Something That Struck Me Today When I Was

[crusader1234]

Amen brotha

[qfnol31]

As you read this, remember I'm opposed to the war.

[quote]"Pope John Paul II's opinion should count more than Donald Rumsfeld's or Bill O'Reilly's. At the very least, the Catholic should not simply abdicate moral judgment in this matter to leaders of a secular nation-state." I will take my pope view on what is moral and just over the news of a media pundit, pollster, or leaders of a secular state. That is not a issue. As Catholics, we bow to the teachings of Rome on morals, faith, ethics and not to our pres.[/quote]

Aye, it should, however, the Pope may not know something that would have made it a just war, and had he known it he may have supported the war. Remember, I'm opposed to it.

[quote]His approval rating last I knew was somewhere about 47%. Bush is a servant of the people. In abstract. Did he follow the people to Iraq or did he lead? I rember back to Aug '02 when Iraq was 1st publicly an issue no one in the public was really talking about it. It came as a suprise out of the White House. And if he felt there was a "clear and present danger" than why did his reasons float from WMD's to Regie Change to freeing the Iraqis to WMDs? Why didn't any other nation, save UK and Spain agree with us? How come no other Intel services picked up on these WMD's?[/quote]

Eh, the only reason I could think of for this is because they didn't have the adreneline of the war in Afghanistan or being attacked. Not saying this is right, but this is probably what caused so many people in the US to support the war so quickly, that and the suprise.

[quote]If there was a chance of Iraq using WMDs offesivly Isreali and Saudi and possibly Irani forces would have moved in before we did. They are the ones who would have to fear Iraq. Not the UK, US and Spain who are all well out of Iraqi weapons range.[/quote]

That's true, but is protecting an ally from someone attacking just? (I don't think there was good reason, but if somehow Bush knew something about this, would it make it just?)

[quote]All I have to say is "When the Pope and the bishops worldwide unite virtually unanimously in clear and repeated opposition to a war, the Catholic conscience should treat this matter with utmost seriousness." [/quote]

Unfortunately, the USCCB originally said that every Catholic could make up their mind whether or not to support the war.

[crusader1234]

We always have freedom, that doesnt change whats right.

[qfnol31]

LoL, so true. Someone who agrees!!!!! LoL...

Here's a question though, if the entire USCCB says something, is it wrong to do it?

[crusader1234]

Well, it depends on what they say.

I am from Canada, so this doesnt exactly have the same importance to me, however, I think it is most wise to go on the word of the Pope, rather than just the USCCB.

If the Pope says quack, the USCCB says bark, and General Kolvenbach says meow, then I think it's in everyones best interest to just quack.

Get what I mean?

Edited June 10, 2004 by crusader1234

[qfnol31]

LoL, I agree...Unfortunately, the bark would be most heard here many times. Most people forget the quack should be over the bark.

[Iacobus]

[quote]Aye, it should, however, the Pope may not know something that would have made it a just war, and had he known it he may have supported the war. Remember, I'm opposed to it.[/quote]

When you send a Sec. of State to the UN to make the case for war before the UN Security Conciul you are going to play the best cards. The Bush admin really tried to make a case for war and told you all the reasons they had *save oil, maybe* and the reason for those reasons. So I doubt the pres was privy to something the pope didn't know. None of the reasons panned out.

We can't go fight a war assuming it is just and at the end go "Opps we were wrong." We need to KNOW not feel or think or belive that the war is just before hand.

[quote]Eh, the only reason I could think of for this is because they didn't have the adreneline of the war in Afghanistan or being attacked. Not saying this is right, but this is probably what caused so many people in the US to support the war so quickly, that and the suprise.[/quote]

I beg to differ about them having the adreneline. The IDF was in a combat posture becuase of West Bank uprisings. North Korea was getting ICBMs *from Pakastan our "ally"*. NATO invoked the Mutual defense clause after 9/11. All of the Far East was on the edge with N. Koreas ICBMs. All the MidEast over the Palastine uprisings. Most of North American and most of Europe due to NATO on a war stance. They had the adreneline and fear of being attacked. Morever, terrorists did attack. Bali, embassies, etc. So that doesn't really work to explain away why nobody else saw this threat.

