Naturally: all totalitarians have it in for Believers, of whatever stripe - and as most Venezuelans are Catholic, the Catholic Church has quickly become a major target for Chavez:
CARACAS, Venezuela, JULY 23, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Archbishop Ovidio Pérez Morales says Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez's attacks against clergy are a "sort of presidential custom," and nothing more than a "smoke screen to hide something very serious."
The archbishop, president of the Venezuelan bishops' plenary council, responded Thursday to another barrage of attacks against the clergy, which Chávez had made the previous day during a televised ceremony at the military academy.
Archbishop Pérez Morales said the important thing was to focus on the changes that Chávez proposes to the Constitution.
"It is an effort to change a Constitution that is good and, as the bishops' conference affirms, is a sufficient base from which to promote the justice and freedom of the country," the 75-year-old prelate said. "This reform, with declarations and official acts, is taking us toward a socialist society, following the Caribbean model of Castro's Communism."
The campaign to discredit the Church "is nothing more than a smoke screen to hide something very serious, which is the effort to direct the Constitution toward totalitarian models; this is what he is planning," the prelate added.
Archbishop Pérez Morales contended that this would be a step backward for Venezuela: "We are going back to the 1960s, to the cold war, to a Marxism that proved itself unable to build a new society."
But he's going to provide universal health care, and for the left that will pretty much pre-emptively excuse Chavez from any crime for decades to come - and one day Michael Moore will make Sicko II, showing how Venezuela has a better healthcare system than the United States.
I really feel for the people of Venezuela - especially the poor Venezuelans who will inevitibly suffer the most from Chavez; oil won't stay at $70+ per barrel forever, and when the oil money dries up, the poor of Venezuela will find that while the hand outs have stopped, the oppression hasn't. Thugs like Chavez are alike as peas in a pod - tyrants are all rather dull and merely repeat each other's crimes ad nauseum. What is really strange is that each tyrant who comes along finds supporters amongst free peoples - as they did with Ortega of Nicaragua in the 1980's as he looted the country and butchered his opponents, so it is with Chavez today - the left just ignores the crimes and listens to the tyrant's rhetoric. As long as Chavez keeps up the letist patter in his speeches, the left will follow him, blindfolded, into perdition.
The Church will endure these attacks - how many tyrants has the Church endured over the past 2,000 years? The tyrants come and go, the Church goes on - and this pimple on the armpit of history known as Chavez will one day be gone and quite forgotten, and the Church will still be there.
Posted by Mark Noonan at July 26, 2007 02:32 AM
Track
del.icio.us
digg it
IM
Facebook
Comments
pimple on the armpit of history known as Chavez
Too bad John Belushi (as in Animal House) isn't around to demonstrate.
Jesus was "anti-imperialism" and "anti-domination", as Chavez claims? You mean the Jesus that said "give to Caesar what is due Caesar"? And who said "when the soldier commands you to carry his equipment for a mile, go two miles with him"? Indeed, the reason the Jews rejected Him as the Messiah is precisely because he did not throw off the domination and imperialism of Rome.
Posted by: Bigfoot at July 26, 2007 08:42 AM
"oil won't stay at $70+ per barrel forever,"
Because keef et al have labeled "it's the oil" talk as conspiratorial or just stupid, one of the shining spots this administration could have achieved for posterity is lost forever.
It is the oil. On a global scale. With everlasting repercussions. But I can't give Bush credit in one area that could paint him as the savior of all mankind because it is about the oil, and only crazy people think it's about the oil.
There was a book out a couple years back that drew a parallel between oil price and world despots, i.e. high oil prices meant democracy poor but oil rich countries breed despots, and low prices mean despots had to at least trade and negotiate with neighbors and their own people, and had a tougher time raising big standing armies.
Iraq is still a million barrels a day short from pre-war levels and China has gobbled every ounce of the stuff it can get and is growing almost exponentially, so prices aren't falling any time soon. Supply, meet demand. Demand - supply.
If you ever do start a thread about the oil, I'd love to discuss. Until then, I'll stay on topic.
This is a time for Catholics to show their stuff, get in there and comfort the poor, heal the sick, feed the hungry and treat every one of the least among Venezuelans as they would treat Jesus Himself, so when oil rich soldiers and power drunk politicians come calling, every peasant and working stiff says "what do we need you for? We don't need your money. We don't need your handouts. Why would we fight for you when we can stay home and love our spouses and raise our kids? We are the last, so we will be first. We are the peacemakers, so we turn our backs on fighters. We are the meek, and after all you money grubbing power hungry extraction industry barons are through billowing and blustering yourselves to death, we will inherit this earth."
