Tim Blair

I look forward to seeing a papal envoy in my dentist's office when I visit for my next cleaning in March.

Was this Vatican official in full-tilt compassion mode in 1945 to lament A. Hitler's inability to get fresh salad greens into the bunker as the Red Army closed in, or to bewail the humiliating way the Soviets ultimately dumped the pulverized Fuehrer-ashes into a common sewer? If anyone thought loons were found only at North American lakes, reconsider.

This is one of many reasons why I'm an ex-Catholic. I know it's not as good a reason to leave a church as, say, a dispute over a bicycle path, but I'm shallow that way.

What next? A complete prophy? From a cowboy dentist? Do they have tooth polishing equipment? Fluoride? What type of dentistry was practiced during the Inquisition? Did Gallileo get free dental work whilst a house guest of the Vatican? How many more stupid questions does it take to muffle the drone of the Compassion Hypocrites (TM)?

Yes, but speaking of dental examinations, the only relevant question now for Howard Dean and the Left with respect to the well-being of the free world is:

"Is it safe?"

Maybe we should ask Zell...

To properly treat Saddam as a cow the Americans would have run him through a plastic ahredder and turned him into hamburger.

Tongue Boy, I am not sure that you are aware that flouridation is the most insidious plot to sap and impurify all of our natural bodily fluids...

Dave S.

Shallow you may be, Dave, but you are also wickedly, wickedly funny.

Thanks so much for your witty words. I will try to integrate them into dialogs with my lefty Catholic friends. Since, I, too, am not a very deep pond and, additionally, have very little shame, alas, I will not be able to credit you with the original thought. I'm sure you will understand.

What are these Vatican people up to?? There has to be a hidden agenda here...I just can't spot it. Trying to make up for a history of brutality and torture and repression by showing compassion for...brutal, repressive torturers? Or is this one bunch of former butchers standing up for a gang of butchers who just got caught? Vatican bumper sticker: "Saddam: not evil, just misunderstood"?? What's next, another auto de fe? "The Inquisition: a great way to test your neighbor's faith"?? "Who in the next pew is really a Jew?" Yikes...!! I thought we took care of all this a few centuries ago! Somebody explain it to me, please....

People need to remember that the Roman Catholic Church is essentially an oriental monarchy -- the last remnant of the late Roman empire. The church played an heroic role resisting communism in Easter Europe. But next to atheistic communism, this church abhores almost as much American democracy, capitalism and the secular society they foster. We invented the separation of church and state. Historically, the church has always been more comfortable with tyrants and autocrates than the unwashed mob.

People need to remember that the Roman Catholic Church is essentially an oriental monarchy -- the last remnant of the late Roman empire. The church played an heroic role resisting communism in Easter Europe. But next to atheistic communism, this church abhores almost as much American democracy, capitalism and the secular society they foster. We invented the separation of church and state. Historically, the church has always been more comfortable with tyrants and autocrates than the unwashed mob.

An Al-Jazeera correspondent (no surprise there) and an Independent reporter (hmmm, no surprise there, either!) are also concerned about Saddam's rights being violated.

Because his beard was cut.

How the US Armed Iraq - And the Importance of Being Bearded

You'd think the Catholic Church would be too busy counting the small bills paid in hush money to the boys molested by priests and even busier yet hindering U.S. state and federal criminal investigations into those molestations to find the time for such malarky, but its a tribute to the organization that they defend pedophiles and mass murderers. /snark off

Jesus, Mary and Joseph, it's hard to keep faith through my Church. I mean, what the fuck? Saddam hasn't asked for forgiveness from his fellow man, let alone through God, but we're suppose to forgive him anyway?

The Catholic Church is doubtlessly the most corrupt, vile institution on the planet.

So instead of a tongue depressor in Saddam's mouth, Padre, would you feel better if it was an altar boy's dick?

I wonder if the cardinal thinks a little boy getting buggered might find it humiliating. The catholic church should clean up its own fucking mess before passing judgement on anybody else.

The thing about the Vatican that I've been noticing lately, is that they are more European than they are Catholic. They use every opportunity to take a swipe at the U.S. In the recent sex scandal, they saw it only as an American problem--yeah right, try shaking your own trees and see what comes out. Also watch the occasional dispatches from the Pope where he defines the catholic faith and you'll see complete non-sequitor shots at feminism (and the "arrogance" therein), homosexuality and secularism. They always seem pointed at the U.S. Ticks me off, that.

The man is a rabid anti-dentite!

Mark had it right both times ;)

Perhaps the Vatican misinterprets american religiosity with the view that they will listen to a hypocrite in a collar -- any hypocrite in a collar. And this comes from an ex (but still smoke & bell friendly) Catholic

I agree with Treacher. The largest organization of Sex-Offenders on the planet worried about a brutal tyrant turned vagrant being cleaned, shaven and checked for parasites. Imagine if he were being treated for leprosy buy the evil americans! Their Christian Charity(TM) would be sent to the moon on that one.

At least he wasn't treated as badly as an altar boy at any number of Catholic parishes.

some days it is realllly hard to be a Roman Catholic. I used to think that maybe I could leave the church and become an Episcopalian but... now I have no plan B when Rome spouts idiocy.

The left is up in arms, so to speak: "We must be nice to Saddam", "He had an unhappy childhood", "Trial by an international court in a neutral country (so he will get off with a mild slap on his wrist)", "Exile to a friendly country (so that he can start all over again)", "Obviously it's good to see a dictator out of power (mournful look) BUT the war was illegal / for oil / without the approval of the UN etc." "Dignity of man, compassion", "Hand him over to the UN".
Sure this man still has a lot of supporters.

Don't you love being lectured on prisoner rights by the organization that brought us the Inquisition?

In other words, Cardinal Martino, fuck off you dictator-fellating pompous sack of shit. Time to go kiss up to Mugabe, I think.

I am reminded of the chapter "Islam Incorporated" in William Burrough's "Naked Lunch"

available to read here:

http://www.geocities.com/dr_benway_tangier/page125.html

"They could have spared us these pictures." Who is "they?" His Emminence's complaint is really with the press, is it not? The Army didn't take or publish the photos; they only allowed them. I can't think why the Vatican is deliberately not blaming the press; they haven't cut the Church any slack lately.

I read somewhere they checked his hair and beard for cyanide capsules. Maybe also his mouth. He could have suicided otherwise.

Maybe the Pope is just trying to stay aligned with the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Come on now. As a Catholic Republican (yes, Italian too), I think its unfair to blast the entire church because of the statements of one asshat cardinal. I dont think his opinions reflect those of the majority of Catholics.

Ouch! Ease up off me Catholics people! I guess we do deserve all of this, but there are some really good ones left. Is there any way we can start a Western Catholic church, instead of the Roman Catholic. The reason the priests are turning into saddamites in the first place is because the vatican won't let them get laid, and now this. I don't blame everyone's vitriol, but we're not all bad, and I'm obligated to defend them. As for the creeps in the vatican, flame on...

Ill wager a good porion of the soldiers who pulled Saadams ratty ass out of that hole were Catholic.

Lester-

Plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery. If you piss off a lefty with my comment, that's reward enough for me.

Apparently the Cardinal has never had a physical.......which may explain why no one in the Vatican seemed to be aware of his lack of a brain!

This vatican guy is just another corporate bully. You don't have to buy his product or listen to his bull shit.

His boss may have been good at pressuring the soviet union but by and large that whole crowd leaves a lot to be desired.

It is heartbreaking to see those comments from the Vatican. Between this, their overall opposition to the freeing of the Iraqi people, and the sex-abuse cover-up, it really takes a toll on one's faith. Officials in The Vatican seem to be driving the Church off the same cliff the Democrats are driving off of in their primaries.

I seem to remember that the Vatican was very "compassionate" to nazi war criminals at the end of WWII,even to the extent of helping them escape.

The first thing out of Michael Moore's big yapper was that it would be nice if ordinary Americans got that kind of free dental care, proving satire to be redundant these days.

well, what do you expect from papal saddamites? from men wearing fine robes and jewels, living in gilded splendor, pumped by pomp, ostentation and piety, bowed and scraped to by millions of faithful and dutifully attended to by altar boys, nuns and ring-kissing sycophants?

oh, the inhumanity of losing one's opulent palaces, mindless minions and earthly dominion! and never could inflicting torture, war and genocide upon the world compare to the indignity of suffering a dental exam and lice check that is video-fed 'round the globe

Bless the Vatican and its empathetic compassion

"Because his beard was cut."

Given that during his tenure as tyrannical dictator, he had no beard but a mustache, and after he was captured and shaved he had no beard but a mustache, how is shaving his beard a sign of humiliation?

Mick said - "Ill wager a good porion of the soldiers who pulled Saadams ratty ass out of that hole were Catholic."

