Catolic Workers on the Papal Visit to the U.S. and the War on Iraq

by Fred Mon Apr 21, 2008 23:23

Wouldn't it be more appropriate for Bishop Grumbleton to arrange for his supporters to help return America to the care of its First Peoples?

by Counterpunch Tue Apr 22, 2008 19:18

http://www.counterpunch.org/mcgovern04222008.html

by paul o toole Tue Apr 22, 2008 22:30

When the enforcer (the pope) was visited by the neo-facist bush he made a statement which shook the world and everyone heeded his deep profound wisdom. He said...'in war no-one wins'.... A three year old could have come up with better.
He is a poor excuse for a human let alone the 'leader' of his flock.
Sucessive popes remained silent and in some cases actually supported facists like Franco, Mousilini Hitler and now Bush. Lets not forget Blair is now one of them also.

I gave up on catholicism for good, a week before they invaded Iraq. In our local church the parish priest asked everyone to pray for the people of Iraq. Pray for them!! Before we bombed them we should prat for them.
If it wasnt so serious it would be hilarious.

by Ciaron - Ploughshares/Catholic Worker Wed Apr 23, 2008 09:46

Paul,

With respect to how you have remained engaged with the war and the role of Ireland in it.

The Pope is hardly an "enforcer". To quote Stalin dismissing the role "How many divisions does the Pope have?"

The Pope is the teaching authority of a tradition with 1 billion voluntary participants. A raditon that recognises the primacy of the informed conscience. A tradition/phenomenon that is universal and been around for quite a while. It is a pretty lively tradition no more so than in the United States which is the only part of the first world that is still church going, Europe being beyond belief!

As you would have experienced during the 3 ploughshares trials in Dublin the catholic tradition provides some of the most militant nonviolent anti-war resisters - Kathy Kelly, the Grady clan, the Berigans, Joshua Casteel, plowshares, Catholic Workers etc.

The criticism on this thread of the recent papal visit to the U.S. are made mostly by radical Catholics.

I don't see how the response from your priest is any worse than the Irish left (authoritarian, NGO/ moderate and anarchist) that turned its back rapidly on Irish involvement in the war/invasion/occupation preferring to pursue issues with an angle of self interest and were impacting white people. Even when it comes to the great Feb 15th. 03 vent against the war you could argue the irish church had more to do with putting feet on the street than the efforts of the left.

A million U.S. troops have passed through Shannon. In terms of protest of over 50 people at Shannon there was one in 06, none in 07 and none planned for 08.

Meanwhile the Irish state has spent over 5 million euros "stopping incurisons into Shannon Airport." There hasn't been one incursion airside since the closing of the Catholic Worker house in Nov. 05......lets's here it for the Shannon banshees.

The Irish state takes the war,and the role of Shannon a lot more seriously than the Irish left and the Irish church.

by JoJo Wed Apr 23, 2008 17:22

This pope is a disgrace. His lame remarks to the Fascist Bush are nothing more than we would have expected from him. Where was his support for one of his former bishops, Fernando Lugo, who was elected President in Paraguay - "Chavez' Bishop"? No mention. Papa Nazi was the 'enforcer' who tried to stamp out such leftist Liberation Theologists when he was the last 'anti-Communist' popes 'Rothweiler'. That was what Catholics called him then, 'The Popes Rothweiler'. An enforcing dog by any measure.

Thanks for the lecture on the nature of the Catholic Church, as you see it, Ciaron. I don't quite see it that way. In fact I see the entire Roman Catholic Church as the personification of evil on earth. It has indeed been going for a long time, as has its master Satan. Well done to you all!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ9sJVJMiYM

Got Reptilian?

by Ciaron - Catholic Worker/Ploughshares Wed Apr 23, 2008 18:35

Well the guy with the Brit public school accent doing the narration on the youtube you offered seems to have a problem with multiculturalism and old people.

Nonetheless, you only get disappointed when you have expectations and you seem to be a mix of anti-Catholic bigotry and disappointment (which would indicate some expectation or betrayed hope somewhere along the line.

Radical Catholics are disappointed with the papal visit to the U.S.
Disappointed because our expectations are based on what the church (and papacy) WAS in the first 3 centuries - perceived as a threat to the empire, what it IS presently on its fringes radically committed to the poor, peace and justice and what it COULD BE - a nonviolent intervention in a world fast tracking to World War 3 with little sign of a visible anti-war movement in the comfortable West (secular or religious).

For a sense of expectation go to this Washington Post link
hit the activist square in the middle of the screen
and hear from Kathy Boylan, Catholic Worker offering hospitality to homeless women and children in the Dorothy Day house in D.C. and veteran of some five plowshares actions on U.S. military equipment.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/interactives...ples/

by Sceptic Wed Apr 23, 2008 19:49

Jo Jo

Your extreme vitriol against the Pope and RC Church diminishes any case you might have. There can be little rationality or perceptive in someone so fanatical.

You complain the previous pope was anti communist? If you knew about his life and background and formation you could see that he had very good reasons indeed to be anticommunist. Why are you so pro communist? Did you ever live in the eastern block pre 1989?

