Pope Benedict XVI's honeymoon is over before it began. Preying upon the one ethnic stereotype safe from political correctness, critics labeled the former Cardinal Ratzinger the Panzer Pope and God's Rottweiler. The new pope wasn't just a conservative, but an "arch-conservative" (Reuters), a "staunch conservative" (Agence France-Presse), and the "Church's leading hard-liner" (Associated Press). Worst of all, Joseph Ratzinger is a Catholic who believes in the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. For this, Andrew Sullivan labels his election "insular and regressive." Perhaps when a pope approves of HIV+ men seeking anonymous bareback sex, Andrew Sullivan will approve of the pope. Other leftists--churchgoers all, I'm sure--were more coarse in their condemnations.

Pope Benedict XVI is Catholic, conservative, and German. For a leftist, what's not to hate?

They never even gave him a honeymoon! why does anyone think a Catholic Church Pope should be "progressive"? If you want catholic lite go to the Episcapal church! Some things are carved in stone. the U.S. Constitution and the Dogma of the Catholic church. Some people think the rules should change to make their lives esier based on how society changes. Well NO! a contract is a contract.

viva il papa!!!

" New pope intervened against Kerry in US 2004 election campaign

Tue Apr 19, 6:20 PM ET

German Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Vatican theologian who was elected Pope Benedict XVI, intervened in the 2004 US election campaign ordering bishops to deny communion to abortion rights supporters including presidential candidate John Kerry.

In a June 2004 letter to US bishops enunciating principles of worthiness for communion recipients, Ratzinger specified that strong and open supporters of abortion should be denied the Catholic sacrament, for being guilty of a "grave sin."

He specifically mentioned "the case of a Catholic politician consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws," a reference widely understood to mean Democratic candidate Kerry, a Catholic who has defended abortion rights.

The letter said a priest confronted with such a person seeking communion "must refuse to distribute it."

A footnote to the letter also condemned any Catholic who votes specifically for a candidate because the candidate holds a pro-abortion position. Such a voter "would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for holy communion," the letter read.

The letter, which was revealed in the Italian magazine L'Espresso last year, was reportedly only sent to US Catholic bishops, who discussed it in their convocation in Denver, Colorado, in mid-June.

Sharply divided on the issue, the bishops decided to leave the decision on granting or denying communion to the individual priest. Kerry later received communion several times from sympathetic priests.

Nevertheless, in the November election, a majority of Catholic voters, who traditionally supported Democratic Party candidates, shifted their votes to Republican and eventual winner George W. Bush."

http://beta.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050419/pl_afp/vaticanpopeus

Christ told His apostles to be assured that as they are not "of this world" the world will hate them just as it first hated Him. To see the venom being spewed at the Holy Father Benedict XVI from the Church's most dogged enemies indicates that the conclave must have done something right.

Christians know who the "prince" of this world is and so if the worldy hate the Vicar of Christ then we can be assured of whom they serve (wittingly or no).

I am not Catholic, but I am happy to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger elected to the papacy.

The fit the media is throwing about this man provides more evidence, as Brian was hinting, of his faithfulness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I was listening to NPR last night and I heard a priest wringing his hands out of concern over Dominus Iesus, a document written by Benedict XVI, which proclaims the absolute necessity of Jesus Christ as the way to eternal life. "Tolerance" (in actuality merely religious relativism) was apparently the main concern of this priest.

I applaud Benedict XVI for speaking the truth about the West's shift to secularism and faux "tolerance," identifying these destructive trends, particularly the latter, for what it really is: an illogical relativism that makes Jesus Christ a non-judgmentalist pop moral philosopher utterly devoid of divinity and redemptive power. As the apostle John wrote in one of his epistles, those who deny the Jesus of the Gospels "deny the Father and the Son," (I Jn. 2:22) including those who wish to strip our Lord of His true identity.

I think Benedict is a interesting choice for a name considering the last Pope to go by that name (Benedict XV) tried very hard to stop World War I. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger is on the record correctly pointing out that the Iraq war flouts the historic teachings of Scriptures and the church fathers with respect to "just war" theory. How much longer until the neocons start foaming at the mouth at Ratzinger (like they did at John Paul II) for not endorsing the global democratic revolution?

What ever difference I have with Catholic Theology I think Benedict was a good choice.

I have to wonder why RC Cardinals are expected to elect a "progressive". It is good the Cardinals got someone who would take seriously the teachings of Christ.