I'll make that bet too.

It's a crying shame that the leaders of the Catholic Church are not anywhere near as good as their flock. Keep the faith, change the church.

The Left has been SO loopy lately that I want to put my own tinfoil hat on & wonder whether “inner circles” of Dems are encouraging mass leftist loopiness as a distraction from some pretty clever Macchiavellian strategies that they’re planning. The Dem mantra of “internationalism” as increasingly the default value to be prized in all affairs political comes to mind.

Yehudit -- keep in mind the critics' real program is simple anti-Americanism. If we'd left Saddam unshaven the same people would have screeched that we were humiliating him by making him look like...a guy living in a hole in the ground.

Personally, I thought the Karl Marx look suited him; was disappointed to see the restorative cosmetic work.

Although I have walked out on a couple of sermons over the last few years I continue to practice my Catholicism.

One of the great things about the Catholic Church is that it allows its members to have opposing opinions on a range of matters. As St Augustine said: On the essentials, unity; on the non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.

That is funny as shit.

Much as I hate to side with the Catholic Church, it seems to me a case can be made that the pictures taken of Saddam Hussein were designed to humiliate him and, therefore, were in contravention of the spirit if not the letter of the Geneva Convention.

[...quickly slams down CTR+ALT+DEL...]

This only proves that, although the Church is infallible, it is made up by a bunch of sinners who are fallible. It is embarrasing that members of the Church says completely stupid stuff like this at times, but it is a great reminder that us humans generally stink and we need to try harder not to. maybe martino wears dentures?

Want the Catholic church to listen to its followers? Stop putting money in the collection box, vote with your wallet. Few institutions have such a base of wealth and assests but still expect more dues from the "club members".

I know humility is a basic rule in christian life, especially for clergy, yet the cathoilic "princes" have never been backwards in coming forwards to a camera or other media when they feel the need to bleat on about their pet theories. I expect "men of God" to keep to the script and talk the God talk not get political or score cheap shots under the guise of religious teachings.

This is the last straw. Goodbye Catholicism, I'm converting to Voodoo.

At least the Vatican could have spared us the photos of the doddering old senile lump of shit they call the Pope. They could show their compassion by having him put down. A good case for euthanasia, don't you agree?

If they wanted to humilate him by looking like a cow having a physical exmination they would have shown somebody with their arm up his arse up to the examiner's shoulder.

I'm hetro, but that would have been worth seeing.

I can't believe Habib didn't think of this first! Not on the ball today?

If they wanted to humilate him thay could have dressed him as the biker from the village people (complete with arseless chaps) and made him sing "YMCA" complete with the arm waving.

While I am totally embarassed by my Church for this type of nonsense, these things are always an opportunity for ignorant Catholic bashing, bringing the worst elements out.

"freedyboy"

"At least the Vatican could have spared us the photos of the doddering old senile lump of shit they call the Pope. They could show their compassion by having him put down. A good case for euthanasia, don't you agree?"

The Church official is wrong on this, but you are even worse.

So, if we had conducted these tests behind closed doors with NO CAMERAS ALLOWED .. what would these same people be saying?!

Perhaps we should have had a makeup crew with the troops? That way, we could make him look his best for the camera.

It's good for the people of Iran to see this man, who terrorized them for 30 years, broken and de-fanged. They have a visual image to store away.

If I were one of Saddam's victims, I'd want to see the pictures. I'd want to know Saddam could no longer harm me. I'd want to see him broken and defeated.

Don't you all know the awful truth?
It was really Pavarotti! He'd dropped a bagel down the hole, and became trapped by his bulk trying to retrieve it.
The shots of him being examined were really him being fitted with microphones, so he could sing some Puccini for George Bush and the plastic turkey; the reward was to be some olive oil for his bagel, which was quite dry- it's all about the oil!!

Here's a real cowboy doing some equine dentistry: http://www.amscheqdentistry.com/gallery/images/gallery013.jpg

Heh.

The greatest terrorist organization in the history of the world has spoken - they feel "pity" and "compassion" for the worst mass murderer of the 1990s.

The real scary thing, is that President Bush agrees with the last leader of the Soviet Union that this organization's leader is:
the highest moral authority on earth.

Not only does the president honor this person, he wants to implement his organization's practices in America!
The best way to honor Pope John Paul II, truly one of the great men, is to take his teaching seriously; is to listen to his words and put his words and teachings into action here in America. This is a challenge we must accept.

Maybe we NEED a new Dark Ages???

Listen, ElCapitanAmerica, baby, when the church gets its own house in order, then it can criticise others. Like purging all the paedohile priests. But since it took the Vatican 400 years to apologise for their treatment of Gallileo, I won't hold my breath waiting.

In the meantime, the stink of sanctimonious hypocrisy is overwhelming.

Sorry Freddyboy, You went way over the top on your comments. The vitriol should be directed at this one cardinal who spent time at the U.N. as a representative from the Vatican. Don't villify every catholic leader because of this one asshat. You are anti-catholic which is nearly as bad as being an anti-semite. Tone it down.

Just curious why its only nearly as bad and not equally as bad as being an anti-Semite. Yeah, this cardinal is a dipshit and Im truly embarassed by him, but all of this anti-Catholic rhetoric sound just like the psychopaths over at indymedia. Just replace 'Bush' with 'Pope' and 'Vatican' with 'Whitehouse'. I was hoping that Right thinking people were a little more discerning than your typical patchouli/berkenstock weenie.

There's nothing wrong with exposing the shameful truth about the Catholic church and it certainly isn't ignorant - in fact I'm very well informed on the vile murderous history of the Church. Also, just to make it clear I don't hold the other branches of Chrisitianity in any higher regard.

As Voltaire said, the world will not be safe until the last priest has been strangled with the guts of the last king.

Now, now, let's keep a sense of perspective about this. Saddam may have engaged in brutal and unnecessary wars, terrorized his countrymen and slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people in the most gruesome ways.

But how can that compare to the Israelis laying siege to the Church of the Nativity, an action which did draw Vatican condemnation?

Getting your teeth checked for lice is an important part of good hygene. Same with flossing your hair.

Hey; your Eminence: Leave any Jesus principles out of this. Who do you think you are? A Christian or sumtin!!!!!

Everyone, Im sure, has been duly informed of all the wrongs commited in the name of the church. Anyone whos attented a freshman level Western Civ class can and will often revel in spewing forth the same old tired rant (usually loaded with lofty self-important adjectives like 'vile'), that was fed to them by their underpaid grad-assistant teachers. Just like the leftists, you try to justify your hatred and demonstrate your ignorance by refusing to acknowledge the vast amounts of good done by the church. Besides, who gives a shit what Voltaire said?

Well, this commentary has broken down rather rapidly into an intellectual dwarf mud-wrestling match.

I agree neither Catholics nor the Catholic Church should be condemned because of this fool of a Cardinal.

A small number of the comments here betray some anti-Catholic bigotry and the RCC should be praised for bringing monotheism to much of the world. However, as someone familiar with Jewish history, I have to say that the church has not always been a voice of moral authority.

Sometimes things are ambiguous, I'll admit. It is estimated that 50,000 or more Jewish children were entrusted by their parents to Catholics and Catholic institutions to save them from the Nazis. It is wonderful that the children were saved, but they were raised as Catholics and the RCC has consistently refused to release their names so that relatives might find them.

Pig Head Sucker wrote "As St Augustine said: On the essentials, unity; on the non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity."

Actually, St. Augustine didn't say that. St. Vincent Lérin first said this:

"In essentials unity, in doubtful things liberty, in all things, charity."

freddyboy, you really make this comment section sound like indymedia. This just goes to prove, that idiocy is a non-partisan disease.

Freddyboy, you shame yourself. The Pope is far from perfect, but he has done good for the world, which you would know if you had actually done a minimal amount of research before you went off on your rant. With a little study, you would also know that most Catholic priests- I would even say the vast majority- are good men, the kind you'll never hear about on the news because they just go about their business helping people. You're just using this topic as a jumping-off point, as an excuse to bash Catholics. So stop it, please.

Who would have thought so many blinkered papist bigots could have come out of the woodwork? I suspect I must have struck a nerve in the American bible belt.

We've got people claiming priests are good men (the ones who aren't abusing children); that the Church is responsible for introducing monotheism (is that something good? Probably Hindus wouldn't think so); that somehow criticising the Church is undergraduate(ie puerile.) I see I have my work cut out responding to these rednecks.

WAKE UP FOLKS! THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IS TOTALLY COMPROMISED! 1,000 years of flawed history cannot be ignored. Jackasses like the Ayatollah Martino are what you have to expect from a religious establishment which is totally remote from the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Nice buildings, paintings and music though, you must admit, Freddyboy.

