Comments on: President Reagan and Pope John Paul II

By: KHdN – Kenneth Hynek (dot Net) » Blog Archive » About a President (and a Pope)

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 06:02:40 +0000

[...] for updates on this topic.Powered by WP Greet BoxGeorge Weigel (!) writes, at Catholic Exchange, about a new book that draws on recently de-classified letters exchanged between Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II to shed additional light on the complex [...]

By: goral

goral — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 02:32:13 +0000

Indeed as someone with great insight said. ‘Many who are without are within, and others who are within are actually without’.
Catholicism in America has been more bolstered by those who are without.

By: PrairieHawk

PrairieHawk — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:55:33 +0000

Maybe Reagan was the “second Catholic President.”

By: Joe DeVet

Joe DeVet — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:16:48 +0000

Lest we forget…that same time frame brought us an economics pastoral, penned by a committee chaired by the eminent Rembert Weakland. This document was shot through with misconceptions about economic principles and came to similarly flawed policy recommendations. At about that time, one of the apparatchiks of the USCC, as it then was, commented to a friend that this organization was the “religious arm of the Democratic Party.”

The Church must be exquisitely careful in commenting on politics, economics, and I’ll say in passing ecology, that we not be too hasty to bank prematurely on popular theories, lest they result in supporting embarrassing and harmful proposals. In doing so we destroy our moral authority for the primary task, that of proclaiming the gospel.

By: SeanReynoldsNZ

SeanReynoldsNZ — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:06:48 +0000

Anyone remeber Neville Chamberlain? If no one knows who I am talking about, then that tells you a lot about historical perspective and who gets remembered in history.

Neville Chamberlain’s most famous statement was after a peace conference in 1938 where he sold the Czechs into Nazi slavery was “Peace in our time”. He may well have meant well, but all he was doing was trying to put out the Nazi fire by smothering it with gasoline.

At the same time there was another man in the British Parliament who was opposed as being a warmonger. He wanted to take the Nazis on and defeat them. He was roundly criticised for his stance throughout the 1930s. Eventually Chamberlain was forced to resign as Prime Minister in 1940 after France was defeated and Great Britain was facing the prospect of Nazi invasion. (The Yanks under FDR STILL were sitting on their hands and were not interested in joining the war at this stage: Some American “heroes” such as Charles Lindbergh were even suggesting that the USA should side with the Nazis). Anyway, the only person in the British Parliament that King George VI could find to form a government that would have the support of the opposition as well as the majority was the warmonger. His name was Winston Churchill.

The man who was committed to the cause of peace sold a nation into Nazi slavery and depleted his country’s armed forces, even as the Nazis were breaching the Treaty of Versailles and ramping up their war machine. The man of peace refused to act against a real aggressor, resulting in a longer and bloodier war than was necessary. The warmonger fought the war that was started, and ultimately brought peace to Europe in 1945.

Question: Which man is considered the greater in history?

Here ends the lesson.