The left is foolish to think that the Cardinals would elect someone they would like. Once the left wakes up and abandons its pro-death/pro-license stance perhaps they will get a Pope they like.

Till then they will keep getting regressives that think sex is more than a distraction and that think butchering the unborn in the womb (or mostly out of it) is a bad thing. But I fail to see how that is unreasonable of those "regressive" old Popes.

Jason

Is it just me, or is it just plain FUN to piss these people (media, liberals, Nancy Pelosi) off?

By copy to Timmay...is it sinful to enjoy piss-ing them off? I sincerely hope not.

Pope Benedict was also a memeber of the Hitler Youth. I bet the Lefties really love that one! Just like Schwarzaneggers daddy! I bet they were in cahoots with each other. I wonder what kind of leftist conspiracy will come out of that one!

The reaction of the liberal rottweilers leads me to the conclusion that the selection of our new Pope was perfection.

My hunch is that the Papacy of Benedict XVI will have as a foundation the teachings of JPII.

John Paul II was extremely popular, but that popularity was due as much to his charisma as it was his profound wisdom and commitment to showing us how to emulate Christ on earth. It will take even those of sincere commitment years to absorb and truly grasp all his lessons. Many, whose interest was sparked in the final days of Pope John Paul II's reign, will only now begin to delve into tracts such as "Crossing The Threshold of Hope."

It is my belief that the selection of the former Cardinal Ratzinger, Dean of The College of Cardinals, perhaps the man among men who was most intimately familiar with JPII's overarching message, will serve best those of us who are only now going to begin to realize how special it was to walk the earth at the same time as John Paul the Great, by keeping his teachings in the fore of this new Papacy. This I pray. anyway.

Long live Benedict XVI.

Because they misunderstood Vatican II, these hippie Catholics have waited their entire lives for the other shoe to drop. Considerig how quickly other churches/institutions changed in the 20th c., they had reason to hope the RC church would follow. Now these aging hippies are realizing that they are not going to get what they have waited their whole lives for. I love it. They have tried they're best, but the Catholic Church is one institution they can't ruin.

Having said that, I don't think Ratzinger is a "conservative." I just think he's a serious Catholic Christian. To the left that means he's a neanderthal.

So the main stream media does not like the new pope. Benedict VI should consider this a badge of honor. The leftists media opposes all that is good and just. The day I am praised by the main stream media I will turn pale with fright.

James

That was a great post unitl you got to the part about the Iraq war. The real reason for the oppositon was political. To have come out in support of the Iraq war would have been risky for the Catholic Church. It would have made trouble for the Catholic Church with the extremists muslims throughout Europe and the middle east, furthermore, Saddam would have made trouble for the Catholic Church in Iraq. To criticize GW Bush will cost the church nothing and may even have resulted in a gain for the church.

I'm not sure about the "Christian just war theory." I do think it was completely unacceptable to allow Saddam to remain in power and continue supporting terrorists and continue to work to kill Americans. The Neo Conservatives do not "foam at the mouth." They debate the issues and they respectfully disagree with the Vatican's stance on this. The neo conservatives have been very respectful to the Vatican. This is in contrast to the actions of the main stream media of late.

For the record, I believe the Catholic Church is one of the most noble and good organizations in the world. May God bless Pope Benedict VI. My thoughts and prayers are with him and the Catholic Church.

Best Wishes
B.Poster

What should be of interest to liberals is how the new pope - who certainly possesses a formidable intellect - arrived at his conservatism.

One influence was the generation of '68 and, in Germany, their domestic terrorist offshoots (http://www.baader-meinhof.com). According to today's New York Times, while still a cardinal Pope Benedict described 1968 as "a radical attack on human freedom and dignity, a deep threat to all that is human." A curious assertion that flies in the face of how some lionize and sentimentalize that time. Not this guy. As the then-cardinal went on to say, "I learned where discussion must stop because it is turning into a lie and resistance must begin in order to maintain freedom."

Interesting...

I love the charges of Nazi that have been flung at him. Pure bullshit.

His father was an Anti-Nazi police officer who resigned when Hitler rose to power.

Benedict himself, after being forced to join the Hitler Youth, refused to attend their meetings after a short while.

At 16 he was conscripted into the Wehrmacth and sent to join an Anti-Aircraft unit in Hungary. He promptly deserted.