Rouxfus

Interesting. You're right, Augustine didn't say it, but did Vincent (of) Lerin?

see:

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/augustine/quote.html

...anyway I stand corrected.

Wow. All the comments do answer my original question ("What are these people up to?"), don't they? I have learned a few things....so thanks to all for the discussion... two reactions: (1) It's never relevant to argue that because a person or church or organization has done some good, we can excuse or ignore the evil it has done. Hold everyone accountable, balance nothing out! (2) This Vatican official who spoke out on the treatment of Saddam, etc, is part of an organization that can and does take an official line. He could have been prevented from making his remarks, and I suspect he cleared them before presenting them to the world. I believe he is probably an official spokesman of a sort, in other words, although the Vatican can deliberately leave that sort of vague. Not good!! -- BTW, yes, ODESSA and the Vatican did have close links, and yes, the pope at the time ignored the Nazi death camps, and No, the existence of a number of good priests does not somehow excuse or mitigate the sins of the sodomites (not "Saddamites," those folks generally seem to prefer raping women). The Vatican must take responsibility for its inaction and coverup. Bad people in high positions, IMHO. Yes, that includes the pope. Sorry, R Catholics out there, but your church defies reform, and while I don't hold you ressponsible for that, I think you should have a close look at the Anglican (Episcopal) alternative. I know I would if I were in your very uncomfortable position! Oh, my....sometimes we seem to learn so little and so slowly from history....

"Sorry, R Catholics out there, but your church defies reform'

..yea, that's what attracts us.

Oh that is just disgusting. The Cardinal's pity and compassion turn my stomach. 

Even if Saddam had been treated "like a cow" - that would still make him a h*ll of a lot better off than the 300,000 - 1,000,000 human beings whose deaths are on his head, if not his conscience (or lack thereof). 

If seeing the decrepit ex-dictator on television - confirming that he's actually in the control and custody of the U.S. military - provides the Iraqis even some small measure of psychological comfort, then do they not deserve that?   Or does the Cardinal believe that Bremer should have flown in the Queer-Eye Fab Five to fabulize him for a personal press conference?  For the love of God, man!  Even the French managed to paste on a congratulatory grin!

I say that man's turn on the world's stage has come to an end, and that he isn't forced to gnaw off his own flesh is already kindness far more than he deserves!

If there is an Almighty God, then forgiving Saddam is surely a job only He is great enough to do.  Blessed be God forever, He will rule in eternity in the afterlife - and have whatever time He wants or needs to attend to Saddam.  In the temporal world however, we mere mortals are all largely better off when tyranny is brought to an end and crimes are rewarded with punishment - preferably of the deterring kind. 

As long as the Cardinal cares to cast stones, he might ought to first reflect upon whether or not the nazi-collaborating quasi-state he represents is, in fact, without sin...  Meanwhile I, for one, was unaware that Vatican officials had experienced such wild success ministering to the earthly suffering of all God's children that they've no-one left in the flock to comfort but the megalomaniacal mass-murderers.  Kim Jong-Il must be happily readying for his baptism into the One True Faith.  But then, the recent refusal by the present occupant of the throne of St. Peter to condemn child-molesting pedophile priests, reveals the Vatican to be more comfortable in its role of protecting and coddling criminals and sinners, than attending to the agony of the victims.  I'm left to conclude that in the eyes of the Cardinal "the meek should shut their d*mn mouths fer crissakes, they're inheriting the eff-ing earth already and now what, they want justice too?!"  

Jesus would be so proud.

The Cardinal's comments are nothing compared to this idiocy.

This kind of rubbish is light years away from the robust and unflinching sense of justice that any Church should stand for. I mean really, 'our deepest respect'? That is truly, utterly crazy. Total madness.

I'm not surprised at the anti-Church invective coming out based on this. It may not be all accurate but it's understandable. The bottom line is a church official defending a mass murderer.

(Re-posted the link from the Resistance is Futile thread as it is more pertinent here.)

Perhaps if it had been explained to the Cardinal, the examiner was really conducting an excorsism of a cowman possessed of evil, well documented.

Again, the ignorance demonstrated in this thread is something to expect in Indymedia. Very distressing.

ilibcc:
> This kind of rubbish is light years away from the robust and unflinching sense of justice that any Church should stand for. I mean really, 'our deepest respect'? That is truly, utterly crazy. Total madness.

That's a Catholic social justice org from Sydney Australia, not the official Papal opinion. That you take the comments from the head of this group, an Australian one as that to paint the Church is beyond comprehension. This is a global Church with a wide variety of opinions, not a one man Chruch based on your local mall. In addition, as much as I dislike Saddam and would like to see him hung, the person is correct saying he is one of God's creatures and is consistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church. And surprise surprise, he's against the death penalty. This is nothing new, that's the official position as well as opposition to abortion. What's so immoral about those positions?

> I'm not surprised at the anti-Church invective coming out based on this. It may not be all accurate but it's understandable.

That's like saying it's ok to be upset at Jews becomes of what some Jewish groups said. It doesn't justify it.

-----------------------

The original article, again, while I disagree with Cardinal he's not expressing the opionion of the Pope or the official position of the Catholic Church. He's not even a spokesperson for the Holy See.

Yes, the Church was against this war, I disagree with them. However, as opposed to radical Islamists, I rather have a Church that errs on the side of not encouraging wars, than one that goes back to the middle ages and gives them OK. Let presidents and generals decide when to go to war, not religions.

this is only about one cardinal's comments?? what about the vatican pronouncement that any u.s./coalition military action taken against iraq would not be a 'just war' without u.n. backing? how was a higher moral good served by lending de facto support to a nasty despot just as a saner portion of the world was trying to leverage him out of power?

what about the photo ops the vatican afforded tariq aziz before the war? the world was treated to images of church officials fawning over aziz and of him kneeling in 'sincere' supplication before an altar, a christian altar that his fellow ba'athists have systematically purged from iraq, along with worshippers. the chief apologist and liar for hussein bowed his head for 'peace', and the propaganda pictures went 'round the world

where has been the vatican's loud and ringing condemnation of hussein's tyranny over the years? where are vatican expressions of joy that iraqi's have been liberated from a particularly brutal oppression?

one cardinal's sniffy comments about hussein's dignity being violated are not in the least surprising. charlotte

As I said, I have no problem with the Catholic Church not putting their impremateur on wars. That's none of their business, let them always advocate for peace. Let presidents and generals make those decisions.

It's not as if the Pope decided to excommunicate those who believe we had to kick out Saddam by force.

If you want religions approving wars, you are more than welcome to convert to radical Islamism.

> where has been the vatican's loud and ringing condemnation of hussein's tyranny over the years? where are vatican expressions of joy that iraqi's have been liberated from a particularly brutal oppression?

The Vatican has conmemed opressive regimes all over the world all the time, as a matter of fact, when I lived in Panama under Noriega, guess were all of us used to meet for the opposition. It wasn't at the US embassy, or at your house, it was in the Churches. And the government wanted to crack down on the Church. What about Archbishop Oscar Romero, he didn't conmdem anything in El Salvador, he didn't get killed? How about the Jesuits all over the 3rd world?

The Church has conmemed Iraqi abuses in the past, unfortunatly the Pope didn't believe this war was necessary. So we disagree, no big deal. You're saying that if you don't agree with the war you are inherintly evil or something. Please.

ElCapitanAmerica, these spokespeople are seen as part of the Church which is their intention. The 'social justice' ones appear to be using the church to further their political agendas. If they are not Catholic, they should just shut up with the 'Catholic' already. Are we all agreed? Yes. It's common sense.

You say 'the person is correct saying he (Saddam) is one of God's creatures and is consistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church' - well it may be strictly correct, but it's not something you walk around spouting right at this particular juncture in history. These people are on another planet. How about a little tact? It's not good for the PR, I mean really, saying Saddam deserves our 'deepest respect' as a person. 300,000 murdered and he deserves our 'deepest respect'. Come off it. How many live relatives of 300,000 dead have to listen to this nonsense?

Plus, if they are not official spokespeople - where are the cries of outrage from those who are?

And I didn't say it justifies the invective against the church. I said it is understandable. Because it is.

“...as much as I dislike Saddam and would like to see him hung...”

Excuse the smoke whistling out of my ears, but in the name of heaven & earth WHAT POINT COULD THERE BE IN SEEING SADDAM HUNG?

I, for one, would much rather see Saddam hanged.

> I, for one, would much rather see Saddam hanged.

That's exactly what I meant, as you probably suspected.

ilibcc;

> ElCapitanAmerica, these spokespeople are seen as part of the Church which is their intention. The 'social justice' ones appear to be using the church to further their political agendas. If they are not Catholic, they should just shut up with the 'Catholic' already. Are we all agreed? Yes. It's common sense.

