A Dependable Ally, Pope Francis Met with Putin for the Third Time
No other head of state has been granted a private meeting with the pope more often. And Putin kept the pope waiting each time - 50 minutes late for their first meeting, more than an hour late for their second and an hour late on Thursday.
Putin's July 4th visit to the Vatican came “amid signs of closer ties between the Kremlin and the Roman Catholic Church,” reported Bloomberg and “at a time when Russia is playing a more ambitious and divisive role around the world” noted the Washington Post.
Afterwards, Putin thanked Pope Francis for “a very substantive discussion." The subjects were Venezuela, Ukraine and Syria according to the Vatican.
Syria
Pope Francis positioned himself as Vladimir Putin’s ally early on. Although the massacre had been ongoing since his election in March 2013, the pontiff held a peace rally for Syria only after Pres. Obama proposed a limited air strike to deter the further use of chemical weapons against civilians.
Putin had said that it was “utter nonsense” that Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons and he “warned the U.S. against launching military action in Syria, stating that Russia has ‘plans’ on how it would react if such a scenario unfolded,” reported The Guardian.
Pope Francis wrote a letter to Putin, host of the G-20 summit held on the eve of his Sept. 7, 2013, rally “urging world leaders to oppose a military intervention in Syria.” During his rally, the pope spoke out against an attack in Syria, Elizabeth Dias noted.
“Moscow was pleased after Francis opposed a proposed U.S.-led military intervention in Syria, a key Russian ally,” according to Reuters. Putin credited Pope Francis “with being decisive in halting the momentum with the G-20 towards supporting the initiative,” reported Ines San Martin.
Pope Francis had “quite a cordial and constructive meeting,” with Putin in November 2013 after which the Russian president continued to support al-Assad’s “extermination” of his civilian population
“Papal diplomacy in Syria has helped Russia and Assad” according to Fr. Raymond J. de Souza, a Senior Fellow at Cardus, Canada’s leading Christian think tank. “Putin certainly regarded [Obama’s failure in Syria] as a major victory. He immediately began to flex Moscow’s muscles in Ukraine," wrote de Souza.
Ukraine
In March 2014, “Russia seized Crimea from Ukraine in an illegal move that violated the territorial integrity of the former Soviet republic and sparked a war,” wrote Alice Popovici for history.com.
“NATO commander Gen. Philip Breedlove said Russian military equipment and Russian combat troops have been seen entering Ukraine in columns over several days” in November 2014.
On Feb. 4, 2015, “Pope Francis prayed that ‘this horrible fratricidal violence will cease as soon as possible.’ Stunned that the pope viewed the conflict as a civil war, Ukrainian Catholic bishops went to Rome to tell Pope Francis the truth about the war in their country after complaints by some Ukrainians that the Holy See was being influenced by Russian propaganda,” reported Laura Ieraci.
The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC) is the largest of the Eastern Catholic Churches that are Byzantine in liturgy and organization but in full communion with Rome. Archbishop Sviatoslav Shevchuk, head of the UGCC, “said the country was not in a civil war but facing ‘the direct aggression of our neighbor’ …. In addition to the fighting, he said the country’s pastors are concerned about the more than 2 million refugees, among them 140,000 children. He said more than 6,000 people, mostly civilians, have been killed to date,” Ieraci wrote.
In response, Pope Francis told the UGCC bishops “to stay out of politics.”
“Just a day after being publicly scolded by the world's industrial powers, the G7 -- including a particularly strong rebuke from U.S. President Barack Obama -- Putin was shoulder to shoulder with the spiritual leader of 1 billion Roman Catholics worldwide,” reported Matthew Chance about Pope Francis’s second meeting with Putin on June 10, 2015. “There aren't many world leaders who could annex one part of a neighboring country while backing a bloody rebellion in another part, and still avoid strong criticism from, arguably, the world's most influential religious figure,” noted Chance.