"The real reason for the [Chruch's] oppositon [to the Iraq war] was political." -B. Poster

Poster, do you have any evidence for this claim, or are you just engaging in speculation? Of course, the latter. But perhaps you shouldn't be so cynical.

I think that Ratzinger and JPII probably disapproved of the war publically because they actually disapproved of the war. Is that so unthinkable?

Yeah even as a pro-war person, I gotta go with Short on this one.

Actually it really is not unthinkable that they could disapprove of the war because they simply disapproved. I should have clarified that position. I apologize for not making that more clear. I really should have made that more clear. Having siad this, the terror supporitng states could have halted oil shipments to Italy if they did not coperate. Italy in turn could have halted electrical power to the Vatican if they did not cooperate. All the United States can do to either Italy or the Vatican is threaten to halt the shipments from Amazon.com or something like this. Since the Pope probably does not order from Amazon.com, if he responed at all it would be laughter, the United States has no influence here. In summary, the terror supporting states hold much more clout here than the United States does. The fact that Italy has been generally supportive of the United States indicates that the Italian government has a greater understanding of this threat than is generally acknowledged. Supportingg the United States is a politically risky endeavor. At least in the short term, opposition to America in general and the Bush administation in particular will cost nothing and will could well result in political gain. In the long term, the western world will need to decide if they want to hang with the United States or they can hang separately. Again having said all of this the Vatican and the Pope could have opposed the war in Iraq simply because they opposed it and they are pacifists.

I am sorry for the sentence structure and the spelling in my previous post. It was quite bad!!

You're stretching the Leftist oil-power conspiracies rather thin. Italy participated in the war, so why would the Vatican risk its electricity from Italy by supporting the war? Silliness.

Besides, a nice thing about the Vatican is that they think in centuries. So what if someone threatened them with a loss of electricity?

Also, one needn't be a pacifist to oppose this war. True, JPII was pretty close to pacifism. Does anyone know where Benedict stands on these issues?

big non sequitur here, but i'm shocked and awed by the degree to which chris matthews goes to suck up to the leftists on his program. he just lit into sen. john thune, attempting to pin him down by forcing yes or no answers, while throwing softball questions to the liberal john corsine, and quipping that corsine would make "great governor material". almost every predicate of matthews' questions is skewed in such a way that the conservative must go on the defensive.

today's "hardball" topic: is the pope too divisive and conservative for america's catholics?

nuff said.

JPII was not a pacifist, he often made a point of stressing that fact. For example he was invited to give a message to a "world peace day" in the 80s, one of those lets hold hands and the Cold War will end festivals, and his message was totally fiery and anti-communist, calling for the liberation of eastern Europe (admittedly for the peaceful liberation).

Also, he called for NATO or UN military intervention in the Balkan wars in the 90's.

Ratzinger had wondered in his writings whether or not the destructiveness of modern weaponry and the human cost of modern warfare is such that their can never in fact be a "just war anymore. So while the neocons have looked to expand just war theory Ratzinger has mused (but I don't think done more than that) about restricting just war theory.

I think regarding B. Poster's theories that the simplest explanation is the best one in this case. The simple explanation is that various members of the curia including JPII and the now Benedict XVI looked at what the U.S. was claiming and decided that it did not meet the criteria for a just war.

Brian & Short

You both raise interesting points. Short you state that the vatican thinks in terms of centuries. I must confess ignorance in exactly how the Vatican operates. I have heard that the Vatican does think in terms of centuries. If this is so, I think this may help to explain some of their policies, specifically their stance reagrding the Iraq war. The Vatican is an entity that has no military, no industrial capabiltiy, or natrual resources of any kind. Since the Vatican has none of these things, it will only survive at the pleasure of political entities who possess these things. The Islamic Extremists possess all of these in abundance.

The current trends affecting Europe seem to indicate the following future for Europe: 1.)At some point during the 21st century, the Muslim population will overtake the native European populations in Italy and the rest of Western Europe. 2.)The Muslim population origianlly emigrated from the Islamic countries of the middle east and they are out reproducing native Europeans. 3.)The European Muslim population follows Islam, however, not necessarily the extremist version that our terrorists enemies follow. Points one through three are well documented from many sources, especially points one and two. If these trends hold, Italy and other Western European countries will eventually be ruled by Islamic law. The question is not will this happen. The question is when will it happen. Lets hope the trends don't hold but if they do lets pray it is not an extremist government.