This is a local Catholic organization in Australia. I don't know their other work, you don't know it either. In this issue, they're probably wrong, but there's nothing in the Catholic Church saying the person in charge of it speaks the official word of the Catholic Church. I used to lead a Hispanic Catholic Church Youth group here in FL, does that make me an official spokesperson?

> You say 'the person is correct saying he (Saddam) is one of God's creatures and is consistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church' - well it may be strictly correct, but it's not something you walk around spouting right at this particular juncture in history. These people are on another planet. How about a little tact? It's not good for the PR, I mean really, saying Saddam deserves our 'deepest respect' as a person. 300,000 murdered and he deserves our 'deepest respect'. Come off it. How many live relatives of 300,000 dead have to listen to this nonsense?

While I wouldn't have pointed out some of the things he said, he's 100% correct as far as Christian teachings go. Let's just be clear. The Chuch teaches about the dignity of EVERY human being. So this person adheres very deeply to that, that's great. I'm not like that in this case, but the Christian ideal would probably be to take that attitude. Let's not forget what Jesus said about your enemies.

Now, I'm not alarmed he said that. Now if he was the president of the United States, I'd be terribly upset!

> And I didn't say it justifies the invective against the church. I said it is understandable. Because it is.

I don't think there's anything understandable about some fool saying the Pope makes a good candidate / case for euthanasia. I

OK, a few points-

#1 - anybody who thinks the Church is a monolithic, lockstep organization is in tinfoil hat territory. I grew up with four churches in walking distance, and you chose the one that suited you. If you liked working-class, family-oriented pleasantness, you went to St. Agatha. If you liked sacrament-obsessed fire-and-brimstone, you went to Holy Family. If you liked touchy-feely ecumenism, lefty politics and the occasional speech from a Guatamalan nun about the death squads, you went to St. Ambrose. If you liked basketball, you went to St. Martin. They all went their own way and were as different from each other as they were from the Episcopalians. It ain't a globe-bestriding puppeteer octopus, conspiro-freaks.

#2 - using the word "papist" immediately identifies you as a paranoid anti-Catholic bigot.

#3 - I just got done reading about the English religious wars, and I frankly don't see that the Anglicans were any less murderous than the Catholics.

#4 - tell me your religion, your nationality, or your ethnicity, and I'll give you a lesson on your "vile" past. Nobody's innocent.

#5 - The Pope is part of the Holy Trinity (with Reagan and Thatcher) that brought down communism.

#6 - If you can't see the good works of the Church - not the least of which is the fact that it was a crucial foundation stone of our Western civilization - then you are simply pathological.

#7 - I'm personally done with the Church, but it gave me a first-rate grade-school education when the alternative was public-school hell, and my priests were among the finest men you could know. Calling all of them pedophiles because of the actions of a minority is a gross slander that speaks volumes about you.

#8 - The Church's most glaring fault in its treatment of pedophile priests and of Saddam is an excess of forgiveness. I think that's soft-headed. But it sure as hell isn't evil.

Fair enough ElCapitanAmerica, but if they have Catholic in their name they should be prepared to take the heat if they go public wearing their Catholic label. Plus, as I said, it's not the greatest time to come out with the arcane theology about the dignity of all human life.

(Although I suspect with some of these pronouncements it's less to do with the theology and more to do with anti-American sentiment - I mean when the hell did 'peace' groups develop their sudden interest in Catholic theology?)

oh, please, mr. capitanamerica. just be logical enough to say that, if diplomacy is not sufficiently leveraged to remove a meglomaniacal despot b/c some countries and world political and religious institutions would not contribute to the strong pressure for said despot to step down, then they prefer even an oppressive and bloody 'peace' over military action taken to create a humane peace. who has to say that those who opposed this iraq war are 'evil'? it's enough to know that they preferred the evil of hussein in power rather than a military action to depose him.

the moral/ christian calculus by the church is curious, though, considering how many people saddam murdered each year to remain in power, considering the wealth and future of his people that he plundered, and considering that he was committed to war and terrorist violence against other countries (his rhetoric, not some cia fantasy). guess opposing the war to remove him and his threat is 'no big deal' if you weren't living the nightmare that was hussein. simply a point view, as you say...

btw, since you bring up panama, did the vatican way back when object to the u.s. deposing noriega? and what exactly do catholic liberation theologists in central america (brave souls they truly were, though some advocated communist dictatorship in lieu of fascist/ banana republic dictatorship, but that's another thread) have to do with the vatican opposing a coalition-led liberation of iraq? did the iraqi's not deserve actual liberation too, or is it a better spiritual exercise to support only the idea of freedom?

doing nothing is an act, the consequences of which are very real. opposing an action is an act, with actual and moral consequences, too. the vatican did not merely stay itself from a pronouncement on the war to come, it voiced its oppositon from thousands and thousands of pulpits, at a time the u.s. and allies were trying to convince hussein to step down without a fight. when the church condemned a military action aimed at deposing a monster who had a stranglehold on his country, it, in effect, voted for the monster.

you are comfortable calling that just a point of view... yes, of course, but cannot many of us take the strongest exception to that p.o.v? i, for one, think the church's position gave aid and comfort to a devil and no comfort whatsoever to his victim nation. i see an insidious judgement that polities often make but that churches should not tolerate- that of conflating an absence of hot war with 'peace'. one could say, maybe, that iraqi's lived in a peaceful kind of hell in-between saddam's big wars. it would be fitting to condemn peace advocates to live the actual 'peace' they so righteously fight for

you imply that religions should always oppose and never endorse any military action in any case, lest they be just like the terrorist islamofascists. neat. never the moral dilemna then to decide at what cost 'peace' when there is genocide, dangerous proliferation and insecurity at hand. thank god there have been national leaders, then, who made the really difficult decision, when called for, to shed blood to lift even bloodier oppression and remove a menace to world. a few more really bad guys need to go, but the world can tolerate only just so much projection of u.s. power. too bad for those peoples. maybe the church could incite them to a bloodless coup? or give them hope for the after-life, since their earthly lives are hellish

oh, please, mr. capitanamerica. just be logical enough to say that, if diplomacy is not sufficiently leveraged to remove a meglomaniacal despot b/c some countries and world political and religious institutions would not contribute to the strong pressure for said despot to step down, then they prefer even an oppressive and bloody 'peace' over military action taken to create a humane peace. who has to say that those who opposed this iraq war are 'evil'? it's enough to know that they preferred the evil of hussein in power rather than a military action to depose him.

the moral/ christian calculus by the church is curious, though, considering how many people saddam murdered each year to remain in power, considering the wealth and future of his people that he plundered, and considering that he was committed to war and terrorist violence against other countries (his rhetoric, not some cia fantasy). guess opposing the war to remove him and his threat is 'no big deal' if you weren't living the nightmare that was hussein. simply a point view, as you say...

btw, since you bring up panama, did the vatican way back when object to the u.s. deposing noriega? and what exactly do catholic liberation theologists in central america (brave souls they truly were, though some advocated communist dictatorship in lieu of fascist/ banana republic dictatorship, but that's another thread) have to do with the vatican opposing a coalition-led liberation of iraq? did the iraqi's not deserve actual liberation too, or is it a better spiritual exercise to support only the idea of freedom?

doing nothing is an act, the consequences of which are very real. opposing an action is an act, with actual and moral consequences, too. the vatican did not merely stay itself from a pronouncement on the war to come, it voiced its oppositon from thousands and thousands of pulpits, at a time the u.s. and allies were trying to convince hussein to step down without a fight. when the church condemned a military action aimed at deposing a monster who had a stranglehold on his country, it, in effect, voted for the monster.

you are comfortable calling that just a point of view... yes, of course, but cannot many of us take the strongest exception to that p.o.v? i, for one, think the church's position gave aid and comfort to a devil and no comfort whatsoever to his victim nation. i see an insidious judgement that polities often make but that churches should not tolerate- that of conflating an absence of hot war with 'peace'. one could say, maybe, that iraqi's lived in a peaceful kind of hell in-between saddam's big wars. it would be fitting to condemn peace advocates to live the actual 'peace' they so righteously fight for

you imply that religions should always oppose and never endorse any military action in any case, lest they be just like the terrorist islamofascists. neat. never the moral dilemna then to decide at what cost 'peace' when there is genocide, dangerous proliferation and insecurity at hand. thank god there have been national leaders, then, who made the really difficult decision, when called for, to shed blood to lift even bloodier oppression and remove a menace to world. a few more really bad guys need to go, but the world can tolerate only just so much projection of u.s. power. too bad for those peoples. maybe the church could incite them to a bloodless coup? or give them hope for the after-life, since their earthly lives are hellish

One of the best things I ever gave up for Lent was the Catholic church.

Lest one forget the Vatican was rather enamoured with Hitler, too.