Ahead of the Putin meeting, the U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See, Kenneth Hackett, had urged the pontiff to "say more about concerns on territorial integrity" in Ukraine. But Pope Francis said only that “it is necessary to make a great effort to forge peace,” Chance wrote.
Meeting with Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill
A meeting between Pope Francis and Kirill took place on Feb. 12, 2016, in Havana. The meeting “could not happen without a green light from Putin and he may be one the beneficiaries …. Putin has aligned himself closely with the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC), making Friday’s two-hour private meeting not just a religious event but politically charged as well, especially when Russia is at odds with the West over Ukraine and Syria …. ‘Putin clearly sees the value of his relationship with the ROC and the ROC’s relationship with the pope,’ said a diplomat who spoke on the condition of anonymity,” Reuters reported.
In fact, “in the Era of Putin, the Russian Orthodox Church has resumed much of its former imperial role as a servant of the State. And in a time of renewed Russian confidence and aggression abroad, the Russian Orthodox Church has become an important instrument of state power,” explained Katie Kelaidis
After the meeting, The Economist asked: “Did the pope just kiss Putin’s ring? Russia wants its people to believe that Western republics are not as hostile as their leaders. Pope Francis just helped.” The meeting with Kirill was “a diplomatic victory” for Putin.
Francis made clear in his interview before the meeting that on certain issues he agrees with Mr. Putin and disagrees with America and its allies ….
The meeting with Francis has helped to underscore Russia’s renewed standing as a global power ….
The joint declaration issued after the meeting hewed close to the Kremlin’s positions on the conflicts in Syria and Ukraine ….
The joint declaration deplores “hostility” in Ukraine, but omits any mention of Russia’s role, casting it as an internal struggle ….
Miroslav Marinovich, vice-rector of the Catholic University in Lviv, said that the sections relating to Ukraine were “obviously written in the Kremlin.” Archbishop Svyatoslav Shevchuk went even further. The members of his church, he said, felt “betrayed by the Vatican.”
"Critics also worry that the Vatican may be lending credibility to Putin’s claim to be the great defender of persecuted Christians, when his policy is more about realpolitik than religious conviction," reported John L. Allen, Jr. “Russian operation in Syria is our salvation,” Bishop Georges Abou Khazen, the vicar of Aleppo, stated after the pope’s meeting with Kirill. Khazen was appointed by Pope Francis in 2013. “Russia makes a very positive impact by stimulating the negotiations process, and promotes dialogue between various Syrian groups,” Khazen said
The joint declaration also included a denouncement of same-sex marriage. Putin “also takes the position held by Pope Francis that ‘tolerance of gender choice results from a Western imperial ideology,'” observed Peter Gardella.
As “a direct result” of the Havana meeting, “the Foreign Office of the Moscow Patriarchate held an international seminar at the end of January [2017] during which the Orthodox and Catholic Churches jointly addressed the issue of abortion.”
Expanded Diplomatic Relations
The day after the Havana meeting, Slovenia-born Archbishop Ivan Jurkovic was appointed as the Vatican’s Permanent Observer to the United Nations in Geneva as well as the World Trade Organization. Jurkovic had been the papal ambassador to Russia since 2011. The “widespread saying among Vatican diplomats” is that “Geneva is where the UN headquarters’ decisions are prepared” and Jurkovic “knows very well the Russian world and its sensitivities,” noted Vatican reporter, Andrea Gagliarducci. Given Jurkovic’s experience, “his appointment aims to assist in the rapprochement between the Catholic Church and Moscow.”
Archbishop Celestino Migliore, “one of the most skilled and experienced Vatican diplomats” according to Gagliarducci, was appointed as Pope Francis’ ambassador to Russia in May 2016 after serving as his ambassador to the United Nations.
Archbishop Antonio Mennini was made an official in the Vatican Secretariat of State in January 2017. Mennini had been the papal representative to Moscow from 2002 to 2010. (The Vatican and Russia established full diplomatic relations in 2009.)
Pope Francis said in April 2017 that Metropolitan Archbishop Hilarion, foreign minister of the Russian Orthodox Church “has come many times to speak with me.”