[quote]That's true, but is protecting an ally from someone attacking just? (I don't think there was good reason, but if somehow Bush knew something about this, would it make it just?)[/quote]

If the IDF needed help they would have served in Iraq. If the Saudis needed help they would have served as well. If Iran needed help they were alone. If Turkey needed help we wouldn't have had the issues we did with them to get access rights.

And the Pope overrules the USCCB

[littleflower+JMJ]

when it comes to voting it comes down to the stances of abortion and euthansia which are primary and non-negotiable to catholics.

oh and good points qfnol.

:sleep:

[qfnol31]

[quote]We can't go fight a war assuming it is just and at the end go "Opps we were wrong." We need to KNOW not feel or think or belive that the war is just before hand.[/quote]

I agree with that whole-heartily. This is one reason I don't think the war should have taken place. This is the reason I disagree most with it. However, like I've said before, the USCCB has said that citizens could make up their own mind...I think that given more time, a just cause for war probably could have been given. The fact that I disagree with having gone into war can be a cause of struggle between me and my friends.

[quote]I beg to differ about them having the adreneline. The IDF was in a combat posture becuase of West Bank uprisings. North Korea was getting ICBMs *from Pakastan our "ally"*. NATO invoked the Mutual defense clause after 9/11. All of the Far East was on the edge with N. Koreas ICBMs. All the MidEast over the Palastine uprisings. Most of North American and most of Europe due to NATO on a war stance. They had the adreneline and fear of being attacked. Morever, terrorists did attack. Bali, embassies, etc. So that doesn't really work to explain away why nobody else saw this threat.[/quote]

What I meant when I said that is that we probably wanted to go to war because we had been attacked, and I have no idea why else. To be honest, I can't figure out why so many Americans wanted to go to war. If I remember correctly, the original reasoning given was the threat for illegal missles, so we "went on behalf of the UN," but at the same time we disobeyed them. Now I want to stick in my own two cents here, I don't care for the UN much at times. Love the people, but some of their actions are questionable.

[quote]And the Pope overrules the USCCB [/quote]

Yes!!!!!!!!! Too many Catholics forget this at times. Oh well.

[Iacobus]

[quote name='littleflower' date='JMJ+Jun 10 2004, 04:26 AM'] when it comes to cathoilics voting it comes down to the primary stances of abortion and euthansia.

oh and good points qfnol.

:sleep: [/quote]
Yes Flowery I agree. But when someone rejects the Church (as a Catholic of cousre) that is reason not to vote for them.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Jun 10 2004, 04:28 AM'] Yes Flowery I agree. But when someone rejects the Church (as a Catholic of cousre) that is reason not to vote for them. [/quote]
All the more reasons not to let Kerry get into office. At least Bush has the USCCB on his side...Kerry doesn't have quite that much support...

[Iacobus]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Jun 10 2004, 04:29 AM'] All the more reasons not to let Kerry get into office. At least Bush has the USCCB on his side...Kerry doesn't have quite that much support... [/quote]
You didn't see that? Bush is willing to approve a Plan B abortion pill now. He reversed his views.

[littleflower+JMJ]

it what happens when one isnt catholic....and a faithful one at that

i shudder at the thought of kerry's ideas/plans

[qfnol31]

[url="http://www.mcjonline.com/news/00b/20001005a.htm"]This is an interesting view on what Bush said about the pill[/url]

[Iacobus]

[quote]I agree with that whole-heartily. This is one reason I don't think the war should have taken place. This is the reason I disagree most with it.  However, like I've said before, the USCCB has said that citizens could make up their own mind...I think that given more time, a just cause for war probably could have been given. The fact that I disagree with having gone into war can be a cause of struggle between me and my friends.[/quote]

Yes. But I still see the Bishop of Rome as higher than the Bishop of Rockford.

[quote]What I meant when I said that is that we probably wanted to go to war because we had been attacked, and I have no idea why else. To be honest, I can't figure out why so many Americans wanted to go to war. If I remember correctly, the original reasoning given was the threat for illegal missles, so we "went on behalf of the UN," but at the same time we disobeyed them. Now I want to stick in my own two cents here, I don't care for the UN much at times.  Love the people, but some of their actions are questionable.[/quote]

Well lol. What can I say? You are right there.

