I just read an article that our dear pope is working on a deal to help get Saddam Huesein to leave Iraq. I too quickly erased it, anyone know any more details? God bless this dear man!

-- Theresa Huether (Rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), March 11, 2003

Answers

bumpity bump

-- Tee Hee (Rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), March 11, 2003.

I found it...this is really worth praying about.

Pope Working on a Deal for Saddam's Exile, Reports Say Plan Would Also Give Amnesty to Top Iraqi Military Officials

VATICAN CITY, MARCH 10, 2003 (Zenit.org).- Vatican officials say that John Paul II is trying to broker a deal to have Saddam Hussein accept exile and thus avoid an Iraq-U.S. war, a magazine reported.

"God willing, war may still be averted, even at this apparently late hour," one Vatican official told Inside the Vatican magazine. "We are still hopeful."

According to the proposal, Saddam and his family would be given 72 hours from Tuesday, March 11, to accept an offer of exile.

At the same time, dozens of Iraq's top military leaders would be offered amnesty in return for full cooperation with the United Nations, according to published press reports.

The plan, brokered by the Vatican with Saudi Arabia and moderate Arab states, was evidently proposed by Pakistan during a closed-door meeting of the 10 non-permanent members of the U.N. Security Council on Friday.

Marion McKeone of the Sunday Herald newspaper in Glasgow, Scotland, reported from the United Nations in New York that the proposal could become part of a second resolution of the Security Council.

Under its terms, the United Nations would oversee the establishment of a post-Saddam government and the United Nations -- not the United States -- would take stewardship of Iraq's oilfields.

The Iraqi generals and top ranking officers would have to cooperate fully with U.N. inspectors to oversee the elimination of any weapons of mass destruction, McKeone reported.

It wasn't clear whether the proposal has any chance of being accepted. The Pope has been sending his emissaries on repeated missions to all the key parties during the past six weeks, as well as receiving key leaders at the Vatican on almost a daily basis.

His special envoy and former permanent observer at the United Nations, Archbishop Renato Martino, has been discussing the proposal with all the Security Council members, reports said.

Cardinal Pio Laghi, former papal nuncio to the United States, traveled to Washington, D.C., last week to meet with President George W. Bush. He handed him a letter directly from the Pope, the contents of which have not been made public.

British leader Tony Blair met with the Pope and other officials at the Vatican in February.

Cardinal Roger Etchegaray, one of John Paul II's most relied-upon aides for "difficult missions," went to Baghdad last month to meet personally with Saddam. At that meeting Etchegaray discussed the subject of exile with Saddam, reports said. Cardinal Etchegaray later said that Saddam did not rule out the idea.

Also in February, the Pope received Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz at the Vatican and, several days later, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

American sources confirm that the United States and Jordan have recently discussed the prospect of using the United Nations to offer a formal exile and amnesty package to Saddam and his inner circle, McKeone reported.

The proposed amendment is still at a low rung on the UN procedural ladder but the non-permanent members believe it represents a last best chance to avert a war.

U.N. sources have also indicated that a second resolution on Tuesday with the March 17 ultimatum -- incorporating an offer of exile -- would provide an attractive compromise that would let the French come on board without "losing face" or appearing to have capitulated to the United States.

-- Theresa (Rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), March 11, 2003.

Let it be, Lord Jesus. Amen.

Gail

P.S. Thanks for posting that little ray of hope, Ms. Theresa.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), March 11, 2003.

There is also an indication this will work from the fact that Saddam is investing millions into diamonds - the preferred form of currency for exiled dictators. I have high hopes the pope will pull this off.

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 11, 2003.

Sounds like a great plan. Had it been tried in Nazi occupied Europe though, Hitler would have escaped to Elba, and the Nazi party would still be alive today.

Of course, the very idea is based on the PRESUMPTION that those currently in power in Iraq are legitimate authorities. But why that should be so (based both on Veritatis Splendor and Lumen Gentium) - and what theory of political science would make anyone believe it to be so is a complete mystery to me.

Sometimes the unwillingness to call something by its name is called "diplomacy": Thus, in 1994 while the Hutu tribe systematically wiped out the Tutsis in Rwanda, both the UN and the Clinton Administration looked away, worried only in the "environmental damage" dead bodies would have in Lake Victoria. Only after the carnage was nearly over did they call it what it was: genocide (because, had they used the word, they'd have been LEGALLY bound to interviene!). 500,000 dead later, they stroll in and apologize. Typically toothless and unjust "world community". cf. http://www1.cnn.com/EVENTS/1996/year.in.review/topten/hutu/hutu.html

Other times calling things by "nice" names is called "a pastoral answer". Thus outright heresy as preached from the pulpit in dioceses across America or classrooms in "catholic" universities is called "diversity of opinion". Anyone from the diocese of Saginaw MI, or Fr Charles Curran and McCormack's theology classes will attest to this. cf. http://www.saginawdiocese.org/Diocesan/gallery.html

The link above will show you what magazines the "Catholic" diocese of Saginaw finds useful for men interested in the priesthood. ALL of them left, liberal, and well, heretical in text, slant, and ideology.

