and in my strange belief that the past does have lessons for our behavior in the present.

I admit I was less respectful of the Holy Father than I should have been.

I admit I was rude in my last post–and I apologized. So apologize for:

• Caricaturing my opinions as results of my hobbies.
• Making fun of my name.
• Refusing to look at my arguments (admittedly partly my fault, for not padding them enough for you).
• For calling me an animal in Italian.
• For accusing me of using tendentious–which is the only word for it–because of word of the day toilet paper.
• And for getting, in essence, off topic–because rather than responding to the points I was indeed making, you simply adjourned to insult me.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Oh - yes, I mentioned that 2 popes spoke out against Iraq

WHO, among all these people who allege that JPII and Benedict said the war in Iraq is “immoral” or “unjust” on the part of the U.S. is going to produce a direct quote of either one of them, from a reliable source, saying it? Not an interpretation. Not secondary hearsay. Not some speculation about what the Pope thinks because of this or that. The real thing. The direct words of the Pope.

I have been asking that on various threads for months, and nobody has done it. I don’t think either one exists. Produce the goods or give it up.

Waiting…

 

[LCMS_No_More]

If you mean 50% of Americans, it is not anywhere near that number. I’m sure the percentage of people who have a “visceral, gut wrenching hatred” of him is actually quite small. Disapproval does not equal hatred. Personally, I think people who actually feel that way are unbalanced.

Which are the unbalanced? The ones who disapprove of him (I am one of these…very strongly disapprove) or those who hate him (they always have)?

 

[ribozyme]

If you mean 50% of Americans, it is not anywhere near that number. I’m sure the percentage of people who have a “visceral, gut wrenching hatred” of him is actually quite small. Disapproval does not equal hatred. Personally, I think people who actually feel that way are unbalanced.

I do have a “visceral, gut wrenching hatred” of Bush. His policies are the oppose the spirit of Rawlsianism.

 

[rlg94086]

Which are the unbalanced? The ones who disapprove of him (I am one of these…very strongly disapprove) or those who hate him (they always have)?

Hatred, of course…as stated. There is nothing “unbalanced” about disapproving of someone’s performance as a president, disappointment with his policies, etc. Personally, I even think “loathe” and “despise” are strong words to describe feelings for anyone, unless they represent great evil.

Do you really, in your heart, think Bush is an evil man? If so, then, yes, I would describe you as unbalanced. I save the word “evil” for people that take pleasure in torture, killing, etc. Regardless of how you feel about the president’s policies of war, he is not a sadist.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Hatred, of course…as stated. There is nothing “unbalanced” about disapproving of someone’s performance as a president, disappointment with his policies, etc. Personally, I even think “loathe” and “despise” are strong words to describe feelings for anyone, unless they represent great evil.

Do you really, in your heart, think Bush is an evil man? If so, then, yes, I would describe you as unbalanced. I save the word “evil” for people that take pleasure in torture, killing, etc. Regardless of how you feel about the president’s policies of war, he is not a sadist.

We don’t know that. I think his policies betray him as a person who has no moral qualms about ignoring human rights among other moral atrocities that I can’t even begin to describe.

But, hey, he says he’s pro-life and even makes token gestures to keep up the good face, so he’s obviously a good and decent guy.

That being said, I did vote for him in 2000. I was very disappointed by the actions he took after the two attacks on our soil (people forget the anthrax attacks). He did everything possible to arrogate imperial power unto himself but little concrete steps to actually protect the American people from harm. So do I dislike him? Oh, yeah, you betcha.

And this was before I learned about Catholic social teaching.

 

[Sheeniac]

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.

The dinner is for Catholic dignitaries. According to the blog theanchoress (who cited it back, but I forget from where), the Pope does not eat publicly.

 

[bengal_fan]

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…

personally, and i realize my personal opinion means nothing as well, i think we need a good slap in the face!

 

[SoCalRC]

SoCalRC;3565940:

He has expressed disapproval directly on his previous meetings with Bush,QUOTE]

Please quote the Pope directly, in his words as he spoke them to George Bush, and give the source.