The Concordat that Hitler signed with the Vatican in 1933 bore the signatures of chief negotiator Cardinal Pacelli (who became Pius XII, 1939-1958) and Hitler's Deputy (Vice-Chancellor of the Reich) Franz von Papen, who was a leading Roman Catholic. In a German newspaper called the Volkischer Beobachter of January 14, 1934, von Papen wrote the following: "The Third Reich is the first power which not only recognises, but puts into practice, the high principles of the Papacy."

"The best way to honor Pope John Paul II, truly one of the great men, is to take his teaching seriously; is to listen to his words and put his words and teachings into action here in America. This is a challenge we must accept."
Reference: President Bush's speech, 2001.

Deja Voodoo?

You mean Cardinal Martino took time out from his busy schedule of molesting young boys?

"#8 - The Church's most glaring fault in its treatment of pedophile priests and of Saddam is an excess of forgiveness. I think that's soft-headed. But it sure as hell isn't evil."

Dave S., You. Are. Wrong.

In the Boston, Mass. area, John Geoghan, a defrocked priest since murdered in prison, molested aboout 130 boys in his 25-plus years in the priesthood. He was shuffled around to a different parish each time things would get too dicey at his current assignment. The archbishop, Cardinal Bernard Law, KNEW ABOUT THIS, and approved the transfers, as did his predecessors Medeiros and Cushing.

Dave, this is NOT an "excess of forgiveness" nor is it "soft-hearted". What it is is a clear case of the Church trying to cover its ass and flpping off all of the innocents hurt by the Church's actions and inaction.

It. Is. Evil. BTW, trying to soft-pedal such things is also evil.

You people really are indymedia wackjobs without an iota of clear thought. Read your rants again replacing 'Church' with 'USA' and change the atrocity 'molestation coverup' to 'slaughtered the indians'.

There are more people in the Chruch than there are in the US and an equal number of opinions. To an outsider, Howard Deans comments MUST represent American opinion. He is a government official in our country, isnt he? THINK you mindless sheep, you have minds. USE THEM!

To an outsider, Howard Deans comments MUST represent American opinion. He is a government official in our country, isnt he?

WTF?

Actually, Howard Dean is not a government official. He used to be Governor of Vermont, but no more. Oddly, his replacement is a Republican, and I believe the Democrats also lost control of the Vermont legislature in that election.

charlotte:

Too many rants against this son of the Anti-Christ Papist heden to respond. Let's pick a few:

btw, since you bring up panama, did the vatican way back when object to the u.s. deposing noriega? and what exactly do catholic liberation theologists in central america (brave souls they truly were, though some advocated communist dictatorship in lieu of fascist/ banana republic dictatorship, but that's another thread) have to do with the vatican opposing a coalition-led liberation of iraq? did the iraqi's not deserve actual liberation too, or is it a better spiritual exercise to support only the idea of freedom?

During Panama, the Church in Panama (because there are local positions to churches too) actively backed non-violent resistance to the Noriega regime. I participated in many of these marches, and was tear gassed and shot at many times. If you think they took a weasly position, you just don't know what you are talking about.

The Vatican didn't say, Panamenians, pick up arms and kill pineapple face. Nor did I ever expect them to.

As to the charge that the Church backed communist movements in central america, that's truly disturbing that you buy that. Monsiegnor Oscar Romero, a person who should have been declared a saint already, was not a communist and the represive regime in El Salvador accused him of that. If you believe what totalitarian regimes accuse the Church of, then there's not much point in me having a discussion with you about this.

As for saying :

you imply that religions should always oppose and never endorse any military action in any case, lest they be just like the terrorist islamofascists. neat. never the moral dilemna then to decide at what cost 'peace' when there is genocide, dangerous proliferation and insecurity at hand. thank god there have been national leaders, then, who made the really difficult decision, when called for, to shed blood to lift even bloodier oppression and remove a menace to world.

I said I rather have religions erring on the side of a no-war position than a pro-war Islamists position. Yes, I rather have that. Then you say thank good for national leaders.

Thank God indeed, that's exactly what I said. Let the professionals make decisions about serious matters as wars. We don't need Popes blessing wars, I rather have Rumsfeld and Tommy Franks doing that. Very simple.

Yes, I could copy this whoel thread into Indymedia and it would fit greatly there. Truly sad.

BTW, for those of you who think the hirarchy doesn't have different opinions :

http://www.michaelnovak.net/

The Italian newspaper IL FOGLIO ran a piece Dec. 16 about the frustration at the Vatican, at the Secretariat of State, with the imprudent, irascible anti-Americanism of Cardinal Martino, an unfortunate recent appointment (late last year) to the Institute for Justice and Peace, who has not ceased being an embarrassment to his superiors.

This was already been reported last night on CNN by their Vatican corresponded, but please everybody, don't let the facts get in the was of smashing those Papists bastards.

When I was in Rome last February, Cardinal Martino was already under heavy fire for his intemperate and irrepressible anti- Americanism. Even those who before the war leaned more to the French/German position than to the American were dismayed by his uncalled-for comments. . . .
Via Instapundit:

"The immense relief experienced by the Catholic community in Iraq since the fall of Saddam has not gone unappreciated at the Vatican. In general, now that the American-led coalition has acted firmly and with far better results than predicted last February by various spokesmen in the Vatican (they did not all speak with one voice), the Vatican has tried to help with the transition to a more just, peaceful, tolerant, and democratic Iraq."

Whoops. That "Via Instapudit" should have gone at the top of that post. I've never been to Rome...

Tom-

I'm not soft-pedaling anything. You believe Law is evil. I believe he's stupid, naive, and couldn't recognize evil when it was staring him in the face. Neither one of us can get into his head. We both agree on the evil that resulted, believe me.

Elcapitanamerica:
Thank you for your defense of the Church (vs. those who think they speak for the Church). Could you email me your eaddress? Thanks!

elcapitanamerica:
you do not answer issues i raise with specific counterpoint. your answers sort of slip and slide around. for ex., how is the church "erring" (your word) on the side of a no-war position, and which you favor, the only apparent alternative to a "pro-war islamists's" position?? are you saying that to have favored this war or any war is islamist? or, are you equating any pro-war/depose saddam stance with terrorist-like jihad? do you really think they are a moral equivalency???

at any rate, you seem to be dismissing the concept of 'just war', which the church has endorsed from time to time without seeming to be "islamist"-like (your characterization, not mine). interesting that you apparently DO want political leaders to make the difficult moral choice of going to war, just never for your church ever to. ok. all i have tried to point out is how some people believe an anti-war posture is inherently more moral b/c war blood would be avoided. others of us see that the blood and suffering of a terrible 'peace' should stain the conscience of anyone opposed to enforcing a humane peace. is it moral to oppose and condemn those who would be the agents of a long-overdue liberation?

it is troubling how you deliberately misinterpret and misdirect my statement that "some" of the "brave soul" liberation theologists (of the 80's) were sympathetic to communism to be an attack on Monpeignor Romero, whom i never mention or even allude to. i read plenty of writings by theologian philosophers in college and, believe me, there certainly were a few who did believe that communism was the answer to thirld world poverty and corruption. others didn't. have NO idea about archbishop romero. anyway, this was only a parenthetical aside point, if you reread what i originally said about "some" "theologians" advocating. you falsely state that i "buy the charge that the church backed communist movements in central america". do reread, please

the question was whether the church favored u.s. military action to finally depose the terrible and corrupt noriega. looks like not, from what you say. fair enough. but what is your reasoning in pointing out that many people, including yourself, suffered mightily for demonstrating against his regime? is this what the church wanted- no quick war but a protracted long-sufferance by a beleaguered people? is the latter more moral? of course there were courageous people and church leaders, many of whom were martyred for their convictions. but i simply wonder why it is a good thing for the vatican to rule out any intervention that could end the worst of the bloody abuses... just asking.

perhaps you think non-violent demonstrations would have worked over time? in some places they have, many others not. how long, if ever, would it have taken for panamanians to overthrow and restabilize their country? after 35 years of being a brutal police state, when would saddam's iraq have fallen to the people? what about hell-on-earth north korea? some horrifying african regimes? how many dissenters have to be tortured and murdered and how much does world security have to be threatened for an intervention to be moral? is your answer that the church should "err" on the side of no-war no matter what? else it would be "islamist"-like?
are the u.s. and coalition partners immoral for militarily, and finally, ending saddam's barbarous regime?

last, why would you imply that the arguments i made disagreeing with the church's iraq position and which you support were "rants against this son of the anti christ papal (heathen?)"? the only "rants" you cited were my fairly reasoned arguments. why would you think up such vitriol, ascribe it to me in a backhanded way, and then say this thread is worthy of indymedia, as if i had been the one taking cheap shots at you?

or, are you saying to morally disagree with any of the church's positions is inherently cheap and indymedia worthy? that's a debate stopper

To those who believe capital punishment is verboten in a christian world: there is no theological argument against it: argument from creation does no work at all, neither from salvation nor sanctification.
Creation is myth which functions to set up the core of believers beliefs: there is something which exists in another dimension and man is related to in some interactional way.

