Table of Contents
The recent spat between the pope and the president of the United States highlights the role each should play in maintaining peace and stability in the world particularly in times of conflict. The state, as in the government, is obviously the lead player in a crisis. Some could, and would be within their rights to accuse the president of being the cause of the crisis. The church, while not directly involved, being the institution it is, has every right to have an opinion on the matter and it has every right to express that opinion in public.
The pope has chosen to do so and upset the president in the process. This is where the boundaries of each institution come into play. Both church and state, in expressing their views, must not stray onto the other’s territory. In this instance both sides did just that by the language they used.
The pope spoke first: he condemned the war as an “atrocious” and “unjust” conflict and demanded an end to the violence. He warned against a “delusion of omnipotence” driving the escalation, urged an immediate ceasefire and declared that God rejects the prayers of those who make war. Was he speaking from a theological standpoint? Of course, but who are the “those” he is referring to? This is where he gets himself into trouble because we are left to assume he is referring to the president and politicians, rather than the Iranian terrorists. If so, at that point he has entered into the realm of politics.
If he was referring to the IRGC then he has confined himself to religion, because that organisation is made up of religious fanatics who see war as a means to their ultimate goal. It would be helpful if the pope was specific and called them out for what they really are. Where are the pope’s comments on the indiscriminate slaughter we witnessed in the streets of Iran? This is the problem I have with the church and have had for some time – both the Catholic Church and the Church of England. They have a tendency to be selective when speaking on social issues and come across as sanctimonious.
Those of the cloth need to recognise that, thanks to the IRGC, this is a religious war. In fact, history tells us that most wars are caused by religious hatred. This is something the pope might like to reflect on. He might then like to offer a solution: it is not, as he and other political leaders say, organising a ceasefire so all parties can get together around the table and exchange pleasantries over a cup of tea and biscuits. That is not the real world but it is the world the church and leftist lily livered leaders evidently live in. The pope is probably well meaning, but sometimes he and others can be blind to reality
The person living in the real world is the president. The pope shouldn’t have been surprised at the criticism he received, but he overreached and failed to couch his criticism in a more constructive way. The pope has the right to use his position to call for peace and an end to violence: he must, however, keep politics at arm’s length. The president, too, must be careful in the terminology he uses and not bring, for example, the Pope’s religious beliefs into the conversation. These boundaries are easily blurred, so care must be taken when framing the dialogue.
You don’t resolve any situation by not addressing reality and this is what the president is doing: the IRGC must never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. It’s that simple. If the pope wants a ceasefire, he must not waste time sparring with the president but rather go and commence dialogue with the leaders of the IRGC and tell them, among other things, that God rejects the prayers of those who make war. It would be a waste of time but at least he can say he tried.
Anyone who thinks a chat is going to solve this situation is deluded. Even if the IRGC agree not to have a nuclear weapon, who seriously believes they would adhere to the agreement?
Therefore I ask members of the church and the political pacifists, what do you think you are solving? What do you honestly think you are going to achieve? Did you not attend history lessons at school or was war not taught. That wouldn’t surprise me, as nowadays the most students learn about Churchill is that he lost the post-war election. This is where society is getting itself into trouble – the younger generations are not made aware of the important events in history. It is deemed politically incorrect to teach such topics, as it might offend those who are to blame in such matters and the woke teaching brigade wouldn’t want to do that, would they…
THOSE WHO DON’T LEARN FROM HISTORY ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT IT.
People wanting a ceasefire and chats have got their wish. Any progress? No. Is there likely to be? No. And if there were, it would be fake. The people thinking this approach is the answer either don’t realise, or don’t want to recognise, who they are dealing with. Negotiations are being conducted with religious fanatics, terrorists, supporters and funders of the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah, criminals, people who happily slaughter their own in pursuit of religious power and, now we find out, are extortionists to boot. How can you negotiate with those types and expect an outcome that the West can live with? The reality is you can’t. That leaves only one option.
The president has worked this out and taken it, because he knows the only thing that will stop them is to completely destroy their means of achieving their goal. This can only be done militarily. Politicians can’t do it and neither can the church. The pope and the president can have some back and forth, but it is very much a non-event. It might not be to church goers and the insane Democrats, but be assured it is to the rest of us who represent the supportive majority.
The only realistic path is the one the president has taken and we can only hope it brings about the desired outcome, because ‘Over the Teacups’, while it provided some leisurely reading in previous editions of the Woman’s Weekly, will certainly prove not to be the answer in dealing with these religious lunatics.