The most powerful man in the Vatican after Pope Francis, Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin, made an “historic visit” to Moscow to meet with Putin at the end of August 2017 “with the aim of improving Holy See relations both with the Kremlin and the Russian Orthodox Church,” stated Vatican reporter Edward Pentin.
In a February 2017 article titled “Trump and the Vatican, a relationship to be built,” Vatican reporter Andrea Tornielli wrote that, in addition to anti-abortion policies, “there could be other possible agreements [between Trump] with the Holy See in the less exclusionary approach with Vladimir Putin's Russia." Pope Francis appointed Tornielli as editorial director of his Department of Communications in December 2018.
Ukraine Orthodox Church
The principle religion in Ukraine is Orthodox Christianity adhered to by 75-80 percent of the population; 56 percent of these identify with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kiev Patriarchate while 16 percent identify with Ukrainian Orthodox Church under the Moscow Patriarchate. Ukrainian Greek Catholics are 8 percent. The Russian Orthodox Church, however, claims a canonical authority over the entire country.
In view of the Russian aggression, “the then Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko set about addressing the issue of the Orthodox split, partly to benefit from it politically. In April 2018, he sent a letter to the Ecumenical Patriarch in Istanbul requesting an independent Church for Ukraine. The Kiev Patriarchate Church supported his request.”
“An independent Ukrainian Church undercuts Putin's plans to expand his country's power, including boosting Moscow as a so-called Third Rome that would become a center of the Orthodox faith,” noted Ilias Kouskouvelis, professor of International Relations at the University of Macedonia.
The Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, the foremost leader in the Eastern Christian Church also known among Orthodox patriarchs as "first among equals," supported Poroshenko’s proposal.
By late 2018, 54 percent of Ukrainians supported the creation of a united Ukrainian Orthodox Church independent from Moscow. Only 19 percent opposed it.
As part of a May 2018 address to ROC delegates to the Vatican, Pope Francis told Ukraine’s Catholic leaders that they “must not interfere in the internal affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church, nor in political matters. This is my stance. And those who meddle do not obey the Holy See.”
Bartholomew recognized the new independent and united Ukrainian Orthodox Church on Oct. 11, 2018. The ROC cut ties with Bartholomew.
Disregarding the pope’s prohibition, UGCC Archbishop Shevchuk stated his support for Bartholomew. “What Ukraine needs now is the affirmation of its rights,” he said on Oct. 13. “It’s not just the right to have an independent country but also to have its own interpretation of its religious past, present and future.”
On Oct. 19, Pope Francis met with ROC foreign minister Hilarion.
Following the Russian detention of Ukrainian navy vessels in the Kerch Strait and the “dramatic growth” of Russian units and tanks deployed along the Ukraine-Russian border in November 2018, UGCC bishops declared that this aggression shows “the threat to our independence and territorial integrity is not over …. It should be remembered that these acts have spiritual roots – the hearts of criminals and aggressors are possessed by evil forces.”
In January 2019, Bartholomew formally recognized the new Ukrainian Orthodox Church in an “elaborate ceremony” in Istanbul.
Putin responded, "Look how it (the new Church) is becoming dependent on Turkey, the Turkish patriarchate. I think Bartholomew's main incentive and motive is to subdue this territory and then start profiting from it."
Archbishop Shevchuk declared, "Let the internal movement toward consolidation and unity never be stopped.”
UGCC Bishop Borys Gudziak said the declaration of independence for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is a repudiation of Russia’s “ecclesial colonialism” and said "bending" to Russia "has little to do with authentic reconciliation of Churches.”
“We are grateful" that "the Pope and the Holy See understand the whole situation and how difficult it is," Vladimir Legoyda, professor at the Moscow State Institute for International Relations and chairman of ROC's Department for Media Relations, said in May 2019.