That is all that not just the first three chapters, but the first 12 states. Genesis , that is, is not some quasi scientific doctrine of the universe, nor is it a `history' of pure prisitine man who fell and needs god to save him. Chapters 4-12 take up the kernel of such beliefs by relief, what man is like when nbot in rel;ationship to god, detonating on and recapitulating, therefore, the core of cc.1-3, which is in cc.2-3, not one.

Chapter one, though it is based in liturgy, praise -psalms of, is a tedious a stretch: really tells nothing much at all.

I only refer to Genesis to illustrate the point, since christian belief is not the same as the theological-anthropological summary and overview of Genesis( which is exapnded upon over not just the Pentateuch but write through to KingsII and the other writings).

Chrisitianity is the end of religion: faith in god entails nothing much at all for phgysics and human action. The scholastics' prescient disitinction is spot on: what is of god and what is of man.

In other words, Saddam must take his medicine irrespective of what some goddy might or might not do.Note the contradiction in the contrary position: it is actually denial of boundless divine grace since, Saddam must be kept alive lest he be damned.

It is also denial of the core belief, the Cross is sufficient.

I don't believe in god and it is amusing to note, the noun god in any case is, of ANE history anway,only a deferential noun of address as in , Sir, Madam, Dr. ,HRH, Rght Hon., Mr.President, Professor.In other words, `god' has no inferential force ontologically not least beause it is epistemologically useless: and note, christian beleif turns on a conception expressed in the cponfession of the Trinity.

On the other jhand, most of Australia's clergy are slobs when it comes to theology.

Most of the people here who disagree with Catholic Church policies have brought up some excellent points but when some start throwing around words like "papist" they destroy their credibility and automatically exclude themselves from any kind of discussion with the grown-ups. Calling Catholics "papists" implies that you think of them as nothing but mindless sycophants to the Pope. In case you didn't know, it's just as offensive as calling a Jew a "kike" or a Muslim a "raghead". Much as I dislike to use those words in any context, I use them to illustrate how hateful, cruel and unnecessary the use of the word "papist" is to anyone interested in having a rational, intelligent discussion about anything. If you're going to use "papist", it's clear that you don't really want to have a discussion, you just want to take the easy road of "Well, these Catholics over here are morally bankrupt, therefore all Catholics are that way, so why even bother trying to write like an adult, instead I'll just throw epithets and hope the other posters will mistake me for a person with a well-thought-out opinion." Constructively criticizing the Catholic Church is one thing, but throwing slurs around is entirely another. It just makes you look stupid and contributes nothing to the debate.

Those who are kind to the cruel, cannot help but be cruel to the kind.

Oh and by the way, FreddyBoy, in the post you wrote that is listed immediately after my first, you completely missed my point about Catholic priests. Maybe I wasn't clear enough: 1.) The Church's behavior regarding the pedophile priests has been deplorable. There is absolutely no excuse for the Bishops, archbishops, etc. who have covered up for and enabled pedophiles to go on committing their crimes. But their evil does not give you or anyone else the right to slander all priests any more than it gives you the right to slander all schoolteachers or all soldiers because a minority of the people in those professions have committed crimes and/or assisted others in committing crimes. This isn't Iran, you can criticize all day long, but when you start using words like "papist", then I have a problem with you, for the reasons outlined in my most recent post. Clear enough?
"I see I have my work cut out responding to these rednecks."- Freddyboy
Yes, you're going to have a lot of trouble dealing with us, but not as much trouble as we rednecks have dealing with you and other people like you who are more interested in spewing hatred than you are in having a discussion. You can go on doing that, or you can sit at the grown-ups table with people who can make a point without resorting to the use of slurs.

It's all in the timing. It just doesn't look good for spokespeople of the church - official or not - to be piously defending the 'sanctity' of Saddam's precious life less than 24 hours after he was pulled from his rat hole.

You're right S. Wade - 99% of people in the church are totally blameless. And right now, they are all wishing the Saddam defenders would just shut the fuck up and leave the theology debate for a less hurtful time.

RIP Saddam's victims.

s. wade: how about a pro-church advocate calling himself a "son of the anti christ papist heden (sic)", as if someone had actually said something close to that. i certainly didn't, but he virtually laid that at my feet, as he cited my "rants". his misleading hyperbole is offensive. i didn't commit cheap ad hominem attacks against him and my arguments aren't rants. defensive hysteria to smear a dissenter? what's the 'scuse?

"I'm not soft-pedaling anything. You believe Law is evil. I believe he's stupid, naive, and couldn't recognize evil when it was staring him in the face. Neither one of us can get into his head. We both agree on the evil that resulted, believe me."

Dave S., you're missing the point.

What Cardinal Law and some of his fellow Cardinals did was worse than their pedophile priests. Law was in a position to recognize and remove evil from society, to use his words and his actions to promote goodness. He instead enabled pedophiles - evil? If not, damn close.

Catholic leadership talks about good and evil all the time - IT"S THEIR JOB! Catholic leadership is supposed to be able to recognize evil, especially the evil of the powerful in positions of trust who abuse their power. Whether it is a pedophile parish priest or a ruthless dictator, leadership (especially leadership) should recognize, denounce and work to remove evil.

When Cardinal Martino expressed, as a "top Vatican official", his pity for a mass murderer, you have to admit the man has his priorities mixed up. No mention of compassion for the children buried alive in mass graves, no mention of pity for the victims fed feet first into industrial plastic shredders. "I felt pity to see this man destroyed, looking at his teeth as if he were a cow."

When people criticize the leadership of an institution they do not necessarily criticize the members of that institution. That caveat said, when Church leadership worked so hard to protect the evil within their ranks it is no surprise to witness their public compassion for a butcher.

R.C. Dean States

"WTF?

Actually, Howard Dean is not a government official. He used to be Governor of Vermont, but no more. Oddly, his replacement is a Republican, and I believe the Democrats also lost control of the Vermont legislature in that election."

It doesnt matter to an outsider. At one point he held SOME govenment position and is seeking another. To your average Nigerian (or other random foreign national), it makes no difference. He is considered a "top American official" and therefore speaks for America. To those outside the church it may appear in a similar light because you really don't know much about the makeup of the church.

My argument is this: to blast all Catholics (or the entire Catholic leadership, including priests, nuns, brothers, etc..) for the statement of one cardinal, is just as ignorant as stating that Howard Dean represents all Americans. Its a simple logical argument easily handled by any nine year old. So WTF is the problem? Those who continue to blast the entire church for this are either

a) Incapable of logical thought or
b) Are so hateful that they deny logic

Use all the justification you want. "But I can say the church is evil because -insert atrocity here-". Its still a simple denial of logic.

elcapitanamerica:

> you do not answer issues i raise with specific counterpoint.

I'm sorry your post is a bit long, and I like to quote. You're going to have to forgive me for not going point by point on everything.

> .... or, are you equating any pro-war/depose saddam stance with terrorist-like jihad? do you really think they are a moral equivalency???

That's not what I said at all. First of all, I made clear I was pro-war in this conflict, don't know if you caught that. I'm not saying the pro war position is Islamists, I'm saying, I'm not keen on having religions officially endorsing wars. If they err, I rather they err for peace, and let (I'll repeate it again) the professionals handle it. I don't think the Church is evil because they did not back this war, and I don't expect their approval so that US can persue it's interests. Not at all. That's my point. As far as the Islamists point, I'm saying that's an example of religion getting into war, in current times. I rather avoid that.

> it is troubling how you deliberately misinterpret and misdirect my statement that "some" of the "brave soul" liberation theologists (of the 80's) were sympathetic to communism to be an attack on Monpeignor Romero, whom i never mention or even allude to. i read plenty of writings by theologian philosophers in college and, believe me, there certainly were a few who did believe that communism was the answer to thirld world poverty and corruption. others didn't. have NO idea about archbishop romero.

This was an example of the Church getting involved in conflicts, quote couragelusly, and I was giving my personal experience. There was some communism charge thrown out, since I was talking about the official churches in those troubled areas I did not accept the point. Liberation Theology has NEVER been an accepted doctrine in the Church, specially under Pope John Paul II.

> . but i simply wonder why it is a good thing for the vatican to rule out any intervention that could end the worst of the bloody abuses... just asking.

The point was that the Church chose a non-violent option here, which quite honestly in that case, was for the best. An armed revolution by Panamenians would have been a disater. The right solution was for the US to intervine. I have no idea what the official policy was on that, nobody cared. What we cared is that the local Panamenian Church answered the anti-despot call and helped the people. The war aspect was handled by the expoerts, the US. In the Iraq issue, I do think the Church has failed to conmedm Saddam in the strong voice I expect.