There was no reason why he should make any comment on the election in Paraguay whilst on a visit to the US. Why should he? Much less get condemned for not doing so.

Catholics did not call the present pope a “Rothweiler”. A handful of hostile reporters called him such in gest that which is not the same thing.

The problems the official church has with liberation theology are well set out in various publications – there is no evidence you have infirmed yourself of them or tire to give a fair hearing to the standpoint.

Your labels like Nazi and Satan are a reflection on you not the pope.

by paul o toole Wed Apr 23, 2008 23:29

Good to see we disagree on something Ciaran,

The pope was Cardinal Ratzinger, known in the vatican as 'the Enforcer'.
He joined the Hitler Youth before wwII.
He stood outside Auchwitz on the 60th anniversary of its closing downand said ... 'how could the world have stayed silent' .. His Church stayed silent.
At the end of W.W,II the vatican used its diplomatic channels to transport up to 20,000 Nazi war criminals out to Argentina, where Mossad spent decades tracking them down.
He visited a mosque but not amoslem place of worship.
During the Iraq Build up i asked personally, phoned dozens of priests to march and not one of them would. When we were in Fairview against the war i tried to get a few involved...no luck.
Our own bishops were silent on the matter, and remained silent, except for Willy Walshe.
Most 'devout' believers have i believe handed their concience over to the men of the cloth and will not act unless asked to do so. I can count many people I know in that group.

The music scene went silent also and said nothing, Glen Hansett was down in Shannon for his photo op along with Luca Bloom, where are they now ?? Christy moore said 'no' to the question on the late late show on wether he would be going to protest Bushs arrival...he had a new box-set to sell I suppose,.
The voices of authority which should be loudest are most silent
I have noyhing against the church persay, what I do have is an acute anger at it because it portrats itself to be a defender of the poor and oppressed and it is not.
Wouldent it be nice if the pope said....Mr Bush, you call yourself a catholic yet you launched a genocide against a defencless nation in the name of god....you must repent and beg for forgivness...i will hear your confession.....
And then say the same to Blair and Bertie and all the other child killers in Fianna Fail.

by redjade Wed Apr 23, 2008 23:46

Paul,

I don't want to ever, ever, ever make excuses for any pope - in my ideal world, there would be no popes.

But the 'Papa Nazi' meme [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics] is rather unfair and mostly irrelevant...

''Ratzinger was enrolled in the Hitler Youth — as membership was required for all 14-year old German boys after December 1939''
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI

When I was 14 I was spouting BS that would make the PD's seem left wing.

Pope Rat may be a right wing jerk - but the Nazi charge is only a cheap shot.

by Razza Thu Apr 24, 2008 00:16

Definition of a fairminded liberal: Some of my best friends are fuzzywuzzies, but I wouldn't like my daughter to marry one.

Definition of a fairminded leftist: I can't stomach that bigot Ian Paisley, but he's right to keep kicking old Redsocks in the shins.

by Jacqueline Fallon Thu Apr 24, 2008 01:19

President Bush and all the citizens of the US know exactly where the Pope stands on the Iraq war - he does not need to say it, he has been saying it publicly ad nauseum since the US invasion began and I have no doubt the Pope conveyed his message of peace to President Bush (although, unfortunately, the Pope’s message of peace would inevitably be lost on President Bush, as it was many times before).

It is not accurate to say that the Pope has never publicly condemned the war on Iraq, I heard him myself condemning it in St. Peter's Square last October. In fact, since then, I have heard him on various media outlets condemning all wars around the world and promoting the message of peace and reconciliation and goodwill to all men (I think women were mentioned too, but I can't be sure). The Pope is only doing what people expect a Pope should be doing, that is condemning wars, as his job is to promote the message of Jesus Christ (who delivered a hard message to the world, one that was/is unpopular to many) - as it promotes peace at all costs (and that is hard to follow) - especially to those who suffer so brutally at the hands of tyrannical rulers in countries such as: Darfur, Zimbabwe, Palestine and Tibet.

I say all this and yet I have difficulty myself with the Pope’s message sometimes. I do not believe you can have peace and injustice and illegal occupations all existing at the same time - it is not realistic to expect people to put up with illegal occupations, tyrannical rulers, injustice, poverty and corrupt politicians and behave peacefully - I believe people have the right to fight back using whatever means available to them to overthrow the governance of evil taking hold in countries around the world - only then can peace and justice prevail.