And those who beg to differ, pointing to authoritative Church documents are shouted down by local "authorities" to "shut up" and stop rocking the boat. But they never, ever, prove that silence in the face of injustice or calling it "nice" names actually solves the immediate problem: souls being scandalized, mislead, lost....

At times not being specific is warranted out of prudence - as in the case of Pius XII in Nazi occupied Italy. When you are hiding Jews and other "legally proscribed" people in the Vatican and other extra- territorial facilities, the LAST THING you want to do is call down extra scrutiny on your position!

But other times the inability to call an unjust regime illegitimate and murderous is simply cowardice.

I fully appreciate the catch-22 situation millions of my Catholic brothers face in Muslim dominated lands the world over. I understand and agree with them that THEY can't side publically with the US. But their silence is a viable alternative. To go to the extreme of calling the Iraqi regime just and the US "unjust" is treason. Not treason to the US constition, but to the truth of the objective situation.

cf. Christians Fear Backlash From U.S.-led War on Iraq

National Catholic Register Feb. 9-15, 2003 by ANTO AKKARA Register Correspondent

It is simply unjust and inhuman for Muslim nations to threaten their Catholic minorities with genocide or annihilation because these fellow citizens claim the human right to freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

If Allah is God and Mohammed is His prophet, then God's prophet's words will be convincing of their own accord. After all, the Creator's creatures should be so created as to naturally tend towards the truth...But if instead he needs an army to forcibly maintain a situation of "islam" or submission... then something has to be wrong.

Calling them "nice names" may mollify them. But it does truth a disservice. The alternative is not to curse them or call them names either! They need evangelization - and not by mute witness only, but in words. If their religion is based on force and not reason then they have a right to know it.

Freedom only comes through truth; truth about man, truth about the origin of human rights and the correct exercise of authority... including the truth about the distinction between civil and ecclesial authority.

It's as if a father and his older sons were abusing and raping the daughters in a house. The neigbhors call the cops. The cops arrive, surround the house and find that rape and other abuse has occured... but then begin to negotiate a peaceful surrender, premised on the plan that 'Dad' should simply depart while the brothers remain in place...

According to the plan, Dad will move next door, the brothers will take custody of the girls, and the Police will pick up the clothes, repair damaged furniture, walls, and paint... pat the girls on the head, and then leave them to their fate! Thank heavens "violence" was thus avoided at all cost!

How is that Justice? What do you think the alternative is? Firebombing the whole house? Killing the innocent victims with the guilty? Since when was that ever the "Police's" (i.e. big, bad Americans) intent?

I'm just utterly amazed by the presumptions inherent in the argument for a "diplomatic" solution in Iraq. I was all for diplomacy in 1991. I was all for Inspectors in 1998. I was all for diplomacy and a "last chance" in November 2002... only seemed fair to give the regime one last chance - 30, 60, 90 days to surrender and leave power...

I'm even all for Saddam going into exile - along with his 100 top thugs... only seems right to let 'em go all together... but to leave the thugs in place and then have the only nations whose security is NOT threatened by WMD in the hands of terrorists, to run the post- Saddam show.... it's breath-takingly, shockingly dumb.

After we've proven them to continue to hide, stall, obstruct, and continue their illegal actions - as well as continue to oppress their people and fund further suicide/homicide bombers and their families in Palestine... how will exile for the leader, continued Baath control of the government and a coalition of 4 vested-interest anti- Catholic powers solve the root dilemna of illegitimacy and potential harm to the United States?

Terrorists who threatened the US and who threaten us now have not declared war on France, Germany, Russia, and China. It's not in their own best interest to support the USA, and they're not. So why should we surrender our security to a toothless UN "authority" who is not defending us, or indeed apart from us, has NEVER defended the human rights of its own charter! (Certainly not in Russia or China)!

It's totally disconnected from the reality, totally based on a "wishful thinking" premise - of regime legitimacy, of rational and moral authorities, and a world community (France, Russia, Germany and China) that have no vested (oil) interests in the status quo!

The Pope is infallible in faith and morals. Not in diplomacy.