Due to the huge oil reserves that countries, such as Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and most of the middle east have these countries figure to be major players in world affairs for the next 100 years or so. We should hope and pray that the Islamic Extremists within these countries are defeated.

Unfortunately given the current trends in our country, such as moral decay, out of control spending, the expansion of the well fare state, and in-fighting among politicians, just to name a few, it is highly likely that the United States will be a third rate nation in all areas by the year 2020. I hope and pray we reverse these trends. Given that the United States is unlikely to continue in its leading position for much longer and the Islamic Extremists have a nasty habit of killing those who would dare defy them and the countries they currently rule will likely be major players on the world scene for the next hundred years, it becomes problematic for the Vatican to throw too much support behind a position that benefits the United States. It should be noted that countries, such as Iran, will likely be major players on the world scene regardless who rules them. Lers hope and pray that the Islamic Extremists are defeated.

To the best of my knowledge the Vatican while they have not actively supported the American position they have not tried to undermine it, as France, Russia, and Gernmay have. Since the Vatican has not actively undermined the American position, should the United States somehow reverse the current trends and remain a major power for the next 100 years or more no real harm is done to the Vatican's position. The Patriarch of Chaldean Church of Babylon actually touched on these issues, buried in the midst of an anti-Bush diatribe, during the run up to the Iraq war.

Given the long term trends, this is why I think it is imperative that we win the war against the Islamic Extremists while we still can!!

Brian, the Balkan wars in the 1990s were fought to benefit Muslims who were being slaughtered. The Iraq war is being fought primarily to benefit America and the Western world. If Europe's Muslim population supported the Balkans wars that were being fought primarily to benefit them, as I think they did support these wars, this might explain the different responses by the Vatican.

Even if we win the war on terror, long term trends indicate that Italy and the rest of Western Europe will one day find themselves under Islamic rule of some sort. Lets hope it is not the kind of Islam the terrorists practice. Should the unthinkable happen, the Vatican, a country with no military, no industrial capability, and no natrual resources will need to find a way to co-exist with Islamic Extremists. If they calculate wrong it could end in disaster for Europe's Catholic population. Should the Islamic Extremists ever gain power in Europe, they can do far worse to the Vatican than cutting electrical power to it. This is why I think they may have calculated that they better not go out of their way to do anything that will anger the Islamic Extremists. Actually I think Pope John Paul II was a good man and I think the current Pope Benedict XVI is a good man, I can appreciate the difficulty of the position they find themselves in. I am in no position to judge, as I have sometimes taken the path of least resistance even when I knew what I was doing was wrong. I would expect Pope Benedict XVI to take the same positions that Pope John Paul II took.

I think that both our policies and those of others are motivated to a large degree by oil. I think to assume otherwise would be an imcomplete evaluation of the situation. I don't think that involves conspiracy theroy to suggest this.

I actually think the Vatican has made a good choice for the new pope. The main stream media appears to hate him. This is a good start!! I pray for the Pope and Catholics around the world daily. May God richly bless him!!

I hope I have addressed all of your points. I hope I did not offend you and I hope this was not too long.

Best Wishes
B.Poster

Poster: I often like your posts, but you seem to have a Leftist imagination (even if you are really into the wars in the middle east).

1. Italy fought in the war. Why would the other Islamic states cut off oil to Italy and/or the Vatican had the Vatican merely supported the war or remained silent?

2. We already have an entirely sufficient explanation for the Vatican's opposition to the war -- just war theory. So all the speculation is unnecessary. You seem to prefer the materialistic-economic type of explanations to the idea-oriented ones (You have a Marxist influence maybe?). But we are animals with reason, and ideas matter to us.

3. If the scenario you paint happens -- and Europe is entirely overrun by Islamists -- then the Vatican will probably not be able to operate in Rome at all. They would probably move. In any case, if Europe were made an Islamic state, the Vatican's support or not for this silly war would have no memory or effect.

4. I'm pessimistic, but your pessimism borders on apocolyptic visions. And if that's the case, no biggie. Read to the end of the book-- everything turns out OK in the end.

Short

You say that you often like my posts. You are smart person. I take that as a high compliment. Thank you very much!! I agree leftists do have wild imaginations. I do not consider what I discussed peviously to be imaginitive at all. I think it is based on sound rational ana-lysis. Having said this, my ana-lysis could be all wrong but I do not think it should be dismissed out of hand. Now for your points.