I think our little dialogue has reached the point of "We are agreeing, what was the issue again?" RDF!

[Aloysius]

I'm tired of all this.

The world is gonna work as the world is gonna work.

John Paul II warned Bush that it would be an immoral war.

The war happened anyway, since it happened all we can do now is support it.

The world is a better place without Saddam.

They found SARIN GAS (capable of killing 10,000) people in Iraq. If that's not a weapon of MASS DESTRUCTION, i don't know what is.

I respectfully disagree with what my Pope said before the war began. He spoke as a political leader, a shepherd of his flock which included some people in Iraq, he spoke as the Bishop of Rome and Patriarch of the Roman Catholic Church, he did not, however, speak as the Rock on which the Church is built.

We cannot say "blessed are you, Karol Wvoitiwa (excuse the sp), for flesh and blood have not revealed to you that this is an unjust war but my father in heaven" because it just isn't true.


I believe that 9 times out of 10 you cannot judge the justice of a war until you have historical heindsight. The Pope was hoping for a peaceful solution, Bush didn't think there was any left. This was of course, a continuation of the war that began some 15 years ago. Saddam had 12 years to comply, he did not comply. The United Nations had exhasted basically every other means, and Saddam was still a thread to world stability.

I thank God for the good this war is doing in the world, and ask forgiveness on behalf of our country for any bad it may do to the citizens of Iraq. But i do believe it is doing real good in the world. In historical heindsight i believe this will be seen as a great victory for the sake of peace in the Middle East.

[Iacobus]

[quote]John Paul II warned Bush that it would be an immoral war.[/quote]

Than it is immoral and we cannot support it.

[quote]The war happened anyway, since it happened all we can do now is support it.[/quote]

I beg to defer. I see a real diffence between supporting the war and support the troops. We have to support the attempts to fix the mess the war made and the troops trying to fix it but we don't and shouldn't support the war, per se.

[quote]The world is a better place without Saddam.[/quote]

Again that is largly debatable. Iraq shows signs that it may desend into a fundmetal Islamic state. Under Saddam there was in every major city a Christian Church. Compere that to a possible furture Iraq like Iran is today. So is Iraq really better? Is the world?

But regardless the reason of regime change cannot never alone be reason for war.

"War is never just another means that one can choose to employ for settling differences between nations." ~ JP2s Address to the diplomatic corps

[quote]They found SARIN GAS (capable of killing 10,000) people in Iraq. If that's not a weapon of MASS DESTRUCTION, i don't know what is.[/quote]

Was that proved? The fact that it dropped from the RADAR in such sort a time isn't saying anything good for the trutfulness of that gas being sarin. So that argument is kinda null until they find something that pans out in the lab as well as the semi-un trustable field tests.

[quote]I respectfully disagree with what my Pope said before the war began. He spoke as a political leader, a shepherd of his flock which included some people in Iraq, he spoke as the Bishop of Rome and Patriarch of the Roman Catholic Church, he did not, however, speak as the Rock on which the Church is built.[/quote]

The pope does not have to make his statment infallible. As Catholics if the Pope says something, though his authoirty as the teacher, we are bound to respect it. The Pope says something it, ever if not declared infallible, is to be consdiered true until proven wrong by a pope. It is part of the office.

[quote]I believe that 9 times out of 10 you cannot judge the justice of a war until you have historical heindsight. The Pope was hoping for a peaceful solution, Bush didn't think there was any left. This was of course, a continuation of the war that began some 15 years ago. Saddam had 12 years to comply, he did not comply. The United Nations had exhasted basically every other means, and Saddam was still a thread to world stability.[/quote]

Than 9 times out of 10 you cannot go to war. We can never, as Christians, engage in a war and hope and pray that in the end it will be justified. We must know and be createin that the war is just before we invade.

Saddam had 12 years to comply. To the best of our current knowledge he did. The UN did not exhast every other means. It would take longer than Nov of '02 to March of '03 to exhast every diplomatic means avialbe in the world.

Bush may not have thought there was any left but most of the world did. Inculding JPII and last I knew, we as Catholic, left decisons like morality and ethics up to the Pope and not the leader. A war planner is always going to think his war is just. That doesn't mean it is. Bush was a war planner. JPII wasn't.