Think this makes me a bad Catholic? One sentence: Avignon Papacy. One person: St Catherine of Siena. Or try this on for size: the disbanding of the Society of Jesus in 1773 - all that was "saved" by the destruction of the Church's finest order was subsequently lost in the ravages of the French Revolution! And the missions in Latin America, Africa, India, and Asia NEVER recovered!

Sure, God was able to make good things come out of bad judgements. Ultimately following one's legitimate superiors will lead to good results...but not necessarily to the best results. That's the whole point of the Old Testament! The Jews screwed up, but they remain the choosen people... things would have been better had they not screwed up... but God could still straighten things out... only, we're not supposed to purposely screw things up folks!

That's where Catholics can legitimately argue: prudential decisions. And politics - the domain of both diplomacy and war, is all about prudential decisions. I think those who insist, today, not yesterday, not in 1991, or 1998, but TODAY, that diplomacy is the only "way" to settle the threat to the United States have simply NOT made a coherent argument.

What kind of political theory are you guys following? What kind of 'realpolitik' geopolitical theory are you supposing is true? Everyone talks of the coming Muslim backlash... as though the last 15 years never happened...as though Afganistan's liberation and pro-American and pro-western people doesn't exist! Everyone claims that American Muslims are loyal Americans... if this is true, then what have we truly to fear from the "Muslim street"? They'll be rolling out the green carpet for us (*green is the favorite color of Islam, not red)!

Facts people, facts! Theories people, theories! If you make a case for peace ya gotta support it with something beyond presuppositions and wishful thinking!

-- Joe (Joestong@yahoo.com), March 11, 2003.

I know what you're thinking... sheesh there goes that "war-monger" again.

Well guess what, I don't believe in saying "peace, peace" when there is no peace. (Little proverb action there).

What kind of guy would you like as a neighbor? The guy who meekly lets the junk-yard guy on the corner come hold parties at 3am, burn trash in his back yard, let ferocious dogs run wild, and holds weekend orgies lowering the value of the whole neighborhood's homes... because he is avoiding "conflict" at all cost?

Or the guy who first confronts the junk-yard guy and asks him to turn down the stereo...goes to the zoning committee to get a ruling on unleashed dogs...and finally calls the cops to handle the drunken and brash party animals?

I'm not the guy who goes out, buys a 12 gauge, gasoline, and Humvee and then threatens to kill the guy and burn down his home.

Right now in the world, for better or worse, the US is de facto "Policeman". I think it's for better. Would you rather have the French or Chinese sending in their marines around the world?

Our history of "occupation" has been more benign than all the other 4 former and future empires in dispute, hands down. Few people (other than desperate North Koreans) are beating a path to their doors...

Actually, that's a good metaphor: The north Koreans are escaping into China for safety, the Chinese escape into Siberia to escape the Chi- Coms, and Russians are trying to emigrate into France and Germany... but the French and Germans - and everyone else - ultimately want to emigrate to the United States! Yet we're the "bad guy" right?

What's going on?

-- Joe (Joestong@yahoo.com), March 11, 2003.

SADAM WILL NEVER ALLOW HIMSELF TO BE EXILED YOU HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING OF THIS MAN. DO NOT PATRONISE HIM

-- Elle McPherson (ElleMcPherson@reality.com), March 11, 2003.

God Bless France for declaring that she will use her veto.

God Bless Russia for declaring that she will use her veto.

God bless the smaller countries who will (no doubt have had their bribes taken away) vote as morality and common sense demands.

In consequence, Emperor Sam (as in Uncle) will be appropriately clothed when he stands before the World Community. May God pray for that the naked fascist who reeks revenge on a nation of paupers for the acts of a completely unrelated bunch of multi-millionaires (who just happen to be of the same skin colour); the immature state that seeks to exert the experience of a country barely 200 years old upon countries that have been in existence since before Jesus' time; a country that until very recent times practiced apartheid and required is black citizens to behave as second class citizens. May the Blessed Virgin Mary pray for that that vile nation that seeks to promote further disharmony and hatred in our otherwise beautiful world.

-- Common Sense (alleluiah.alleluiah@alleluiah.com), March 11, 2003.

Oh I see. God should bless nations who are anti-Catholic and who refuse to liberate the Iraqi people from a dictatorship?

And moral authority accrues not by any particular action countries take but by the mere fact that human beings have lived in those geographical regions for a long time... right. sounds really intelligent and coherent to me...not.

You call the USA a "fascist" regime. Bet you wouldn't be able to define just exactly what "fascism" stands for or is would you?