Not everyone is grateful. Pope Francis has been accused of “betraying” Ukrainians to appease Putin. He had also been accused of delivering a “papal punch in the gut” to Cuban dissidents by ignoring them during his visit with Raul and Fidel Castro and giving “a slap in the face to millions of Catholics and other faithful religious people in China who have suffered real persecution” because he made a secret agreement with Xi Jinping’s government over the selection of bishops.
Perhaps Pope Francis is following 1700 years of papal history. Ever since the Vatican aligned with the Roman Empire, they have supported tyrants, despots and dictators.
(Betty Clermont is author of The Neo-Catholics: Implementing Christian Nationalism in America.)
Comments
A few points occur to me.
Here are Betty Clermont's contributions at TOP:
https://www.dailykos.com/blogs/betty-clermont/
The former Ukranian president, in addition to being a gangster, plain and simple--putting him in charge of a country was like putting Meyer Lansky in charge of Cuba--is Jewish as to religion and a dual citizen of Ukraine and Israel and has and had no business interfering in internal matters of the Ukrainian Christian churches.
Clermont herself admits that the Ukranian Greek Catholic Church is no more than 8% of the population of the Ukraine and for that and other reasons had no business interfering in matters internal to the Orthodox churches.
The Holy Father, as head of one of the world's major religions and a head of state, a very small one to be sure, is fully entitled to meet with any other head of state who is willing to talk to him.
Obama was, to his credit, most reluctant to invade Syria and turned the matter over to Congress. I think maybe there is something in the Constitution that says that was what he was supposed to do. Meanwhile, while Congress was deliberating over a weekend, i.e., partying and dialing for dollars, Pope Francis was holding an outdoor mass and prayer for peace event which was, of course, carried live by EWTN, right into the living rooms of (mostly) conservative Catholics all over the US. Those same conservative Catholics are not at all shy about contacting conservative lawmakers, and in fact are contributors to many of them.
Leftists can criticize the Church's stances on matters of doctrine all they want, that is of course their right, but it is no part of the Pope's authority to revise long standing doctrine to please secular critics, nor does he have the power to do so.
Clermont and others might want to consider that Francis's successor is likely to be a black man from Africa. Now, what effect might that have on a black population here in the US which is already dismayed by far leftish views on marriage and related matters?
Mary Bennett
by "far left", i presume you mean,
"opposed to bigotry founded on the 3000-year-old superstitions of a few relatively small tribes of misogynist goatherders".
or something like that.
"far left", my ass. many of the same people "uncomfortable" with gay marriage or equal rights for the transgendered would, with very little encouragement, be really, really fucking comfortable with burning all the queers and gender freaks on dry wood (gotta make sure they suffer as much as possible, so as to drive out the demons before sending those souls on to meet their angry sadistic maker).
"far left". that's Bill O'Reilly rhetoric. in this country, "far left" means "believes in universal healthcare -- like every other remotely prosperous nation provides to its people.
"far left" means "believes raining down death on civilians in other countries violates both our law and the principles laid out by those who created the framework for that law".
"far left" means "women's bodies belong to themselves".
"far left" means "legalize the drug whose common, uncontroversial use predated Christ by thousands of years, and was unremarkable on these shores a hundred years ago."
in other words "far left" means "current mainstream social/political thought in every other nation that is both a direct inheritor of the Western tradition, and has escaped the tyranny of the goatherders".
here are some examples of what the phrase "far left" would mean if Americans weren't such a well-propagandized and well-indoctrinated pack of ignorant magical thinkers:
Opposes the "ownership" of "private" property beyond the extent that the owner can, individually and within reason occupy and "exploit", or manage.
Opposes any notion that "private property" implies an unfettered license to whatever one wants on/to/under that property. Understands that "private property" isn't an unrestricted right, but a concession by the rest of society, a concession whose terms are entirely up to the granting society, a concession not subject to any kind of absolutes. Understands that private property is in fact the single greatest infringement on the general liberty that exists in our society, and as such, requires the greatest institutional and legal constraints.
(Or, rather more far left, opposes any kind of private property at all.)