1.)Italy did not fight the war. Your statement assumes the war is over. It is not. Italy is currently fighting the war. The final outcome remains in doubt. I hope and pray that we will win. Believe it or not, after discussimg the situation with some people who have been in the region, I am cautiosly optimistic that we will prevail. As it stands right now, the oil and food supply, etc to the Vatican are probably safe. America and its allies still probably have enough clout to keep the Vatican safe. At least if the terrorists don't actively target it, as they threatened to do early on. Later they issued statements saying they would not target the Vatican. I think it is possible that JPII's stance may have something to do with the change of heart. The problem is should the Islamic Extremists come to power in Europe some day and the Vatican has angered them they will make trobule for them, as they have a nasty habit of persecuting folks who would dare challenge them.

2.) The so called just war theory could well be the true explanation for the stance taken by the Vatican. If this is so, I might ask them, if we can't act in our national interests to remove one of the worst tyrants in the world who was a grave and gathering threat to our national security, then when will you allow us to act? Yes ideas do matter, nevertheless, economic issues play a role in the decisions that people and governments make. This is why capitalism works so well. It understands that people will be more productive when they work to support their own economic interests and not those of the state. I don't consider it Marxists to suggest that economics play a role in decision making. On a side note, we already have a suffiecent explanation for why the Americans and their allies chose to act to remove Saddam. The "Bush lied" and "Bush manipulated the intellegence" diatribes are unnessecary here.

3.) The scenario I painted may not happen. If it does happen, I wonder where they will move to. I would expect an Islamic state who controls Europe might have enough power to inflict severe reprisals on anyone who would cooperate with their enemies. A moderate Islamic state might well tolerate them where they are now. Removing a major threat to our national security is not silly. It is prudent. The Islamic Extremists also think in terms of centuries. They still talk about the crusades. Unless the Islamic Extremists change their outlook what anyone does today that negatively affects them will be remembered for a long time.

4.) I don't remember citing any apocolyptic visions. Based on much reading and much study, I have given my best efforts to ana-lyize long term world trends and current geo-political realities. If the leftists would do this rather than letting their ideologies think for them, they would be much better for it. I have tried to identify problem areas. This is the first step to solving them. For starters, I think Christians need to be more aggressive about trying to win converts. You are correct. In the end everything turns out okay.

Best Wishes
B.Poster

P.S. - There really is a good reason to oppose the current operations in Iraq. I am concerned that these operations may have caused the governments of the United States and its allies to loose sight of much bigger threats such as Russia and China. I hope we are still focused on these, nevertheless, it is a major concern.

Poster: whether the Iraq War was in fact just or not is *irrelveant*! The question is whether just war theory *as read by the Vatican* says it was unjust.

This seems to come down to an unwillingness to understand other people's positions. Someone disagrees with you! How is that possible?! You go out an confabulate economic conspiracy theories to explain away the other guy's reasons. Once again, this move is quite leftist in style.

Short

The Vatican and I can have a difrerent opinion concerning "Just War Theory." I must confess ignorance as to exactly what this is. I assert the war may not have been the best use of American and allied resources but if they are going to conclude that removing one of the worst tyrants in the world and acting in the national self defense interests of the United States and our allies is unjust then no war will ever be just. One writer asserted that the Vatican is opposed to tyrants just as long as no one did anything to actually hurt them. I don't know if that is true.

Short wrote:"This seems to come down to an unwillingness to understand other people's positions. Someone disagrees with you! How is that possible?!"

Your perception of me is incorrect. I think I stated in the previous posts that you and Brian could be right. If I did not, I am now. You might do well to consider what I wrote and acknowledge that it could be correct. I confabulated nothting. I have tried to be very careful in my ana-lysis. So far all you have done is accuse me of confabulating economic conspiracy theories and using a leftists style. If you are going to refute what I wrote, please do so on the merits and stop falling back on your ideology. That truly is what leftists do. So I would assert that it is you and not me who is using a leftist style.