Anyway, I believe people here should respect the Pope who has a difficult job on his hands going about the world promoting peace & goodwill everywhere - the message of Jesus Christ - and, I hope, the Pope is not crucified in the process!

by Constantine Thu Apr 24, 2008 02:52

Jacqueline, you are right to say that there can be no peace in the world while injustice prevails in Darfur, the middle east (or the Bronx & Ballymun). If living conditions are so atrocious the oppressed have a moral right to fight violently against the oppressors, according to the Just War traditional doctrines of means, arbitration, proportionality etc. However, theologians only seem to apply the just war theory post facto i.e. after a war or armed rebellion has taken place. The papal encyclicals like Rerum Novarum and Quadregesimo Anno were unfortunately couched in politically 'careful' language, with all sorts of modifying subordinate clauses and paragraphs that advanced workers' rights one step forward while moving a half step back in favour of the then earthly powers of capital and landed privelege. In trying to be balanced with their 'distributist' and 'subsidiarist' ideas these encyclicals objectively helped the potentates to hold back on reforms. Only the massacres of humans in two world wars led to the first real welfare states as the Attlee government in Britain and the Adenauer government in Germany under the influence of social democracy and christian democracy ideas began to pick their battered countries up from the war rubble. Post WWII Conservative political parties accepted the welfare state as something pragmatic - equal opportunities - since armies and business firms could enrol the best talents for their respective continuing purposes, and the middle classes did well out of the national health services, mortgage subsidies and work creation tax breaks.

Another major encyclical, in 1963, was John XXIII's Pacem in Terris which stressed the need for justice in the pursuit of peace. Yet again there followed Paul VI's Development of Peoples which notably stated that 'Development is another word for peace.' (Missionaries from Ireland and elsewhere had known that for more than a century but never returned to Ireland before the 1960s to say so in such explicit terms.)

We are supposed to "be church" as some grassroots activists say, but for my money it's mostly left to individuals and tiny groups like what Ciaron belongs to to translate those cumbersomely written encyclicals into street reality. Irish bishops for the most part are timid, incurious humdrum people. Like most of the population actually. We get the muddling leadership we deserve in church and state.

by paul o toole Thu Apr 24, 2008 08:14

I never refered to the pope as a 'papa nazi'

by redjade Thu Apr 24, 2008 09:02

Paul you're right - sorry, but JoJo did.

apology for the associating! :-P I should have been clearer

by paul o toole Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:42

I dont intend to, and do not partake in trying to disrespect the Pope, or anyone else for that matter. Even the likes of Bush, Blair or Bertie. It is not only an irrevelant exercise to do so but believe it or not I still see them as human beings-they need to be brought before the ICC but their still human
I would love to find someone, Anyone for that mater in a place of authority to respect, for their stance and their courage to confront this 'war on terror' and the fallacy that it is.

Im sure as you have said that you ...'have no doubt the Pope conveyed his message of peace to president Bush' ... IF he did , why would he do it in private?? like the last time they met in Rome. It is the public gestures that can make change not some imagined private exchange no matter how much you want it to have an effect.
President Bush also talks of peace, he rolled out his 'roadmap' for Palestine just after he invaded Iraq. And out of the wind of the press gave Israel 12 f-16 fighter jets which they used on Lebanon after they broke an 18 month ceasefire brokered by the UN. Nothing from Rome.
Blair talks of peace. Gave Sadam a 'final oppertunity to disarm' before killing 1.2 million innocent Iraqis he said he would 'liberate'...again.nothing from Rome.
The art world, Hollywood-pitt/jolie/clooney/ford, the political world, the music world, the religious world, the charities world...all condemn Darfur and Sudan.....but nothing from any of the big hitters on the one thing they are all to afraid to condemn..Iraq.
Even Bono said 'anyome can make mistakes' when questioned on his friend Blair, about his invasion.
Geldof wouldnt let anyone discuss Iraq at the 'Live-8' picnic...why?. Is he afraid or is he ignorant or does he really support the invasion as his friends tahe billions upon billions from africas mines each month...??.
I do not know, but im sure of one thing. If it keeps going the way it is theres little hope for anyone in the middle-east or Africa and little 'messages of peace' from Rome whomever is there wont do zip especially when the present rock of the church had an awful lot to say about Harry Potter and JK Rawlings. No soft sweeping statements there, but when it comes to confronting Bush/Blair...??
Did he accept Tony Blair into his fold as a Roman Catholic??. If he did he is in good company as far as I am concerned.

by Ciaron - Catholic Worker/Ploughshares Thu Apr 24, 2008 19:16

Here's some earlier reflections on the papacy. I think, from memory, the "Right Hook".
http://odeo.com/audio/8786/play

I agree that all sections of civil society have let us down over the war and Irish complicity in it....the arts, the academy, rock 'n roll, the media, the church, the trade unions, the left, republicanism, the cops, the military etc.

That the Pope could stroll on the White House lawn when the war is so hot and the equivalent of Tet is going down in Iraq is extermely disconcerting. Is this an oversight or very considered?

I share Dan Berrigan's vison of the papacy someone who following the example of Christ going into this world disarmed. Given how tooled up this world is at the moment, such a Pope would meet a similar end to the original one.
But hey that's the gig.

Is seems as though some pragmatic accomodation with the U.S. empire has taken precedence over the example of Christ on this occasion. What is the agenda, what was the anlaysis.....is it a realisation that we are on the edge of escalated and total war....a circling of the wagons????? The Bush asdministration has been the worse thing for christian co mmunities living in the Muslim world

by Miriam Sun Apr 27, 2008 13:37

Poem on Dissident Voice on the Pope's 'no-speak':

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/04/when-the-pope-cam...rica/

by Miriam Sun Apr 27, 2008 15:23

Ray McGovern on Counterpunch:

http://www.counterpunch.org/mcgovern04222008.html