We’ll wait.

Try reading my posts more carefully. We are not privy to a transcript, we have to rely on the characterization of the meeting from the Vatican. Normally this would be someone like Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone (Vatican’s Secretary of State).

Sometimes the explanations are more detailed than others. For example Bertone stated that the issue of refugees in Iraq, particularly the fate of Christian refugees, was raised in the June meeting. The issue had been raised the previous November by the
USCCB and has subsuquently been raised by other Vatican spokesmen.

This isn’t terribly hard to find. Go to Google and enter “Bush Meets Pope”. You’ll get a ton of reports (CNN, CBS, NPR, etc.) on Bush’s first papal meeting right on the first page. However, you’ll generally find that European news outlets and Catholic news services do a better job of covering the Vatican’s public stance and statements, for example:

insidethevatican.com/newsflash/2007/newsflash-jun10-07.htm

Or

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0707126.htm

Since we spend a lot of time in the US emersed in overly simplistic, often missleading, overt Evangelical rhetoric, the Vatican’s more nuanced, lower key style can be jarring. But it is a consequence of our faith. Love and unity across huge divisions simply requires a lot more sophisticated world view than a message of superiority and hate.

No, you don’t get spoon fed simple ideas. And, yes, the moral bar is often dauntingly high. But it is worth the effort.

 

[rlg94086]

Try reading my posts more carefully. We are not privy to a transcript, we have to rely on the characterization of the meeting from the Vatican. Normally this would be someone like Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone (Vatican’s Secretary of State).

Sometimes the explanations are more detailed than others. For example Bertone stated that the issue of refugees in Iraq, particularly the fate of Christian refugees, was raised in the June meeting. The issue had been raised the previous November by the
USCCB and has subsuquently been raised by other Vatican spokesmen.

This isn’t terribly hard to find. Go to Google and enter “Bush Meets Pope”. You’ll get a ton of reports (CNN, CBS, NPR, etc.) on Bush’s first papal meeting right on the first page. However, you’ll generally find that European news outlets and Catholic news services do a better job of covering the Vatican’s public stance and statements, for example:

insidethevatican.com/newsflash/2007/newsflash-jun10-07.htm

Or

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0707126.htm

Since we spend a lot of time in the US emersed in overly simplistic, often missleading, overt Evangelical rhetoric, the Vatican’s more nuanced, lower key style can be jarring. But it is a consequence of our faith. Love and unity across huge divisions simply requires a lot more sophisticated world view than a message of superiority and hate.

No, you don’t get spoon fed simple ideas. And, yes, the moral bar is often dauntingly high. But it is worth the effort.

Hi SoCalRC,

Yes, it is indeed not a simple question, as many on both sides of the Iraq War issues seem to like to boil it down to.

For example…
insidethevatican.com/newsflash/2007/newsflash-jun10-07.htm

This is a view that has been expressed in more direct language in the past by Cardinal Ratzinger, before he had the spotlight of the papacy upon him. “It is necessary that the community of nations makes the decision, not a particular power,” the then-cardinal told Avvenire newspaper in 2002. He went on to state his personal conclusion that “the damage would be greater than the values one hopes to save.”

He also disagreed with the concept of preventative war, pointing out that it does not exist in the Catholic Catechism. Speaking in his capacity as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then-Cardinal Ratzinger explained that while “it is true that the Catechism has developed a doctrine that, on the one hand, does not exclude the fact that there are values and peoples that must be defended in some circumstances; on the other hand, it offers a very precise doctrine on the limits of these possibilities.”

Cardinal Ratzinger was always careful to temper these points by consistently acknowledging that political questions were not in his competence, that it was not heretical to disagree with the Pope on matters of war, and that the appropriate authority for making the final decision to engage in war are public officials, not the Church.

So, decisions should be made by “community of nations,” preventative war is not in the Catechism, but “it is not heretical to disagree with the Pope on matters of war,” and “the appropriate authority…are public officials.”