For the record, all countries have probablly at one time or another placed economic interests ahead of doing the right thing. Just to cite an example, United States policy regarding the Israelis and the Palestinians has been to treat both parties as though they are equals. Treating the only democracy in the middle east and the most important buffer between the west and the terrorists as morally equal to their tyrannical and thuggish enemies is at best misguided policy. Why has this happened? I assert the following: 1.)We need oil. 2.)The supporters of the Palestinian Authority have lots of it. 3.)We need their oil. 4.)The supporters of the Palestinian Authority have terrorists cells all over the world and can and will make real trouble for folks who won't cooperate. 5.) Finally, Israel has no oil. This I believe explains the misguided policies concerning this issue. In summary, this is taking the path of least resistance. I have fallen short in this regard to. As I hope you can see, I have pointed the finger at both our country and at myself too. I'm in no condtion to cast stones at anyone.

My prayers are with the Pope, the Vatican, and the Catholic Church.

Hey Poster,

Thanks for the kind comments and words for Benedict XVI. I just read your comment directed at me regarding my claim that JPII wasn't a pacifist by citing his support for intervention in the Bosnian conflict. To be honest I do not remember the details of JPII's support for that military intervention well enough to speak directly to his motivation or arguments for it. It is also true that he gave tacit approval to the attack on Afghanistan.

My point is only that while it is true that Vatican City is the world's smallest country and has diplomatic relations with most nations it is a mistake to think of decisions emanating from there as coming through the normal decision-making processes that we see in every other nation. You are pointing out possible "reasons of state" like need for oil, energy, etc., that really are not factors in the way the hierarchy of the Church, in particular the pope, do business and make decisions.

As regards use of military force the popes traditionally make decisions based on their applications of "just war theory." If you want to read some more about this theory, here is one article that introduces the topic: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15546c.htm

Personally, I am of the opinion that JPII was too willing to defer to the "democratic" decisions and power of the U.N. on some matters, including certain "police" actions such as in Bosnia. And one can, I suppose, question the motives of any person in a position of authority of a state, like the pope, regarding their policy decisions. However, I think that one should first look at what that leader claims are the reasons for their policies/positions etc., and show them to fail as explanations before we begin to surmise fear of Muslims, or economic necessities as the real reasons behind a stance. That was the only point I had wanted to make.

"I confabulated nothting. I have tried to be very careful in my ana-lysis. So far all you have done is accuse me of confabulating economic conspiracy theories and using a leftists style. If you are going to refute what I wrote, please do so on the merits and stop falling back on your ideology."

Poster, I have already definitively refuted what you said with arguments. We have more than sufficient explanation of the Vatican's position before we get into any incredibly unlikely oil-related ulterior motives. I used the word "confabulation" because you have produced no evidence that oil actually influenced their decision. Do you have any evidence?

Perhaps the reason you don't understand the Vatican's position, and want to look for ulterior motives, is because you have absolutely no idea what just war theory says. You have repeatedly admitted this. I don't care whether you know anything about just war theory. But before engaging in fantastical speculation, perhaps you should inspect the obvious explanation.

Short

You have refuted nothing that I have written. Perhaps I focused to much on "oil" or maybe you did not read what I wrote. I'm going to try again. First we have the Vatican. This city state has no natrual resources and no miliary. It is only going to survive at the pleasure of other entitiies. You have two groups that are in conflict. On one side you have the Islamic Extremists and on the other side you have America and its allies. One or the other will win. I don't think there is any middle ground. The Islamic Extremists are well known to be quite ruthless. Taking an overtly pro-American stance regarding Iraq will likely make trouble for the Catholic Church throughout the middle east. The Patriarch of the Chaldean Church of Babylon even alluded to this. Anti-American stances in general and anti-Bush stances will cost nothing. All indications seem to point to the fact that America and its allies are winning the current conflict with the Islamic Extremists. The Vatican probably actually wants us to win. I think they would be happier and in a better position with pro-Western governments than with Islamic governments and I think they know this. They have done nothing to undermine our position that I'm aware of. Because of this they have not harmed their position with America and its allies. The Vatican is fighting for nothing less than the survival of the Catholic Church. In the current environment, overtly pro-Bush stances run the risk of making trouble for them. Anti-Bush stances will cost nothing. Far from accusing them of ulterior motives, I am acknowledging that I understand and can appreciate the position they find themselves in.

Regarding just war theory, if the United States and its allies are unable to act to remove a grave and gathering threat to their collective security and to remove one of the worst dictators in the world then it would seem no war would ever meet the criteria for a just war. I will read the link that Brian has posted. Perhaps this will clarify things a bit.