[quote]I thank God for the good this war is doing in the world, and ask forgiveness on behalf of our country for any bad it may do to the citizens of Iraq. But I do believe it is doing real good in the world. In historical heindsight i believe this will be seen as a great victory for the sake of peace in the Middle East. [/quote]

I am unsure this is doing much good. The US has no international diplo muscle anymore after running out of rope on the uniliteralism cord and coming to the UN last week asking for help. One of the UNs stipulations? The US and DoD have no control of international troops in Iraq. They are all under UN command. Iraq has left the US, as long as Bush is pres, as a international lame duck.

Iraq is a good example entropy. The tendence of a system to lose data and fall into choas and disorder as it runs. The Kurds are now threating to pull out of the new goverment becasue the Sunnis won't let them hold either the PM or Pres spots. Saddam had the ethnic ravials under control and now they are flaring up. Civil war is possible, and likly. War lords and their private armies still run Iraq.

The more secular or pro US a leader is in Iraq the lower his poll numbers and support, even within his own tribal unit. The more anti US and pro fundmental Islmaic the leader is the higher his numbers are, even outside of his tribe.

We go in and force upon unwilling people our system of doing things, you normaly have huge problems. Look what happened when in the 1950's we helped a man from Coral Gables take power in Cuba. A few years later? Castro. People don't like having someone manner and culture pushed upon them.

[Jake Huether]

I don't know if any one has mentioned this, but in response to:

[quote]But what gets me in that in supporting the war in defince of the Church's teachings they rejected the teaching authority of the Church, and in doing so fully rejected the Church and Christ.

Than, this is the part that brothers me most, some go and get upset at about someone else rejecting the Church after they themselves have rejected her. [/quote]

The Church has not "taught" that the war in Iraq is unjust. There is no such Church teaching. The Pope has not infallibly proclaimed that the war in Iraq is unjust. The Pope is not "the Church". In fact the USCCB is not "the Church" either. Both the Pope and the USCCB combined aren't "The Church". On the war in Iraq, the Church has taught nothing.

War in general has to do with faith and morals. Yes. And so there are infallible teachings for war in general. But one cannot objectivly say that the war in Iraq is unjust. This cannot be proclaimed infallibly. You can infallibly say that lustful sex within marriage is a sin. But can you infallibly proclaim a certain couple to have sinned? No!

The Pope has his opinion on things. And we can either go with him or not. Yes, he is a very very smart person. And I would much rather have him think for me too! But his "thoughts" are not infallible. He potentially could (even the smalles chance) be wrong. We are not bound to think as the Pope thinks. We are bound to the Church teachings, not the Popes personal teachings.

I just wanted to clear that up.

It isn't a sin to vote for Bush based on his involvment in a war (one which may or may not be unjust - who knows). It is a sin to vote for someone who publically supports abortion. The public suport of a war is different. War is not objectivly sinful. Abortion is.

A Catholic is not a cafeteria Catholic who votes for Bush and believes the war to be just. There is not Teaching on the war in Iraq.

Just wanted to clarify that point.

God bless you all.

[Paladin D]

[quote name='voiciblanche' date='Jun 10 2004, 03:10 AM'] Yeah. We went way off with this war. We have NO support. It's one thing when a couple countries here and there disagree with you. That is inevitable. But the UN to disagree with you as a whole and to have no support whatsoever? [/quote]
We do have support, almost 2/3 of Europe supported the war (including Poland). The whiners usually yell the loudest, thus giving them more of the attention.

But to clarify my position on the war, I agree with some of it's decisions, and disagree with others. Thus, I'm practically nuetral or 50/50.

[Iacobus]

[quote name='Paladin D' date='Jun 10 2004, 04:19 PM'] We do have support, almost 2/3 of Europe supported the war (including Poland). The whiners usually yell the loudest, thus giving them more of the attention.

But to clarify my position on the war, I agree with some of it's decisions, and disagree with others. Thus, I'm practically nuetral or 50/50. [/quote]
Yes Pal. We have 1000 Polish troops. They are unwilling to commit more out of fear of the mess. We have the UK's goverement. The war with the people is very unpopular. Spain pulled out becuase the war was that unpopular and they said that was when they were going to pull out. We have the UK and Poland's goverments approval. Thats it. That is not 66%.