Further in the same article…

He did, however, clearly state that the authority to make such decisions should lie solely within the power of the United Nations (even if “the U.N. can be criticized” for a number of inadequacies) as “it is the instrument created after the war [World War II] for the coordination – including moral – of politics.”

The Vatican’s nuanced support for the United Nations is a complex topic for another article,** but it is worthwhile to point out that despite U.N. approval and international cooperation for the first Gulf War in 1991, John Paul II still condemned the war as unjustified**, as did much of the Iraqi Chaldean hierarchy

So, a UN Mandate doesn’t mean the Church will support the action. And…

What, if any, solution to the current crisis the Pope prefers has not been discussed by any Vatican official, and it is highly unlikely he would ever choose to articulate an opinion on the matter unless the Iraqi hierarchy were to unite on a position and lobby the Holy See for support. With the debate over troop withdrawal from Iraq already dominating the 2008 presidential campaign, any Vatican statements on Iraq will be scrupulously examined for hints of an opinion on the matter, just as comments by Vatican officials during the lead up to war in Iraq made headlines around the world.

My point is not that the Pope approved of the war. I agree, he and John Paul II opposed the war. However, there has been no clear indication that the US should leave. I heard Fr. Neuhaus on EWTN say that the Vatican and “the Bishops” (I’m assuming USCCB) are in agreement that the US needs to stay, better protect Iraqi Christians and help bring stability.

This is why I thought the OP of this thread was off-base. There is no evidence of a snub and no evidence that the Pope would necessarily be wagging his finger at the President regarding the current actions in Iraq.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Ridgerunner;3567763:

Try reading my posts more carefully. We are not privy to a transcript, we have to rely on the characterization of the meeting from the Vatican. Normally this would be someone like Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone (Vatican’s Secretary of State).

Sometimes the explanations are more detailed than others. For example Bertone stated that the issue of refugees in Iraq, particularly the fate of Christian refugees, was raised in the June meeting. The issue had been raised the previous November by the
USCCB and has subsuquently been raised by other Vatican spokesmen.

This isn’t terribly hard to find. Go to Google and enter “Bush Meets Pope”. You’ll get a ton of reports (CNN, CBS, NPR, etc.) on Bush’s first papal meeting right on the first page. However, you’ll generally find that European news outlets and Catholic news services do a better job of covering the Vatican’s public stance and statements, for example:

insidethevatican.com/newsflash/2007/newsflash-jun10-07.htm

Or

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0707126.htm

Since we spend a lot of time in the US emersed in overly simplistic, often missleading, overt Evangelical rhetoric, the Vatican’s more nuanced, lower key style can be jarring. But it is a consequence of our faith. Love and unity across huge divisions simply requires a lot more sophisticated world view than a message of superiority and hate.

No, you don’t get spoon fed simple ideas. And, yes, the moral bar is often dauntingly high. But it is worth the effort.

So, there is still no statement by the Pope himself that the Iraq war is immoral or unjust. Those who say it is are simply expressing their own judgments of his judgment; none that the Pope himself has stated.

 

[Hastrman]

I do have a “visceral, gut wrenching hatred” of Bush. His policies are the oppose the spirit of Rawlsianism.

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.

 

[JTBT]

WHO, among all these people who allege that JPII and Benedict said the war in Iraq is “immoral” or “unjust” on the part of the U.S. is going to produce a direct quote of either one of them, from a reliable source, saying it? Not an interpretation. Not secondary hearsay. Not some speculation about what the Pope thinks because of this or that. The real thing. The direct words of the Pope.

I have been asking that on various threads for months, and nobody has done it. I don’t think either one exists. Produce the goods or give it up.

Waiting…

foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80875,00.html
here is a “fair and balanced” story from 2003

 

[LCMS_No_More]

SoCalRC;3569794:

So, there is still no statement by the Pope himself that the Iraq war is immoral or unjust. Those who say it is are simply expressing their own judgments of his judgment; none that the Pope himself has stated.

…in public.

There, I finished the sentence for you. Free of charge.

 

[Ridgerunner]

foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80875,00.html
here is a “fair and balanced” story from 2003

Nope. Not in that one either.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Ridgerunner;3572277:

…in public.

