My interest was piqued by what I saw and so I bought it and began reading the introduction where I learned the genesis of the rather intriguing title. I mistakenly believed that British journalist and Rome correspondent Peter Nichols was referring to the difficulties with the post-Vatican II Church that were brought to a head by the election of this relatively unknown Polish pope.
There were certainly a number of divisions in the Church, and illustrative of those divisions was the image of Sr. Thus, the pope had no divisions left; not even a police force with firearms. No one at the time thought that the Vatican could have a real presence in international affairs other than moral cautions here and there.
That was without counting the resilience and international experience of the Catholic Church, which, especially through the guidance of Pope John XXIII — Cardinal Roncalli as he is known to Istanbulites — reformed itself theologically and acquired an important place in world affairs. I do not want to ramble on the effects of Pope John Paul II accession over the dismantling of the socialist system, but there is the fact that the pope still has immense influence on moral grounds when it comes to human rights abuses around the world.
Pope Francis organized a visit to Myanmar, basically to make an act of presence in view of the terrible treatment of the Muslim Rohingya population in Rakhine state by Myanmar authorities. It is worth saying that he is the only important public official to take the risk to go to Myanmar and publicly try to call out the unacceptable treatment of this small and very poor minority.
For the record, Turkey has been the only country to make a solemn appeal to Bangladesh, an impoverished country, to take in all the refugees and it would cover all the expenses. Myanmar has been continuously treating its Rohingya minority as a kind of "untermensch," establishing a legal discriminatory regime that resembles apartheid South Africa before the era of Nelson Mandela.
So long as it was a military regime without any democratic perspective, all the criticism was upon the undemocratic nature of the regime. On the other hand, we see a pack of political schemers, thieves, and murderers. The departed Pope had more moral authority in one of his eyelashes than Blair has in his entire body, and Bush is not morally qualified to inhabit the same planet as John Paul II.
Still these vile politicians and all the others came to Rome; and, most important, they were seen to have come. Now that the U. For the time being, however, we may expect the U. Hence, the old question arises in a new form: How many divisions does Bush have? Well, evidently not enough, judging by the inability of his forces to pacify even the city of Baghdad, much less the shattered little country of Iraq. April 11, Louis Post-Dispatch St.
Louis, Missouri :. Washington, Sept. Churchill, Mr. Prime Minister, how many divisions did you say the Pope had? Religious and political conclusions were soon drawn from the phrase attributed to Stalin. Materialism is still a controlling factor. But if mankind have the quality necessary to survive, the mercy, charity and understanding which the Pope bespoke alone have the power to make the world what Christ hoped it would be. Joseph News-Press St. Joseph, Missouri of Sunday 5 th May The pope is a temporal sovereign.
His state is tiny and yet his influence on the lives of millions of people all over the world renders ill-spoken the comment of Joseph Stalin when someone suggested the pope sit on the peace treaty. The Russian Government has shown time and again that it understands nothing internationally but the language of power. How many divisions has the Pope? Joseph Stalin, Franklin D.
0コメント