The Pope and CNN

[Japher]

The pope did offer assylum to Saddam... Not sure what the says, but...

GePap: in your response to Ned you make claims (seemingly) that the pope is of moral clarity, nor do you have sole claim to 'good'", by indicating that Ned was not since he opposed the pope, indirectly. Do really believe that the pope is "good"? Or a fountain for "moral clarity"?

I am not going to get in to a pope-bashing mode, though I do not appreciate him, but making such accusations about someone who you have no real knowledge of is absurd. Especially since popes throughout the centuries have themselves justified wars, slaughters, and mindless killings. What is it that makes the leader of faith so morally just?

I think that pope is harboring not only Saddam, but other terrorists of the world that are being sought out. If this is the case, will America attack the Vatacin? Most likely not. Yet, what does that say about the pope? It is not the popes position to carry out the works of god, but to deliver and ensure that the works of god are adhered to by man... Is he doing this?

Speaking out agains the war is something I would expect from the pope. Yet, this does not mean that he did not do it for alternative reasons other than "that's the way of the lord."

[Ned]

DetroitDave, I would almost agree with this. Saddam may have left the Christians in his country alone. Tariq Aziz, after all, was a Christian.

But, would the same have been true in other parts of the world where radical Islam is strong?

The Pope continues to express his concern that the Muslim community not attack Christians because of US/UK actions. Why? Because the US and the UK are perceived to be "Christian" nations by the world of Islam.

I still think this is the major reason the pope took the position he did. The other positions are PC fobs that provide a smokescreen for what he was really concerned about.

[Arrian]

Oh, things would be much better if could just go back to the good 'ole days of warmongering Popes. Those guys were so much fun!

-Arrian

[GePap]

Originally posted by Japher
The pope did offer assylum to Saddam... Not sure what the says, but...

GePap: in your response to Ned you make claims (seemingly) that the pope is of moral clarity, nor do you have sole claim to 'good'", by indicating that Ned was not since he opposed the pope, indirectly. Do really believe that the pope is "good"? Or a fountain for "moral clarity"?

I am not going to get in to a pope-bashing mode, though I do not appreciate him, but making such accusations about someone who you have no real knowledge of is absurd. Especially since popes throughout the centuries have themselves justified wars, slaughters, and mindless killings. What is it that makes the leader of faith so morally just?

I think that pope is harboring not only Saddam, but other terrorists of the world that are being sought out. If this is the case, will America attack the Vatacin? Most likely not. Yet, what does that say about the pope? It is not the popes position to carry out the works of god, but to deliver and ensure that the works of god are adhered to by man... Is he doing this?

Speaking out agains the war is something I would expect from the pope. Yet, this does not mean that he did not do it for alternative reasons other than "that's the way of the lord."

We are not talking about "Popes throught the centuries", we are talking about this Pope. I disagree greatly with this pope's conservative Caholic agenda, but one thing I do know is that this pope, the man who has travelled more than any world leader in god knows how long, if ever, and has spoken directly to more human beings in person that any other human being , simply can't be accused of turning a blind eye to human misery, specialy since he lived through some of the worst cases of it personally.

As for your whole "harboring argument". I have no clue what you are talking about. I would add that the Church has this notion of sanctuary that applies to all human beings.

I don;t think the Pope is a fountain of moral clarity, but unlike Ned, I don;t see the Pope labelling his opponents evil, wicked and aganist human decency, like Ned decries.

[Japher]

I don;t think the Pope is a fountain of moral clarity, but unlike Ned, I don;t see the Pope labelling his opponents evil, wicked and aganist human decency, like Ned decries.

I agree with you. Yet, should not the pope abide by the laws of his god? Whether they are evil, wicked, etc. is not for the pope to decide... That is something only god is qualified to judge. According to Exodus 21:12, however, the pope should support the seeking out those who commited war crimes, and those who have taken life (on both sides)... this doesn't seem to be the case.

[monolith94]

Those raging papists are tryin ta take over tha world!!!

[Ned]

GePap said,

"I don;t think the Pope is a fountain of moral clarity, but unlike Ned, I don;t see the Pope labelling his opponents evil, wicked and aganist human decency, like Ned decries."