>> perhaps you think non-violent demonstrations would have worked over time? in some places they have, many others not. how long, if ever, would it have taken for panamanians to overthrow and restabilize their country? after 35 years of being a brutal police state, when would saddam's iraq have fallen to the people?

In my opinion, the only way to solve the Iraq situation was armed force. The Church chose to side with Europe / UN. They chose wrong, but that doesn't mean they are pro Saddam.

> last, why would you imply that the arguments i made disagreeing with the church's iraq position and which you support were "rants against this son of the anti christ papal (heathen?)"?

I shouldn't have put that in my response to you, that was my frustration with another post, the one about us "papists" and that the Pope should be euthanized.

> s. wade: how about a pro-church advocate calling himself a "son of the anti christ papist heden (sic)", as if someone had actually said something close to that. i certainly didn't, but he virtually laid that at my feet, as he cited my "rants". his misleading hyperbole is offensive. i didn't commit cheap ad hominem attacks against him and my arguments aren't rants. defensive hysteria to smear a dissenter? what's the 'scuse?

That wasn't in response to your comment, if I really thought that from you, I wouldn't be responding to your posts.

mick,
this isn't a matter of "hatred of all catholics", but one of record and logic. the church isn't being lambasted for just one cardinal's statement, but for the vatican's position to oppose this war, even while the u.s. and partners were exerting pressure on hussein to give up w/o a fight. the church made it clear it would not back the threat of a fight
... how could this not help embolden hussein?

what about the vatican's qualification that u.n. approval would be necesary for its approval? so, let's see: chirac, schroeder and putin trump the pope in matters spiritual? yes, of course, they are indubitably top souls all, but this moral reckoning is still difficult for unsophisticated americans to see

you must forgive our incomprehension of the calculus embraced in opposing the deposing of heinous hussein- some of us are simply unsavvy. but, why chalk it up to "hatred" when we are merely blind to our european 'betters', and slaves to the record and logic of tyranny is bad, liberty is good??

blinkered by good intention but not haters of those hating our efforts,
your fellow christian

charlotte-san,
Well said. Love the sinners, but hate the sin.

To those moaning about the word "papist": This was the common term used by those to bring the European continent out of the Dark Ages created by so-said organization.

Yes, the Catholic Church has done a lot of good, they are absolutely correct on abortion for example. However, their philisophy that some man is divinely ordained by God to represent him, and endowed with authority to change the Bible (Sunday worship etc.) is ultimate blasphemy.

Papist is an insulting term, as for your "endowed with authority to change the Bible" that is totally untrue. What, we are going to have a theological discussion now? Compare Churches, go around and around?

This all started with the comment of a well known ANTI-American Cardinal. His choice of words were totally off the mark, as well as his accusation of mistreatement, the point is that's his opinion and does not represent that of the Church as a whole, not even the hierarchy.

All the other stuff about papism, blasphemy, the dark ages, etc. is besides the point. I know the people who believe Catholics are blasphemers jump in joy at these topics, but please.

Charlotte,

Every point you just raised in that last post is completely valid, and I find it to be a wholly justified and proper criticism. These were/are my exact criticisms and Ive been utterly mystified at the church's official position on the issue of the war.

What I find UNacceptable is calling the church evil, calling Catholics 'papists', and the general smarmy attitude pointed at the entirety of the clergy.

I know the difference between legit criticism and unjustified smears, and it really pains me to see those whom I consider ideological equivalents (i.e. Republican, conservative, etc..) utterly lambast the church that I hold dear in the same fashion that a frothing leftist blindly hates their own country. As mystified as I am by the church's stance on the war, Im equally mystified by the reactions Ive read in these comments. I guess I just expected better from the Right.

thank you, elcapitanamerican. a reasonable answer and gentlemanly admission. now you must forgive my hackles raised re some of your wording.

still, i must ask you, if the church hierarchy are not the 'professionals' or moral arbitors in the rightness or wrongheadedness of addressing perceived evil, then what relevancy has this church leadership? are you comfortable with the fact that, had the vatican's point of view won out, hussein would have remained in power and have been relatively undisturbed to carry on as usual? that the u.s. would not have militarily righted the 'wrong' of noriega sponsorship, etc?

can't write much more b/c my posts are 'a bit long', as you say! that is so true. and bless you for supporting the efforts against a tyrant. too bad these efforts only happen when national interests converge with other obvious goods... hard to sell, otherwise. still, an importune convergence born of catastrophe and insecurity ove here and grinding horror and intransigence over there.......

may there be hope

ElCapitanAmerica, This is NOT the opinion of some lone Cardinal who has an oddball opinion. This is basically the official RCC opinion.

The leader of the Catholic Church said just a few days ago: "International bodies established to protect nations and settle disputes need to be reformed to deal with the threat posed by a surge in terrorist movements around the world. But countries cannot renege on their formal commitments to respect international law and work through the United Nations".

The RCC has always had a problem with freedom-loving America. But the ties are getting stronger, and soon all will be one. (almost all)

('opportune convergence', for those that know better- obviously not me. am going for 20 hours of sleep. good night, church advocates and apologists, critics and carpers!)

Hi.

This is a bad discussion. It looks heavily anti-Catholic, because just a few people who seem to have an obsession about this are posting often, at length, and with emotion. Others who have no such problems don't have much to say about the Catholic Church in this context, because it isn't relevant.

Tim put two alerts next to "the Vatican's Justice and Peace department," two double alerts next to "a former papal envoy to the United Nations," and maximum total alert, twice, next to "The news conference was called for Martino to present the World Day of Peace message ..." In his pleasant, jocular way, Tim was making a point about what kind of agenda might have been driving this soft-headed statement. I think this is exactly right.

Can we skip the anti-Catholic stuff? Or if people do want to discuss the Church follies, how about waiting for an item where it's definitely the Church leading its flock in a silly direction and not a general "progressive" agenda that's at work?

For David Blue: No, I think we are stuck with the anti-Catholic comments...because the controversy is over the remarks of a very highly-placed Vatican official who appears to be speaking for his church's top leadership. Whether he really is representative of the very highest levels of policy-makers, we don't know, and that is a bit of a shame. We don't know whether this is an example of the church leading its flock in a silly direction, in other words. I also have to wonder: how does a "general progressive agenda" differ from a "direction"? Granted, it might, but I am about ready to say this is a distinction without a difference. -- This is, in short, the sort of discussion you always get whenever the question of clerical influence in politics comes up. Discussion can break down pretty quickly into name-calling. I think we have to expect the bad will come with the good in a discussion, in other words, and as I said earlier, I have learned some things from the posts here. I reject the bad (when I recognize it, if I do!) and don't balance it against the good in an attempt to justify it. The RC church has some serious problems, and that is a cause of real concern among non-Catholics. It always has been that way....this church is too powerful even today, and too worldly, to be insignificant. For better or for worse.

This is a bad discussion. It looks heavily anti-Catholic, because just a few people who seem to have an obsession about this are posting often, at length, and with emotion. Others who have no such problems don't have much to say about the Catholic Church in this context, because it isn't relevant.

Is it bad because it is heavily anti-Catholic? Or is it bad because there are some with "problems" with it? Of course those with no such "problems" will dislike probing.

The Catholic church has many honest, blessed souls in it living up to all the light they know. But as an organization, it is without par in the history of humankind for oppression.

Isn't history relevant? Or does history have no connect with the present and future?

Hi.

"I also have to wonder: how does a "general progressive agenda" differ from a "direction"? Granted, it might, but I am about ready to say this is a distinction without a difference."

OK, I'll just try to clear up what I left obscure before.

I gave the cheering squad and doctrine for supernationalist bureaucracy and political correctness the very vague label "a general "progressive" agenda." I agree that's bad, but it's hard to give good, specific labels for this stuff. Try reading the proposed EU constitution some time. (Never again for me! I can't remember any of it, and I want to keep it that way.) This stuff is brain-rotting sludge, and it is not Christian.

Now, if Cardinal Renato Martino seems to display a wonderful compassion for Saddam Hussein, is that because it is Catholic doctrine that one who fails to act in a way worthy of the dignity of a creature made in the image of god does not thereby forfeit that dignity? If so, fine. Or is it that as so often happens a representative to an entity or movement winds up being more like a representative of that entity or movement? It sure looks to me that that might be the case, Tim's alerts were right to the point as far as I'm concerned.

If I see the Pope and the Vatican hierarchy moving on something, and it seems like a traditional Catholic value, such as chastity for example, is driving it, then sure, I'll say now we have to talk about the good and bad points of the Church and why it's driving things in this direction. But one Cardinal saying something that might correspond to a Church value but more likely might correspond to a different set of influence that we can easily see, that's not the same thing at all.