If only...
In the mean time, buy a Smart. Your wallet and grandkids will thank you, and you'll be PERSONALLY responsible for improving the security situation here on planet earth. Go ahead and shake your fists at ANWAR and gassified coal, but for now...
Besides, Smarts have a low, throaty rumble and feel like you're piloting an F-104 with a better view. They seat you and your girl and a picnic basket... who wants Marmaduke slobbering in the back seat anyway!
Posted by: congressive at July 26, 2007 08:45 AM
'Greater is He that is in me, than he that is in the world.'
:)
Jeremiah
Posted by: Jeremiah at July 26, 2007 10:30 AM
Why the continuous attacks against Chavez? I'm no fan of Chavez, but I can name like 50 leaders that are far worse. It seems to me that for neocon supporters, the worst crime a government can commit is resisting US hegemony.
Maybe our conflicting goals in Latin America of markets and democracy, for a socialist leaning people, need some rethinking.
Posted by: robert at July 26, 2007 12:39 PM
Robert,
"They will forever try to preserve the US Empire by all means, while we do everything possible to shred it"
Why would Mr. Chavez say such thing??
Jeremiah
Posted by: Jeremiah at July 26, 2007 12:56 PM
"Robert,
"They will forever try to preserve the US Empire by all means, while we do everything possible to shred it"
Why would Mr. Chavez say such thing??" - Jeremiah
Mr. Chavez isn't talking about the US's hegemonic relationship over it's own citizens, he talking about it's hegemonic relationship over Latin America.
If you don't know what I'm talking about, the history is far too long to list, even current policies are too numerous to list, but we have definitely helped foment civil wars, supported military dictators and helped overthrow elected governments. We have enforced policy over a large range of issues like counternarcotics, development aid, terrorism, immigration and trade.
Do you think Andean region countries like fumigating their own citizens in an attempt to reduce US drug consumption? Does it seem weird to you that US soldiers deployed in Latin America are immune the the laws of that county? Is it strange that the US wants to setup the internal trade policies in Latin America(NAFTA, CAFTA, AFTA), while most Latin Americans are for freer trade(ala the Bolivarian Revolution).
Now my question to you Jerimiah, do you believe in self determination for the people of the world, or do you believe the the US, as collectively moraly and intilectually superior, should use coercive means to govern the world?
Posted by: robert at July 26, 2007 03:37 PM
or do you believe the the US, as collectively moraly and intilectually superior, should use coercive means to govern the world?
robert, if you're gonna try to appear intelligent, at least learn to spell. Idiot...
Posted by: keefer at July 26, 2007 06:31 PM
"Now my question to you Jerimiah, do you believe in self determination for the people of the world, or do you believe the the US, as collectively moraly and intilectually superior, should use coercive means to govern the world?"
Robert,
I won't go into length of my thoughts this evening, since my fingers are a little weak from using post-hole diggers today!
Anyways, here are my thoughts...
I believe we are called to defend our Nation against those countries which would seek no less than to destroy our way of life here, by any means necessary. In other words, I believe we have an obligation to defend our Nation, collectively, Morally, and intellectually to support our defense, If that means coercive action against those countries? Then yes, I'm all for it, I back it 100% -Why risk this our great way of life?? That's why I think that it's extremely impertive that we secure our borders as quickly as possible. And when I say - 'Secure,' I mean secure the borders, and seal it tight from ALL countries, not just Mexico!! The Muslims have only one thing in mind, and that is to - Rule the World - Their minds are dead-set on ruling by means of terrorizing, and killing American citizens! So I think we have a duty to occupy Iraq, and soon to be Iran, to minimize any further catastrophic event from taking place on our soil, and this also holds for any other Nation that would seek to do us in the same manner.
As par your first statement regarding the intent of Mr. Chavez's statement, I think it could be argued both ways, but, it's my assumption that he is relating more to the other governments supporting his own, mainly the US!
Oh well, the whole world is going to Hell in a hand basket as they say, and it is my firm belief, that if Mrs. Clinton gets nominated as President in '08, the good ol' U.S. of A. is SUNK!!
