I can hear the Church Lady now...
Hmmmm. I came across some information today which should be interesting to those who are both Catholic and supporters of the current Administration. (My wife has, at times in her life, been both, which makes it an interesting pairing for me).
I have done a lot of research on this to try to determine the veracity of the story. Ultimately, I have to rely on the source, and so to give you some independent ability to check yourself, here is a brief bio of the author.
According to the piece (written about a year ago), Pope John Paul II feared that George W. Bush was the anti-christ of the Book of Revalations... and he was concerned that he wasn't younger and stronger to confront the possibility.
Whether Bush actually is said anti-christ or not, or even whether the late Pope ultimately came to believe or refute his suspicions, I think it's telling that the actions of this President are such that it was even in question.
I'll finish off by quoting the piece itself:
WASHINGTON DC -- According to freelance journalist Wayne Madsen, "George W Bush's blood lust, his repeated commitment to Christian beliefs and his constant references to 'evil doers,' in the eyes of many devout Catholic leaders, bear all the hallmarks of the one warned about in the Book of Revelations--the anti-Christ."
Madsen, a Washington-based writer and columnist, who often writes for Counterpunch, says that people close to the pope claim that amid these concerns, the pontiff wishes he was younger and in better health to confront the possibility that Bush may represent the person prophesized in Revelations. John Paul II has always believed the world was on the precipice of the final confrontation between Good and Evil as foretold in the New Testament.
Before he became pope, Karol Cardinal Wojtyla said, "We are now standing in the face of the greatest historical confrontation humanity has gone through. I do not think that wide circles of the American society or wide circles of the Christian community realize this fully. We are now facing the final confrontation between the church and the anti-Church, of the Gospel versus the anti-Gospel."
The pope worked tirelessly to convince leaders of nations on the UN Security Council to oppose Bush's war resolution on Iraq. Vatican sources claim they had not seen the pope more animated and determined since he fell ill to Parkinson's Disease. In the end, the pope did convince the leaders of Mexico, Chile, Cameroon and Guinea to oppose the U.S. resolution.
Madsen contends that "Bush is a dangerous right-wing ideologue who couples his political fanaticism with a neo-Christian blood cult."
Liam.
6 Comments:
Talk about wanting to believe something bad about President Bush, this is the ultimate failure on your part to be honest about who this author is in real life. Just went to google his name, and on his blog which is the Wayne Madsen Report he advertises reports by him on "AFTER THE RAPTURE, CAN I HAVE YOUR CAR?" "LET'S MAKE THE NEO-CONSERVATIVES NEO-CONVICTS" "DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GEORGE W BUSH AND TED BUNDY: BUNDY GOT BETTER GRADES".
The list of his favorite links reads like the whos who of the ultimate fringe left wing kooks ie Air America, Buzzflash,Baghdad Burning, Crooks and Liars, Daily Kos, and even the Cynthia McKinny re election fund. Also the Jerry Springer Show, Left.org. He is an ultimate Bush hater who takes rumors and innuedos, dresses them up with some "maybes" and presents them as facts.
Saturday, December 03, 2005 3:40:00 PM
Well, now, let's see... You say I wasn't honest about who it was. And yet, I posted the name of the author. I gave you the bio someone gave me, so anyone who wished could do some more searching, and you have done so.
I spent a while trying to determine the veracity of the STORY. I found it posted on a site called something like "Catholicism Now" among others, which seemed to give it credence. I felt that the credibility of the story was the more important thing, so that's where I concentrated my efforts.
But, I'll tell you what, if you want to engage in a healthy debate, I'm willing to do so, and if you want to restrict my sources to non-liberals, then you'll have to promise to refrain from anything sourced by ultra-conservatives and apologists. Meaning Rush Limbaugh is gone, Sean Hannity is gone, pretty much anything on Fox News (including the appallingly inaptly named "No Spin Zone" of Bill O'Reilly) is gone.
The ultimate point of my essay, though, is something that my wife has said on several occasions: The worst thing about this President isn't necessarily that he's done EVERYTHING he's been accused of. The worst thing is that he's done ENOUGH of them that articles like this are plausible. Never before in my life have I been so able to believe the worst about a person, and a President for goodness sake. Not Clinton, not Bush Sr., not Reagan, not Carter. I was too young for Nixon.
Adultery is a bad thing, and I understand why people don't like Clinton for it. On the other hand, that was a crime against his wife (who has clearly forgiven him, they're still together) and the intern (who has never publically said anything bad about him).
Bush takes crime and sin to a whole new level. He's gotten over two thousand of our best and brightest killed in service of a private war that has ENHANCED, not diminished, the terrorist threat to this country. All the while doing just about nothing to actually catch Osama bin Ladin, the guy at the heart of 9/11. He's run up record setting deficits after having been handed a nearly balanced budget. He's borrowed more money from Communist China than all 42 Presidents before him. All because he'd rather give tax breaks to the wealthiest 1 or 2 percent of the population than be fiscally responsible.
Oh, and as a recovering alcoholic, what was he doing drinking fermented goats milk on his trip last week? I have dealt with enough alcoholics to know you can't do that.