What I would like for the popes, more than anything else, is to stand for the betterment of a mankind. What I condemn in this pope is his moral selectivity. He refuses to acknowledge the barbarities of Saddam and his régime, while at the same time calling on the United States to end its death penalty. How bizarre!

[GePap]

Originally posted by Japher
I agree with you. Yet, should not the pope abide by the laws of his god? Whether they are evil, wicked, etc. is not for the pope to decide... That is something only god is qualified to judge. According to Exodus 21:12, however, the pope should support the seeking out those who commited war crimes, and those who have taken life (on both sides)... this doesn't seem to be the case.

Hmmm. if only God is qualified to judge Good and evil, what the heck was the US and Uk admin.'s doing? As for the seeking out part: when has the pope decried the sending of war criminals to trial? Can someone find the paragraph in his speeches? The question here was one of pre-emptive attack and whether it met the requirements of a just war. The Pope felt it didn't.

What I would like for the popes, more than anything else, is to stand for the betterment of a mankind. What I condemn in this pope is his moral selectivity. He refuses to acknowledge the barbarities of Saddam and his régime, while at the same time calling on the United States to end its death penalty. How bizarre!

What does the betterment of mankind entail, Ned? Every action has unintended consequences. It will be decades until the unintended consuequences of this war, which will be by far the most numerous of the consuquences, are sorted out. If, when that final tally comes, the scales tilt a little to the plus side for humanity, then you can say this war was for the betterment of Mankind. Until then you have been sorely premature.

On the second part: if the Pope fails to denounce Saddam to your liking, fine, he is wrong in that. But failure to point out one moral evil does not preclude him from pointing out another, specially if he feels he has a much better chance of reaching one audience (the US) than another (the Baathists).

[Felch]

Originally posted by Japher
According to Exodus 21:12, however, the pope should support the seeking out those who commited war crimes, and those who have taken life (on both sides)... this doesn't seem to be the case.

The Catholic Church prefers to look to the Gospels for guidance, rather than the Old Testament. It is, after all, the Christian Church. And time and time again, the message Jesus preached was one of forgiveness, reconcilliation, and the redemption of man. That's what sanctuary is about, giving people another chance no matter what.

[Ben Kenobi]

Japher:

The passage in question:

Exodus 21:12-14

"Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. However, if he does not do it intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate. But if a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my altar and put him to death."

In the context, this could be used as an argument for the death penalty, but not in the case of pre-emptive war, which is the problem at hand.

[Q Classic]

ned, i'm sorry you feel that way about our holy father.

if you choose to view the pope in a negative light, simply because you feel he is being inconsistent with his beliefs when he has explained it as best he can, even after some have mentioned that the pope's infallibility (unerring rightness in moral judgement) regards only religions matters...

well, that's that. besides, it's not like the us itself has ever been that open and welcoming to all of us papists, nee?

[Ned]

GePap, So you agree the Pope has a double standard. He swats at flies in America while ignoring the wholesale slaughter of innocents in Iraq. You say it is because he can influence America but cannot influence the Ba'ath party. Nonsense, I say. Saddam did everything in his power to cover up the true nature of his regime. Witness how he handled CNN. The withering light of Papal rebuke may have done wonders. But the Pope, the coward that he is, focused instead on the US!

I say coward because he was unwilling to put at risk Christians and Churches in Islamic countries in order to save millions of Muslims from being tortured and killed. This is the same kind of heroism demonstated by Pope Pius XII during WWII when he refused to complain about the wholesale slaughter of Jews and Gypsies because he feared Hitler's reaction against Catholics.

[Q Classic]

ned, out of curiosity, do you have any respect for anybody in the anti-war crowd?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
ned, i'm sorry you feel that way about our holy father.

if you choose to view the pope in a negative light, simply because you feel he is being inconsistent with his beliefs when he has explained it as best he can, even after some have mentioned that the pope's infallibility (unerring rightness in moral judgement) regards only religions matters...

well, that's that. besides, it's not like the us itself has ever been that open and welcoming to all of us papists, nee?

Q Cubed, the Pope is the leader of a two thousand year old Church. He represents over a billion Catholics. He is uniquely positioned to be a force for good in this world. To have a man in this position who is focused on critizing the United States while real evil stalks this world is an abomination.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
ned, out of curiosity, do you have any respect for anybody in the anti-war crowd?

No.