I think I know how you got the idea that this is all about "oil." In the previous post I discussed the Israeli/Arab confilct and I attempted to explain why the United States and the West treat the only democracy in the middle east as equal to terrorist thugs. In that case, I think it does have to do with oil. The point I was trying to make is that countries and people sometimes place self interest over doing what is right.

In this case, I think the Vatican may have placed self-preservation over doing what is right. Of course my ana-lysis could be wrong. Again, I am not accusing the Vatican of ulterior motives. I can understand and appreciate the position they are in. Having charge of 1.1 billion Catholics is a big responsibility. I can certainly understand why they would not want to make trouble with the wrong crowd.

I am not engaging in fantastical speculation. I am carefully studying world events, in an attempt to understand what is going on. My positions are based on a rigorous ana-lysis of many sources. Admittedly most of my sources are outside of the leftists main stream media. In spite of this, I can still get things wrong. I try very hard to not let my ideology think for me. I would encourage others to do the same.

Best Wishes
B.Poster

Brian

Thank you for the additional information. I will check out the link you wrote.

The Catholic Church has churches in Iraq. I don't think they had any Afghanistan. This could help to explain the different stances. Also, I think you may be on to somehting regarding the excessive deference to the UN. Something else to think about is "old Europe" was largely in support of the Balkan wars. The Vatican seems to me to place allot of weight on the opinions of "old Europe."

My thoughts and prayers are with Pope Benedict XVI, The Vatican, and the Catholic Church. May god bless them and keep them. I really do think the Pope and the Vatican are, by any human standard, good people.

Best Wishes
B.Poster

Brian

I read the link you wrote regarding just war theory. It was very interesting. Thank you for posting it. In this post, I will not do the following: 1.)Question anyone's motives. 2.)Argue for or against the war in Iraq. What I will do is briefly ana-lyize the article you posted and attempt to determine how certain people may have thought. The article is lengthy but two salient points it makes are: 1.)For a war to be just it must be necessary. 2.)For a war to be just it must be waged as a last appeal.

Regarding point 1, it could be argued quite cognitvely that the threat posed by Iraq had not fully materialized yet. The Vatican's position may have been that since the threat had not fully materialized yet we had more time to try and find another solution. The position of the Bush administration was that they would not wait for a threat from a beligerent nation to fully materialize. This is in contrast to the wars in the Balkans. By the time NATO intervened Muslims were already being killed. Clearly the threat in the Balkans had already fully materialized. The Iraqi threat while serious and growing had not fully materialized yet and just war theory appears to contain no "doctrine of preemption." I actually think a case could be made against a "doctrine of preemption!!"

Regarding point 2, according to the article war can only be waged as a last appeal. Before the war we were going through the UN. The Vatican appears to have believed that the situation could be resolved through the UN and other multi-lateral institutions, such as this. The Bush administration had lost faith that the UN was going to handle this.

The lack of a fully materialized threat and a belief in institutions, such as the UN, may well explain the Vatican's position regarding the Iraq war.

Again, thank you for the information.

Best Wishes
B.Poster

Brian and Short

Upon further inspection of "Just War Theory" it is possible, whether I agree or not, to support the Vatican's position regarding the Iraq war.

I agree with both of you entirely. When it is possible to support a person's position based upon what they say it is we should assume they are being truthful unless we can prove they are not being truthful. Kind of like "innocent until proven guilty." The Vatican's stated reasons are sufficent to support their position, therefore, we should assume the stated reasons are the real reasons.

Some of the things I wrote, if directed at me, I might find offensive. If I have offended either of you, I apologize.

Best Wishes
B.Poster

B. Poster,

I will be sure to buy you a beer if I ever meet you, you are a graciuous person to discuss and debate world affairs with!

I think you honed in on two of the critical aspects of just war theory for understanding the stance the Vatican took in regards invading Iraq. So you put that article to great use. This also explains why many pro-war Catholics like Michael Novak and George Weigel attempted to argue with the Vatican in terms of the just war theory, they wanted to claim that the invasion of Iraq was just, or they sometimes would argue that just war theory itself needs to be "updated" or revised; particularly to give more latitude for preemptive actions.

Certainly nations and institutions can have ulterior motives behind the ones they claim to have for taking a particular stance, but as you note just war theory is sufficient for providing a case against the Iraq War. So if the Vatican was secretly motivated more by reasons of state such as concern for their security or infrastructure we just don't seem to have any direct evidence of that yet.
Regards,