Jeremiah
Posted by: Jeremiah at July 26, 2007 07:09 PM
Jeremiah, Venezuala poses no military threat to us, even George Bush beleives this, as he has let Venezuala become the number one importer of US arms in the hemisphere. I certianly don't agree with some of the things he's been doing, but go to humanrightswatch.org or any other international government watch group and look at some of the problems in other countries. I have a feeling he's getting attacked alot in the US for nationalizing US assets, not supporting Plan Columbia and other counter narcotics operations and the worst sin of all, not comforming to, and even fighting, neo-liberal trade policies. But all these things are the rights of sovereign countries.
Posted by: robert at July 26, 2007 09:28 PM
Chavez DOES pose a military threat to us and the world, the same way ANY politician, left or right, Bush or Clinton, poses when their powers go unchecked. when they are able to stifle dissent through "Freedom Zones," voter purges, secrecy through "executive privilege" and raising themselves and their buddies above the law. Chavez DOES buy huge amounts of American arms through crony deals and hush hush quid pro quos. He becomes a danger, no matter what his political posturing, when he becomes accountable to no one.
Apparently Chavez has read Machiavelli and still pretends to be a religious man without actually believing it since it is assumed he's a godless commie. In a Democracy, no big deal. Whoever gets elected gets elected. But Chavez, like Stalin or Hitler or any other tyrant from history, only becomes dangerous when they become accountable to no man.
Get it?
Posted by: congressive at July 27, 2007 12:09 AM
Robert,
Ummm...I can think of Castro, whomever is in charge of Vietnam, Sudan's leaders; North Korea's kook; Iran's kook; Syria's kook; Zimbabwe's kook...and that would be about it for "worse than Chavez".
Posted by: Mark Noonan at July 27, 2007 01:10 AM
markus:
speaking of the catholic church
i was talking to an old friend of my fathers
who is a hard core catholic
she only attends latin masses
i asked why?
she said because the priests who can say latin masses are the only ones who aren't gay........
your response?
Posted by: lenny at July 27, 2007 08:33 AM
"Venezuala poses no military threat to us"
Robert,
How can you be 100% positive of this, and how do you indentify George Bush as believing this??
Jeremiah
Posted by: Jeremiah at July 27, 2007 07:33 PM
Lenny,
Your friend is referring to the underpinnings of the sex abuse scandal - we Catholics don't talk about this part of it too much because we believe that it would sound, if reported in the MSM, like we were blaming gay people for the scandal in the Church - but the basic fact is that most of the "child molesting" amounted to young, gay priests having sex with adolescent males - in other words, more in the nature of gay relationships rather than molestation. This is fundamentally why the Church has instituted new rules which, while not making it impossible for a gay man to become a priest, make it much less likely that a gay man uncommitted to complete chastity gets through the screening process (making a priest takes a long as a doctor, you know? We had one fine, young seminarian visit us this past month and he's two years into a 9 year process prior to ordination).
The plain fact of the matter is that far too many Bishops in the late 1960's and the early 1970's turned a blind eye to gay men who didn't observe chastity when they were in the seminary - these men, become priests, were the core of the problem, made worse by Bishops who hoped that by moving them around the problem would somehow go away. This was part of a general collapse in the Church in the United States which went on until John Paul II started to reinvigorate Church discipline - there's a new breed of priests coming on that we're already calling the "John Paul II priests" - young men who are firmly committed to their calling and who are doing wonders in revitalising the Church all up and down the line. We have smaller numbers, but what we've got is, in some respects, the best we've ever had - and we pray now for an increase in vocations, and we believe that the Holy Spirit will provide the young men necessary for the tasks at hand.
Of course, not all priests who said the Mass in the vernacular were or are gay - your friend exaggerates; and this doesn't mean that Vatican II was a bad thing - in fact, it was one of the best things to ever happen to the Church...what was bad is how some Bishops went slack in matters of faith and morals because they bought the post-Vatican II nonsense bruited about by liberal theologians that Catholic truth was optional. That is all over with now, though we'll be a generation or two before things are completely fixed.
Posted by: Mark Noonan at July 28, 2007 01:11 AM
Order Matt and Mark's book on Amazon or Barnes and Noble
pimple on the armpit of history known as Chavez
Too bad John Belushi (as in Animal House) isn't around to demonstrate.
Jesus was "anti-imperialism" and "anti-domination", as Chavez claims? You mean the Jesus that said "give to Caesar what is due Caesar"? And who said "when the soldier commands you to carry his equipment for a mile, go two miles with him"? Indeed, the reason the Jews rejected Him as the Messiah is precisely because he did not throw off the domination and imperialism of Rome.