There, I finished the sentence for you. Free of charge.

…or otherwise. Now it’s finished.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

LCMS_No_More;3573536:

…or otherwise. Now it’s finished.

Unless you were present in closed-door talks, you cannot say “or otherwise” because you simply do not know.

There are indications of what the views in the Vatican and the Pope are in relation to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, as the FauxNews story shows. It is true that Pope didn’t come out and thunder to the crowds at St. Peter’s that the invasion of Iraq would be or is an unjust war. That doesn’t mean that he said nothing about it in private, whether it be to Bush or anyone else. We do have statements from people in the Curia, though, about what the prevailing view in the Vatican was and is.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Ridgerunner;3573652:

Unless you were present in closed-door talks, you cannot say “or otherwise” because you simply do not know.

There are indications of what the views in the Vatican and the Pope are in relation to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, as the FauxNews story shows. It is true that Pope didn’t come out and thunder to the crowds at St. Peter’s that the invasion of Iraq would be or is an unjust war. That doesn’t mean that he said nothing about it in private, whether it be to Bush or anyone else. We do have statements from people in the Curia, though, about what the prevailing view in the Vatican was and is.

Of course I wasn’t in closed door talks. Nor did I pretend to know what might have been said in them. My inquiry was whether there was any direct statement of the Pope to the effect that the Iraq war is “immoral” or “unjust”. I believe I included non-public statements in the inquiry, but perhaps that was in another thread.

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.

 

[SoCalRC]

SoCalRC;3569794:

So, there is still no statement by the Pope himself that the Iraq war is immoral or unjust. Those who say it is are simply expressing their own judgments of his judgment; none that the Pope himself has stated.

Now you are changing the question. Oh well…

Actually, yes, there are many of statements against the war by both John Paul II and Benedict XVI (who also made public statements when still a Cardinal (andPrefect)). Both have addressed the subject via homily on significant Holy Feast days. And, of course, Rome (under JPII’s guidance) took extraordinary steps to try to stop the war from starting.

You are missunderstanding the typical ‘talking point’. It isn’t that the Popes have not expressed their opinions that the war is unjust, they have. The question is rather that opinion is binding.

It is a good question. Because of the forcefulness of the Pope’s position, a significant number of US Bishops wondered if Catholic politicians who voted for the war could/should be denied communion. Cardinal Ratzinger explained that, because the possibility of just war exists, and because civil authority is entrusted with evaluating certain criteria, the votes, in of themselves, did not rise to the level of Canon law (CIC 915).

This statement sometimes gets mischaracterized into a rationalization that both supporting and not supporting the war are equally valid Catholic points of view. However, that simply is not so. It is possible to dismiss the JPII and then Cardinal Ratzinger’s opinion about the application of CCC 2309, because civil authority is indicated as being ultimately responsible for the opinion. But the Popes have also raised issues of torture and the suffering of refugees.

These do not fall under CCC 2309, but under CCC 2312 and CCC 2313. Even George Weigel, one of the few Catholic theologians to argue that the Pope was incorrect about CCC 2309 with regards to Iraq, publicly conceded when Abu Graihb came to light that if torture was, in fact, US policy, that ‘just war’ would be invalided. We now know, by the President’s own admission, that the decisions to violate international law (a criteria of CCC 2313) happened at the highest levels of the government.

The question then becomes, is the Pope’s opinion on these matters binding? The common argument I hear is the same one I get for the death penalty - the Pope is not speaking infallibily, so it is not binding… But that does not really match Catholic Dogma:

"Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place. For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old, making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock. Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra

; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking." - LUMEN GENTIUM (Dogmatic Constitution of the Church), emphasis added

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

Infallibility is not a criteria for our obligations of obedience. Since things like torture and the rights being violated for the refugees are also Dogmatic (Second Vatican Council), the Pope’s opinion should be given “reverence”, and rejected only with grave misgivings and at the absolute certainty of one’s own moral conscience and, even then, awareness of the possibility for error should be maintained (CCC 1790).