So do I believe that he is the anti-Christ? Growing up, the church I was raised in considered Revelations to be more of a cautionary tale than literal prophecy, so no, I don't really. But do I believe that I might be wrong, and if I am, that it's PLAUSIBLE that he is? Yes. And do I believe that it's possible that the Pope may have believed so? Absolutely.
Liam.
Saturday, December 03, 2005 7:41:00 PM
First off, my apologies to Marshal_JCC. I think he probably submitted his response several times wondering why it didn't come through, not realizing that I was now moderating comments. I posted all three because not to do so seemed to violate my promise to post all comments, but it does make him look repetitive, which I don't believe he intended.
Liam.
Sunday, December 04, 2005 1:56:00 AM
Now, to answer marshall_jcc...
Thanks for stopping in. One of the things I love the most about this blog is how much great give and take there is.
My recollection (and I admit it's been a while since I read it) is that my impression was that while yes, the anti-christ would be followed by the multitudes EVENTUALLY, I never felt that meant it had to be a magical, overnight transaction. My impression was always that Revelations was warning us to the seductive nature of evil and the fact that it can be smooth and charming and attract a lot of followers. And I also don’t recall feeling like the rapture would necessarily happen before the anti-christ came to prominence, only before he came to full power. If the rapture is going to happen before any of the actions in Revelations come to pass, why tell us about them? What’s the point in warning us how to recognize the end times when they come to pass, if there’s no chance at all of recognizing them and working to stop them?
Now, to defend the Pope, keep in mind that he’s been dead for a while now, and this article was written sometime before that. I think the wide spread dislike of Bush is really a fairly recent development. Certainly those of us who have believed him to be damaging to our country found it very frustrating for quite a long time to watch how the majority seemed to lap up everything he said in some sort of post 9/11 patriotic fervor. At the time when the Pope (according to the article, which as was pointed out, may only represent a fiction made up by one author) may have been considering Bush a rising anti-christ, his popularity was waxing among Americans. Played properly, he could have parlayed that into a popular support internationally.
Heck, two or three well placed terror attacks in other countries, sufficiently framing Muslim extremists, and the world which quickly denounced Bush for his almost criminal lack of foreign relations might otherwise have been buying the same line of “these are the actions necessary to take out this evil” that so much of the U.S. populace did.
But... if you are a believer in Revelations as a literal prophecy, then I submit that it’s important to be MORE critically thinking about your leaders rather than LESS so. Peek behind the veneer. Look for rats in the wainscoting. Our society today is RIPE for an anti-christ figure to show up, because an appallingly large percentage of our population seems to believe in Bush and the Republican Party solely because they have managed to co-opt Christian principals and convince the world that they and only they are the party of Christian ideals.
When a society is so willing to follow a glib tongue based solely on that tongue’s own assurances that it’s the only truly Christian leader we have right now, based on a bit of lip service and shockingly little active evidence, it’s clear that someone with the personal magnetism of the anti-christ could easily convince them to follow him.
Whether you take Revelations as literally true or a cautionary allegory, however, there are good lessons to be learned there. Lessons which, especially in this post 9/11 United States, we would all do well to learn. Question authority. Do your best to understand, not merely follow. Consider the ramifications of actions. It’s why I continue to trumpet the baby-steps in the wrong direction with things like the Patriot Act and resistance to anti-torture legislation. Evil rarely comes in large, recognizable packages. Generally it comes in small, reasonable seeming units, eroding away our resistance slowly, inexorably, until one day we look up and think “how the heck did we get HERE?”
Whenever I hear someone say “Why do you care so much about the Enemy Combatants? You’re not a terrorist, it doesn’t effect you!” I want to scream “Open your eyes! Giving a President the power to declare someone outside the protection and purview of our laws, even in the most heinous of cases, puts a tiny crack in the foundation of our free society, and once a crack forms in the foundation, moisture and erosion will, over time, widen it.”
I have to think if Revelations comes literally true, that the anti-Christ will most likely NOT come out of a large, established church like the Roman Catholic church. Far more likely he will show up as some new, non-affiliated “Christian” preacher, winning people over to his brand of seductive faux-Christianity without having to overcome years of baggage and bad press. Let’s face it, for some of the reasons you mention, it’s going to be a long time before someone at the head of the Catholic church can gain the kind of main stream following necessary to convince most people to willingly take the mark of the beast. Just as you say about Bush (now), there are too many people who reject the institution of the Catholic church (not rejecting Christianity, just the politics involved in any large organization made up of human beings).
Thanks for your comments!
Liam.
P.S. I’m not Catholic, so I don’t subscribe to the Pope’s infallibility, or even his particular authority to speak the word of God on Earth.
Sunday, December 04, 2005 2:38:00 AM
In response to marshall_jcc
The end times call for the AntiChrist to lead an army against Israel. Think about how that could possibly come about in todays world. The Pope leading an army against Israel, I think not. A Muslim leader, bringing about Muslim countries and armies against Israel. Now that's food for thought.
Sunday, December 04, 2005 9:45:00 AM
Anonymous:
Good point. I'd forgotten that little tidbit. If this discussion goes on much longer, I'm going to have to crack Revelations again and refresh my memory on the finer points.
(I find it to be one of the most depressing parts of the Bible, and so I tend to find any excuse I can to avoid reading it.)
Liam.
Sunday, December 04, 2005 10:30:00 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home