We have every right to invade, liberate, and set things right in the Middle East because the Middle East is home to despots and derranged terrorists who have attacked us. If you have a problem with that, let's hear it. But aparthied in the south was a DEMOCRAT led venture, not a republican one... Lincoln was a Republican, the abolitionists (those against slavery) were REPUBLICANS! The moral high ground is totally on our side.

If you want to start calling people names, begin with defining your terms...Webster's definition of "fascism" (begun in Italy) doesn't match anything in the US administration or Military.

Main Entry: fas·cism Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si- Function: noun Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces Date: 1921 1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition 2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

So let's get this right, The US is "fascist" because it seeks to overthrow a dictator who matches the above description?

Haven't you people EVER gone to school? Have you NEVER read a dictionary? Words have meanings. If you start using them as expletives don't be surprised if you contradict yourself and add nothing to the debate.

-- Joe (Joestong@yahoo.com), March 11, 2003.

"a political philosophy, movement, or regime ... that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition 2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control"

Yep, that sounds just like the US to me.

Anyway, assume that you agree completely that the US ... "reeks revenge on a nation of paupers for the acts of a completely unrelated bunch of multi-millionaires (who just happen to be of the same skin colour); [is] the immature state that seeks to exert the experience of a country barely 200 years old upon countries that have been in existence since before Jesus' time; [is] a country that until very recent times practiced apartheid and required is black citizens to behave as second class citizens...[and] seeks to promote further disharmony and hatred in our otherwise beautiful world.

undeniable truths by any REASONABLE MATURE standards.

-- Common Sense (alleluiah.alleluiah@alleluiah.com), March 11, 2003.

I agree with you Joe on most points. I think where you would be accused of discrimination is in assuming all American Muslims could ally themselves with terrorists. I have Muslim friends.They don't realize that the USA could be on the side of Goodness, not evil. Others agree with the USA position against Saddam.

It is unfortunate that many Muslim leaders or the Muslim community hasn't spoken loudly enough. Where were those voices when Pakistan was sending mercenaries to destabilize countries like Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Kashmir in India, and so on. I heard Cat Stevens, a former Christian turned Muslim agree when the Ayatolah Khomeini put a death sentence on Salman Rushdie. Where were Shaquille O'Neal, Mohammed Ali, Hakeem Olajowun, .... making money. Their silence like in Afghanistan makes people believe that Muslims don't care about the rights of women, about education for women, and so on.

I also agree with Elle Mcpherson. Back in 1990 I came to the same conclusion. I was doing a comparison of the Prince in Machiavelli to Saddam Hussein in my Humanities class. Saddam only tries to gain time. He will never bend, just like Hitler. Just like Hitler, he will get a gun , put it to his mouth... and shoot. What a sad ending. But in doing so, Saddam will gain fame.

-- Elpidio gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), March 11, 2003.

"Oh I see. God should bless nations who are anti-Catholic "

---- The Pope is against the War, as are France and most of the rest of the World Community. The US virtually stands alone in its anti-Catholic outlook.

"and who refuse to liberate the Iraqi people from a dictatorship? "

--- most other countries see the mature way of liberating Kuwait (without sparking further 9/11's across the world); these countries include France.

"And moral authority "

-- contrast US morality with that of the Pope. is not the Pope a very serious arbiter of morality as Catholics understand the expression????????

"accrues not by any particular action countries take but by the mere fact that human beings have lived in those geographical regions for a long time... right. sounds really intelligent and coherent to me...not."

-- personal attacks.

"You call the USA a "fascist" regime. Bet you wouldn't be able to define just exactly what "fascism" stands for or is would you? "

--- you provided a definition that actually lends itself well. you have yet to contradict this point. i do not consider the US Fascist in the traditional sense, but it is developing the concept day-by- day. (i understand that the thought police have already made arrests in the US.)

"We have every right to invade, liberate, and set things right in the Middle East because the Middle East is home to despots and derranged terrorists who have attacked us. "

-- revenge?!?! is that what you are REALLY saying?!?!? SHAME ON YOU.

--- you might think it important that Iraqi'salso have dark skin, but the assailiants on the US were not Iraqi (your Secret Service have desparately tried to prove this, but without any success whatsoever).

"If you have a problem with that, let's hear it."

--- Problems for you, oh Catholic. Uhhhmmmmmmm, the Pope,.... the Bible,.... the Catholic Church.

"But aparthied in the south was a DEMOCRAT led venture, not a republican one... Lincoln was a Republican, the abolitionists (those against slavery) were REPUBLICANS! The moral high ground is totally on our side."

-- so that makes it OK??? the US had apartheid but that doesn't matter because the current President does not belong to the party in power at the time?? odd logic. are you wiping away history here??