"oil won't stay at $70+ per barrel forever,"
Because keef et al have labeled "it's the oil" talk as conspiratorial or just stupid, one of the shining spots this administration could have achieved for posterity is lost forever.
It is the oil. On a global scale. With everlasting repercussions. But I can't give Bush credit in one area that could paint him as the savior of all mankind because it is about the oil, and only crazy people think it's about the oil.
There was a book out a couple years back that drew a parallel between oil price and world despots, i.e. high oil prices meant democracy poor but oil rich countries breed despots, and low prices mean despots had to at least trade and negotiate with neighbors and their own people, and had a tougher time raising big standing armies.
Iraq is still a million barrels a day short from pre-war levels and China has gobbled every ounce of the stuff it can get and is growing almost exponentially, so prices aren't falling any time soon. Supply, meet demand. Demand - supply.
If you ever do start a thread about the oil, I'd love to discuss. Until then, I'll stay on topic.
This is a time for Catholics to show their stuff, get in there and comfort the poor, heal the sick, feed the hungry and treat every one of the least among Venezuelans as they would treat Jesus Himself, so when oil rich soldiers and power drunk politicians come calling, every peasant and working stiff says "what do we need you for? We don't need your money. We don't need your handouts. Why would we fight for you when we can stay home and love our spouses and raise our kids? We are the last, so we will be first. We are the peacemakers, so we turn our backs on fighters. We are the meek, and after all you money grubbing power hungry extraction industry barons are through billowing and blustering yourselves to death, we will inherit this earth."
If only...
In the mean time, buy a Smart. Your wallet and grandkids will thank you, and you'll be PERSONALLY responsible for improving the security situation here on planet earth. Go ahead and shake your fists at ANWAR and gassified coal, but for now...
Besides, Smarts have a low, throaty rumble and feel like you're piloting an F-104 with a better view. They seat you and your girl and a picnic basket... who wants Marmaduke slobbering in the back seat anyway!
'Greater is He that is in me, than he that is in the world.'
:)
Jeremiah
Why the continuous attacks against Chavez? I'm no fan of Chavez, but I can name like 50 leaders that are far worse. It seems to me that for neocon supporters, the worst crime a government can commit is resisting US hegemony.
Maybe our conflicting goals in Latin America of markets and democracy, for a socialist leaning people, need some rethinking.
Robert,
"They will forever try to preserve the US Empire by all means, while we do everything possible to shred it"
Why would Mr. Chavez say such thing??
Jeremiah
"Robert,
"They will forever try to preserve the US Empire by all means, while we do everything possible to shred it"
Why would Mr. Chavez say such thing??" - Jeremiah
Mr. Chavez isn't talking about the US's hegemonic relationship over it's own citizens, he talking about it's hegemonic relationship over Latin America.
If you don't know what I'm talking about, the history is far too long to list, even current policies are too numerous to list, but we have definitely helped foment civil wars, supported military dictators and helped overthrow elected governments. We have enforced policy over a large range of issues like counternarcotics, development aid, terrorism, immigration and trade.
Do you think Andean region countries like fumigating their own citizens in an attempt to reduce US drug consumption? Does it seem weird to you that US soldiers deployed in Latin America are immune the the laws of that county? Is it strange that the US wants to setup the internal trade policies in Latin America(NAFTA, CAFTA, AFTA), while most Latin Americans are for freer trade(ala the Bolivarian Revolution).
Now my question to you Jerimiah, do you believe in self determination for the people of the world, or do you believe the the US, as collectively moraly and intilectually superior, should use coercive means to govern the world?
or do you believe the the US, as collectively moraly and intilectually superior, should use coercive means to govern the world?
robert, if you're gonna try to appear intelligent, at least learn to spell. Idiot...
"Now my question to you Jerimiah, do you believe in self determination for the people of the world, or do you believe the the US, as collectively moraly and intilectually superior, should use coercive means to govern the world?"
Robert,
I won't go into length of my thoughts this evening, since my fingers are a little weak from using post-hole diggers today!
Anyways, here are my thoughts...
