[warmspit]

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L25475515.htm

VATICAN CITY, Oct 25 (Reuters) - A major Vatican document issued a week ahead of the U.S. elections forcefully restated on Monday the Catholic Church's position that preventive wars are permissible only with "clear proof" of an imminent attack.

The position on war and peace, on legitimate defence and aggression was found in the new Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, a 330-page tome published by the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.

While the book is mainly a compilation of known Church teachings on a host of social issues, its chapter called "The Promotion of Peace," is one of the most topical because of the war in Iraq and the Nov. 2 U.S. presidential elections.

It made no specific reference to Iraq, but defended the Charter of the United Nations, which prohibits a recourse to conflict to resolve disputes except in cases of legitimate defence and when backed by the U.N. Security Council.

"Therefore, engaging in a preventive war without clear proof that an attack is imminent cannot fail to raise serious moral and juridical questions," it said.

The Vatican strongly opposed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and the Pope sent senior cardinals to U.S. President George Bush and former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to try to avert it.

The Vatican envoy the Pope dispatched to Washington before the invasion, Cardinal Pio Laghi, emerged from his meeting with Bush and said any war without U.N. backing would be "illegal".

[RAILhead]

...and? Point? Who cares? Also, I thought the Left™ didn't give a rat's arse about what the Religious™ think, anyway?

Oh well.

Maury

[warmspit]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
...and? Point? Who cares? Also, I thought the Left™ didn't give a rat's arse about what the Religious™ think, anyway?

Oh well.

Maury

I think its interesting because the Bush campaign is claiming that no good catholic should vote for Kerry.

I think you're pointing your hypocrisy meter in the wrong direction.

cheers!

[boots]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
...and? Point? Who cares? Also, I thought the Left™ didn't give a rat's arse about what the Religious™ think, anyway?

Oh well.

Maury

Maybe they do, maybe they don't. What they think, however, doesn't matter. If someone is going to try to pawn themselves off as being driven by religion (either party, but presently it seems to be Bush driving this one), they ought to take stock in what the religious leaders say. And people who vote based on religious belief (i.e. crucify Kerry on his abortion stance) should know something about the Churches stance on other issues as well. In this case, it makes it tough to be a Catholic this year. Bush's own denomination already chastised him for the preemptive war thing.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by warmspit:
I think its interesting because the Bush campaign is claiming that no good catholic should vote for Kerry.

I think you're pointing your hypocrisy meter in the wrong direction.

cheers!

Wrong. The Church -- as in the Catholic Church -- is not the be all, end all in religion. I don't share their faith or views, so their opinion matters not to me. =)

Maury

[icruise]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Wrong. The Church -- as in the Catholic Church -- is not the be all, end all in religion. I don't share their faith or views, so their opinion matters not to me. =)

Maury

If the world revolved around you, that might matter. However, there are quite a number of people who do care.

[thunderous_funker]

As someone who opposed the war all along, all I can say is:

Who the hell cares what the arse-backward medievalists in the Vatican think about anything?

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
As someone who opposed the war all along, all I can say is:

Who the hell cares what the arse-backward medievalists in the Vatican think about anything?

Thanks for the unintentional assist in helping make my point.

And there you have it.

Maury

[chris v]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
As someone who opposed the war all along, all I can say is:

Who the hell cares what the arse-backward medievalists in the Vatican think about anything?

Oh, but we love them when they say Kerry should be excommunicated because of his views on abortion.

Good old cognitive dissonance.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by chris v:
Oh, but we love them when they say Kerry should be excommunicated because of his views on abortion.

Good old cognitive dissonance.

Being excommunicated from the Catholic church might make me more than a luke-warm Kerry supporter.

The kind of cognitive dissonance it requires to be a Catholic in the 21st century really makes me wary of them.

[icruise]

Just for the record, I have no particular love for the Catholic church, but this whole "I don't care so it doesn't matter" attitude disturbs me. Just because you don't care, or it doesn't affect you personally, doesn't necessary mean that it is meaningless.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Icruise:
Just for the record, I have no particular love for the Catholic church, but this whole "I don't care so it doesn't matter" attitude disturbs me. Just because you don't care, or it doesn't affect you personally, doesn't necessary mean that it is meaningless.

If the Pope's endorsement can make or break a US election, than this country is in way more trouble than I had imagined.

[warmspit]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
If the Pope's endorsement can make or break a US election, than this country is in way more trouble than I had imagined.