If you want to start calling people names, begin with defining your terms...Webster's definition of "fascism" (begun in Italy) doesn't match anything in the US administration or Military.

-- "calling people names". oh, please; that's yr game.

So let's get this right, The US is "fascist" because it seeks to overthrow a dictator who matches the above description?

--- if there is a similarity between the acts of the US and the definition that you provided, that might be accidental(?). but this New World Order is disturbing. In yr defence, many well-intending (but, ultimately, stupid) Germans bought into Hitler.

Haven't you people EVER gone to school? Have you NEVER read a dictionary? Words have meanings. If you start using them as expletives don't be surprised if you contradict yourself and add nothing to the debate

--- personal attacks i believe. rant, rant, rant.

-- Common Sense (alleluiah.alleluiah@alleluiah.com), March 11, 2003.

La Croix has expressed its Catholic admiration for President Chirac on account of his decision to use his UN veto. Vive la France! Vive le Papa!

-- Common Sense (alleluiah.alleluiah@alleluiah.com), March 12, 2003.

The Vatican officially denied that the Holy See is promoting an initative with several Arab countries for Sadam Hussein's exile.

Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls said today: "I can fully deny it. This information is totally unfounded."

Full story on Zenit News agency.

God bless you Anna for having to put up with that sick person that is following you around.

David

-- David (David@excite.com), March 12, 2003.

I hope you are right David, because I don't see how a government set up under the UN would be much better than one under Saddam. Different, but not better. And I would hate the idea that the Vatican was backing that kind of government.

One would wonder, if the Iraqi people dislike Saddam so much, why do they not rise up and rebel against him. It may look hopeless, but it has been done before. But if they are not willing to do so, then how would anyone really know if they want the US to interfere or not. If they did so and called for our aid, then that would be one thing, but it makes me angry that we are to risk American butts for them, when they are not willing to risk their own.

Not that I am completely against this war, but I am not quite 100% convinced that it is the right thing, yet. The liberal media tells you only what they want you to hear. If, indeed, Saddam is a threat to the US, then "Yes", bomb him. But, if he is not, should American lives be sacrificed for people that do not seem willing to sacrifice their own?

Just a few thoughts.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 12, 2003.

Hi, Isabel

I guess it would be tougher rising up against a dictator like Sadam than meets the eye without the proper tools to do so.

If one speaks out against him there head is cut off and left on a pole so everyone can see what happens when one speaks there opinion. I also read that raping children, Moms , and wives with broken bottles is a brutal method of keeping people in line by his son. Can you imagine how evil this is?

I think it would make one think a little harder if he thought that his Mom, wife, or daughter would have this happen to them for trying to organise an army to fight back.

May God bless our soldiers that will be going to rid this world of this evil, and God bless President Bush for having the courage to stand up to the evil.

May Gods will be done.

God bless you Isabel.

David

-- David (David@excite.com), March 12, 2003.

"If, indeed, Saddam is a threat to the US, then "Yes", bomb him. "

### the US intelligence services have failed to link Saddam to Bin Laden. Saddam is clearly one of the most evil man alive, but that does not per se make him a threat to America. we are left with the argument that goes --- "trust me, he will join forces with Bin Laden in due course, so think of him as being with Bin Laden". is that the correct basis on which to wage war -- an expectation that something might occur at some point in the future, maybe. as "unfair" as it may seem, perhaps there is an alternative to bombing people that you don't like/ mistrust just in case they turn against you. the Pope has recognised this consistently through recent times, from his rank disapproval of aggression in the Persian Gulf right up to the current threat of war. there is the mature approach that exhausts all civilised modes of negotiation before we resort to bombing. after bombs have been dropped, well,...

"But, if he is not, should American lives be sacrificed for people that do not seem willing to sacrifice their own?"

## see posts above. in terms of getting this point through, just remember -- throughout US Apartheid, many black people (and many more white Americans) just went along with it. it took the genius and might of MArtin Luther King to start to sort it all out. now, imagine the techniques that white America used to suppress its African-American population, and multiply that by 1,000 in terms of the extreme violence and depravity (although this mental exercise in no way mitigates the shame cast upon the US by its former treatment of its black people). you then get an idea of the depravity of Saddam and how difficult it must be for the people of Iraq to rebel.

ultimately, there can be no question that the people of Iraq would be better off if Saddam was deposed. amongst the many less obvious issues that are recognised by the Pope are these:- (1) is it really necessary to go to war to achieve this (as in, diplomatic remedies are far from exhausted) and (2) there is a wider picture that might just serve to make things far worse (recruitment for Bin Laden etc etc).

-- Misguiden Iniatives (cutting.adeal@catholic.com), March 12, 2003.