I believe we are called to defend our Nation against those countries which would seek no less than to destroy our way of life here, by any means necessary. In other words, I believe we have an obligation to defend our Nation, collectively, Morally, and intellectually to support our defense, If that means coercive action against those countries? Then yes, I'm all for it, I back it 100% -Why risk this our great way of life?? That's why I think that it's extremely impertive that we secure our borders as quickly as possible. And when I say - 'Secure,' I mean secure the borders, and seal it tight from ALL countries, not just Mexico!! The Muslims have only one thing in mind, and that is to - Rule the World - Their minds are dead-set on ruling by means of terrorizing, and killing American citizens! So I think we have a duty to occupy Iraq, and soon to be Iran, to minimize any further catastrophic event from taking place on our soil, and this also holds for any other Nation that would seek to do us in the same manner.
As par your first statement regarding the intent of Mr. Chavez's statement, I think it could be argued both ways, but, it's my assumption that he is relating more to the other governments supporting his own, mainly the US!
Oh well, the whole world is going to Hell in a hand basket as they say, and it is my firm belief, that if Mrs. Clinton gets nominated as President in '08, the good ol' U.S. of A. is SUNK!!
Jeremiah
Jeremiah, Venezuala poses no military threat to us, even George Bush beleives this, as he has let Venezuala become the number one importer of US arms in the hemisphere. I certianly don't agree with some of the things he's been doing, but go to humanrightswatch.org or any other international government watch group and look at some of the problems in other countries. I have a feeling he's getting attacked alot in the US for nationalizing US assets, not supporting Plan Columbia and other counter narcotics operations and the worst sin of all, not comforming to, and even fighting, neo-liberal trade policies. But all these things are the rights of sovereign countries.
Chavez DOES pose a military threat to us and the world, the same way ANY politician, left or right, Bush or Clinton, poses when their powers go unchecked. when they are able to stifle dissent through "Freedom Zones," voter purges, secrecy through "executive privilege" and raising themselves and their buddies above the law. Chavez DOES buy huge amounts of American arms through crony deals and hush hush quid pro quos. He becomes a danger, no matter what his political posturing, when he becomes accountable to no one.
Apparently Chavez has read Machiavelli and still pretends to be a religious man without actually believing it since it is assumed he's a godless commie. In a Democracy, no big deal. Whoever gets elected gets elected. But Chavez, like Stalin or Hitler or any other tyrant from history, only becomes dangerous when they become accountable to no man.
Get it?
Robert,
Ummm...I can think of Castro, whomever is in charge of Vietnam, Sudan's leaders; North Korea's kook; Iran's kook; Syria's kook; Zimbabwe's kook...and that would be about it for "worse than Chavez".
markus:
speaking of the catholic church
i was talking to an old friend of my fathers
who is a hard core catholic
she only attends latin masses
i asked why?
she said because the priests who can say latin masses are the only ones who aren't gay........
your response?
"Venezuala poses no military threat to us"
Robert,
How can you be 100% positive of this, and how do you indentify George Bush as believing this??
Jeremiah
Lenny,
Your friend is referring to the underpinnings of the sex abuse scandal - we Catholics don't talk about this part of it too much because we believe that it would sound, if reported in the MSM, like we were blaming gay people for the scandal in the Church - but the basic fact is that most of the "child molesting" amounted to young, gay priests having sex with adolescent males - in other words, more in the nature of gay relationships rather than molestation. This is fundamentally why the Church has instituted new rules which, while not making it impossible for a gay man to become a priest, make it much less likely that a gay man uncommitted to complete chastity gets through the screening process (making a priest takes a long as a doctor, you know? We had one fine, young seminarian visit us this past month and he's two years into a 9 year process prior to ordination).
The plain fact of the matter is that far too many Bishops in the late 1960's and the early 1970's turned a blind eye to gay men who didn't observe chastity when they were in the seminary - these men, become priests, were the core of the problem, made worse by Bishops who hoped that by moving them around the problem would somehow go away. This was part of a general collapse in the Church in the United States which went on until John Paul II started to reinvigorate Church discipline - there's a new breed of priests coming on that we're already calling the "John Paul II priests" - young men who are firmly committed to their calling and who are doing wonders in revitalising the Church all up and down the line. We have smaller numbers, but what we've got is, in some respects, the best we've ever had - and we pray now for an increase in vocations, and we believe that the Holy Spirit will provide the young men necessary for the tasks at hand.
Of course, not all priests who said the Mass in the vernacular were or are gay - your friend exaggerates; and this doesn't mean that Vatican II was a bad thing - in fact, it was one of the best things to ever happen to the Church...what was bad is how some Bishops went slack in matters of faith and morals because they bought the post-Vatican II nonsense bruited about by liberal theologians that Catholic truth was optional. That is all over with now, though we'll be a generation or two before things are completely fixed.