I'm not catholic, so the pope could endorse little bars of soap for all i care...I just found it INTERESTING, not necessarily IMPORTANT, that previously catholic cardinals have been preaching from pulpits that no good catholic can vote for Kerry, but here is the pope also calling Bush's Folly (oops the Iraq "LIberation) illegal. I'm curious whether that means catholics also cannot vote for Bush.

as someone else said, must be hard to be a faithful catholic and vote this year.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by warmspit:
I'm not catholic, so the pope could endorse little bars of soap for all i care...I just found it INTERESTING, not necessarily IMPORTANT, that previously catholic cardinals have been preaching from pulpits that no good catholic can vote for Kerry, but here is the pope also calling Bush's Folly (oops the Iraq "LIberation) illegal. I'm curious whether that means catholics also cannot vote for Bush.

as someone else said, must be hard to be a faithful catholic and vote this year.

I hear ya. Just another example of the kind of irrational behavior and cognitive dissonance required of modern Catholics.

Didn't mean to derail the thread with my own rantings. Carry on.

[ironknee]

even the crusty pope knows a lier when he sees one

[chris v]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
If the Pope's endorsement can make or break a US election, than this country is in way more trouble than I had imagined.

FOREI9GN AGENTY!11!!!!!!!11 AUGGHHH1!!!

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
If the Pope's endorsement can make or break a US election, than this country is in way more trouble than I had imagined.

Don't know about you, but I would think that 40M practicing Roman Catholics in this country could make quite a difference in an election. They sure did when JFK was elected... the Pope's endorsement of JFK may well have been the deciding factor in that election.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Don't know about you, but I would think that 40M practicing Roman Catholics in this country could make quite a difference in an election. They sure did when JFK was elected... the Pope's endorsement of JFK may well have been the deciding factor in that election.

What percentage of those 40M "practicing" Catholics listen to the Pope when it comes to pre-marital sex? Drinking? Missionary Position? Birth Control? Or any of the other countless medieval dogmas that are almost univerally ignored by citizens of the 21st century?

There are Cardinals in North America who don't listen to the Pope on matters of supposed Eternal Salvation so why should American voters listen to the Pope on matters of civic duty?

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
What percentage of those 40M "practicing" Catholics listen to the Pope when it comes to pre-marital sex? Drinking? Missionary Position? Birth Control? Or any of the other countless medieval dogmas that are almost univerally ignored by citizens of the 21st century?

There are Cardinals in North America who don't listen to the Pope on matters of supposed Eternal Salvation so why should American voters listen to the Pope on matters of civic duty?

That's a valid point, but don't make it sound like the Vatican's never helped anyone else get elected.

Your comment:

"If the Pope's endorsement can make or break a US election, than this country is in way more trouble than I had imagined."

Is just bull, the Popes have been playing in the US political game for a very long time.

[warmspit]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Don't know about you, but I would think that 40M practicing Roman Catholics in this country could make quite a difference in an election. They sure did when JFK was elected... the Pope's endorsement of JFK may well have been the deciding factor in that election.

must be bad for Bush, then.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Your comment:

"If the Pope's endorsement can make or break a US election, than this country is in way more trouble than I had imagined."

Is just bull, the Popes have been playing in the US political game for a very long time.

You misunderstood me. I wasn't saying that the Vatican hasn't influenced US elections. I was trying to say that if in 2004 the Vatican can sway a US election, then we've got big problems.

It may well be true that the Vatican can swing this election one way or the other. And if it turns out to be true, I will be deeply depressed about the state of our democracy.

[greenamp]

warmspit = lerkfish ??

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by greenamp:
warmspit = lerkfish ??

Yup. Just figured that out, eh? I've had that sneaking suspicion for a while now.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
You misunderstood me. I wasn't saying that the Vatican hasn't influenced US elections. I was trying to say that if in 2004 the Vatican can sway a US election, then we've got big problems.

It may well be true that the Vatican can swing this election one way or the other. And if it turns out to be true, I will be deeply depressed about the state of our democracy.

Why would 2004 be any different from any previous election?

[Captain Obvious]

Kerry is Catholic. Bush is Protestant. The Pope has no authority over members of the Protestant church. Catholics have no allegiance to the protestant church's members or beliefs simply because we are both sects of Christianity. Catholics have huge problems with what the Protestant church believes. If Catholics were voting for Bush it was not because of his religious beliefs because we disagree with what he believes anyway. But some Catholics were voting for Kerry because he was catholic. If he was condemned by his own church it would have a greater effect than if Bush had the same done to him by a religion he does not belong to anyway.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Why would 2004 be any different from any previous election?

Just hoping people are evolving, that's all.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
...and? Point? Who cares? Also, I thought the Left™ didn't give a rat's arse about what the Religious™ think, anyway?

Oh well.

Maury

It's not that they don't care what the religious think, it's when you try to make laws founded on a religion that you run into problems. Hence my banner.

[undotwa]

The Catholic Church has a policy of not endorsing or disendorsing candidates unless the candidate is dangerous and psychotic.

Catholics you can vote for either Bush or Kerry, the Vatican isn't stopping you. A certain level of pragmatism and utalitarianism is necessary for Catholics because neither candidate is that good.