I might be wrong on what is going on, but it's that distinction between the Church hierarchy as a mass setting a direction because of internal values and a representative of the Church saying something because he's influenced by other values that I was getting at.

Hi, Daniel.

"Is it bad because it is heavily anti-Catholic? Or is it bad because there are some with "problems" with it? Of course those with no such "problems" will dislike probing."

Yeah, it seemed to be getting anti-Catholic over more or less nothing. Which I don't like. It's like when some Yid gets caught with his fingers in the till and suddenly it's not about him, it's about the JEWS.

Are there reasons in the history of the Church to think that it might be spectacularly unhelpful to a good Christian ruler interested in defending Christendom against militant Islam? Put it this way, I've often compared George W. Bush to Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor. But it doesn't seem to me that a cardinal having a politically correct thought about Saddam Hussein's dental exam is a heavy enough hook to hang that discussion on.

"The Catholic church has many honest, blessed souls in it living up to all the light they know. But as an organization, it is without par in the history of humankind for oppression."

"Without par?" :P

"Isn't history relevant? Or does history have no connect with the present and future?"

History is extremely relevant. But not necessarily to every little thing. Where we came from, yes. Where and who we are, yes. Where we may be going, yes. But to one little soft-headed remark?

I think i agree with your idea of representatives having bad days, and not necessarily speaking for the whole organization at all times (did i understand you correctly?) but as i've shown in other posts, this cardinal's views seem to be pretty much the official Catholic position.

This cardinal is called: a top Vatican official - Cardinal Renato R. Martino, head of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. Yes, it is possible he misspoke, or that he has oddball ideas that do not represent the church as a whole, but his position IS of that as a representative, and if what he said was not the official position, then it should be publicly refuted by some church representative.

As you've read the proposed EU Constitution (that must be a slog!), you probably also know that the pope is quite adamant about making references to Christianity as the heart of the new EU. This is what was reported recently:
As European representatives met to work out final details of the constitution, the pope said Dec. 12 that it was "imperative" to recognize Christianity's "perennial proclamation of the truth" as part of Europe's identity.

Scary.

Sorry, i don't quite understand this quote:
Or is it that as so often happens a representative to an entity or movement winds up being more like a representative of that entity or movement?

Martino is an arsehole. Hell, my local archbishop (Doyle) is an arsehole. My parish priest is an arsehole. If you want me to name 1000 other catholic arseholes I can do it no problem.

This pope has said stupid things - REALLY stupid things. As long as he is not speaking ex cathedra it doesn't bind the rest of us in any way.

At the heart of catholicism is a belief in fundamental truths. What any catholic belives (outside those fundamental truths)is up to him/her.

If you're having a problem with the concept then look 'catholic' up in a dictionary.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the Catholic Church is in the business of teaching people the importance of right and wrong, no?

My point is that:
if the leadership of an organization devoted to the teachings of right and wrong commits a gross injustice that is so vile, so heinous, so WRONG
then
the leadership of that organization loses any right to criticize anyone about moral issues UNTIL said leadership admits their sins and asks for forgiveness.

If you don't accept my opinion that priests having sex with little boys is bad, just read official Vatican policy written in 1962 by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani. The document defined sexual assault committed by a priest or attempted by him with youths of either sex as the "worst crime". But Vatican policy was that bishops are instructed to pursue these cases in the most secretive way...restrained by a perpetual silence...and everyone {including the alleged victim) ...is to observe the strictest secret, which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office...under the penalty of excommunication.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/06/eveningnews/main566978.shtml

I tend to disagree with Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani - the worst crime is not individual priests committing pedophilia, it was instead the actions of the leadership of the Church: conspiracy and coverup of the priests involved and moving these monsters from parish to parish to enable them to commit these unspeakable acts again and again.

People who commit this kind of crime have NO basis to pass judgement on others.

The Church has everyright to denounce injustice in the world, because we are the Church, not just the hierarchy. I know that for every disagreement people in the US have with the Church they are going to bring up the disaster that is the sexual abuse scandal. But, that doesn't invalidate the message of the Church.

I didn't wake up today, and decide that euthanisia and abortion are OK, because many idiot bishops acted inmorally and haven't been shown the door yet.

I think steps are being taken to correct this situation, and more steps will be needed. I only hope it's all fixed quickly enough.

But I think that's another topic, I think it's been shown that the opinoin expressed by that Cardinal is not the official position of the Church. And that people are not happy with it. Now people are saying, why isn't the Church denouncing the Cardinal. The Church is slow, and you probably won't hear anything. They don't have to retract anything because the Holy See hasn't said much about the treatment of Saddam. When they do, let me know and we can start all over again.

El Capitan -

please notice the careful wording:
"the leadership of an organization devoted to the teachings of right and wrong"
"the actions of the leadership of the Church"

I am not finding fault with the Church nor the message of the Church. I am bashing the leadership of the Church for showing compassion and pity to Saddam Hussein when they denied compassion and pity to the victims of their own priests.

Wasnt some of the leadership of the US against the war?

I would love to watch you bigots vent your anti-Catholic hate to a *real* Catholic. Any takers?

I would love to watch you bigots vent your anti-Catholic hate to a *real* Catholic. Any takers?

I would love to watch you bigots vent your anti-Catholic hate to a *real* Catholic. Any takers?

I would love to watch you bigots vent your anti-Catholic hate to a *real* Catholic. Any takers?

Pedophilia, contrary to what the Neocon wags (who are largely Prod fundies and Jews) tell us, wasn't a Roman Catholic problem at all. It was a homosexual problem almost entirely restricted to the American Church, which is renowned for its liberalism and heresy on such matters. The trouble is Americanism.

The difference is, while the Roman Church consistently takes a stand against the culture of sin and death (represented by the evils of abortion, homosexualism, and pedophilia), the US government obliterates cities and slaughters tens of thousands of innocents in order to *impose* it.

I know which side I'm on.

Go Vatican!

The trouble is Americanism

Yes, Americans with their freedom-loving ways have always been the problem for the Catholic church.
(^-^)

If there is so much consistant stand taking against the culture of sin, then why weren't those US Bishops and Cardinals tossed out by Rome? Bishops/Cardinals who moved monsters from parish to parish were allowed to remain - why?Jesus threw the money changers out of the temple, but if He faced a cadre of pedophile enablers, WWJD?

The Pope Steps In
Can he save the American church from the sex-abuse scandal?
by Peggy Noonan
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=105001951

A few selected quotes:
"The pope should be told that some of the cardinals he will meet are, or have been, excusers or enablers of sex-abusers. Some are so sympathetic to abusive priests that they have written touching letters to them. No one has yet unearthed such a letter to any of the victims. This week the bishop of Joliet, Ill., Joseph Imensch, said that while priests who sexually abuse children should lose their jobs, priests who sexually abuse adolescents and teenagers have a "quirk" and can be treated and continue as priests. The leaders of the American church have acted, as one observer put it, as if compassion for victims is not part of their consciousness. Yet their compassion for colleagues is as florid as it is chilling."

"It would be wonderful, finally, if the pope spoke to the world about his recognition of the gravity of the situation, and his grief, and what hard steps he will take to save the soul of the American church.
He could begin with leaning toward a cardinal kneeling before him, thanking him for his long years of effort, and then removing and taking away his cardinal's hat and ring. Thus showing the cardinals and the world that he will not accept the continuance of the calamity.

He could start with Cardinal Bernard Law, whose actions have at least broken the spirit of the law. That would send a message to those in the church who need to hear it, that covering up, going along, and paying off victims is over. That careerism is over, and Christianity is back."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110004016

another great Peggy Noonan post.
And you can not paint this woman as an anti-catholic bigot.

"Yes, Americans with their freedom-loving ways have always been the problem for the Catholic church."

The Americans, with their vulgar culture of global revolution, secularism, and violence, are now a problem for *everyone* concerned with the preservation of Western civilization.

The Roman Church has been particularly courageous in speaking out, in so many words, against this latest Evil Empire to take the world stage. In doing so, she's attracting the ire of some pretty unsavory characters. Witness the latest anti-Catholic bigotry from the Neocons (who are largely Prod fundies and Jews) and the stern lecturing from the Israel Firsters and Minicons over at National Review.

Go Vatican!

"Yes, Americans with their freedom-loving ways have always been the problem for the Catholic church."

The Americans, with their vulgar culture of global revolution, secularism, and violence, are now a problem for *everyone* concerned with the preservation of Western civilization.

The Roman Church has been particularly courageous in speaking out, in so many words, against this latest Evil Empire to take the world stage. In doing so, she's attracting the ire of some pretty unsavory characters. Witness the latest anti-Catholic bigotry from the Neocons (who are largely Prod fundies and Jews) and the stern lecturing from the Israel Firsters and Minicons over at National Review.

Go Vatican!