Opposes the existence of private, for-profit corporations chartered for any purpose that does not drive a primary public good, which ought to be each corporation's chief obligation, overriding "fiduciary responsibilities" and "shareholder value" and any other possible. Understands that corporations are technical creations, of which no comparable thing may be thought to exist in nature; and as such are subject to any constraints that the people who decided to allow them to exist might think wise to place on them.
Opposes the existence of corporations owned by other corporations.
Opposes transnational operations by corporations.
(Or of course, more far left, opposes any kind of corporation ... though, corporations actually have their convenient uses, so ...)
Opposes the existence of prisons.
Opposes any legal recognition of the existence of "political parties" as being distinct in any way from any other association of citizens; and therefore opposes any institutional support for those parties (e.g., identification on ballot lines), and bans, within government systems, operating procedures that enable and institutionalize the factionalism of parties. (E.g., in an elected body, positions such as seats on committees or committee chairs should be randomly chosen from amongst those who want them.)
Opposes arming the police (more far left: Opposes having police at all.)
Opposes the basing of US military troops anywhere outside of the US, ever, except in times of active, declared war during military operations explicitly intended to force the enemy into negotiated peace, or unconditional surrender.
Opposes the sending of the militia abroad, ever.
Opposes the US government exercising control of any territory whose inhabitants are not fully represented in the elected government; or indeed, any territory not incorporated, one way or another, into a fully-fledged state.
Opposes the keeping of almost all government secrets;
Opposes any active operation of US government agencies (or their proxies) to effect political change, anywhere;
Opposes the deliberate dissemination of disinformation by any agency of the US government, ever.
Etc. Those are some far left policies. Nobody with any public influence in the US entertains any of them with any seriousness. If you want to know whether a policy seems far left to you, here's a pretty simple test, assuming you yourself aren't pretty far out there: Unless it seems absolutely ludicrous, fanciful, delusional, unless it appears to reject what to you are obvious truths (e.g. private property = liberty), then it is not far left, because far left is all about rejecting the "obvious" mythology and thinking hard about what else might be. Once upon a time, the rich oligarchs of the American colonies were themselves far left -- because they dared to imagine some things that other people found unimaginable, they dared to reject the conventions and "common sense" of their age, even redefining it explicitly, in the case of Tom Paine. Now we look back at them and perceive much of their understanding to hopelessly "far right" -- their adulation of private property, their sexism and racism, for many of them, their superstitions, and so on. "Far left" is always changing, it always relative, but in that relativeness here is what is also always is: A direct, explicit attack, not on some social phenomenon such as bigotry against marginalized subpopulations, but on the very philosophical foundations of the society. If 90% of the population doesn't view an idea as crazy, then there is nothing "far" left about it.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
Grow up, why don't you.
It is called life. Part of life is that others will never agree with you. We all live with it.
I don't care with whom Mr. Putin meets. His country is on the other side of the globe from where I live. I do admire him for acting in the interests of his own country; if only our own political class would do the same. There certainly are countries which are known to attempt to influence our elections. Some of their names are the UK, the KSA, the People's Republic and Israel. When the late Tom Hayden was looking for support to run for the CA LEGISLATURE, not even Congress, he had to be vetted by the Israeli consul in LA. I am sure you can find a word or two in the paragraph above to which you can object, but please don't expect a response.
As a fan of Ms. Clermont, perhaps you could favor us with a curriculum vitae, since she is not about to share who she is, where she comes from nor where her loyalties lie, and until she or someone does, I don't accept her as an expert on anything.
Mary Bennett
As is typically the case, I lay out an extended
argument (or polemic, if you'd prefer) about one thing; and the response is an argument about something else entirely, something about which I said nothing.
My comment was all and only this: A challenge to your use of "far left" to describe something not very far left at all.
You respond by telling me to "grow up", whatever you think you mean by that -- I am more than grown up enough, I claim, whether or not you find my rhetorical approach sufficiently obsequious.
I suggest that maybe you have some growing up to do -- epistemological and rhetorical growing up, so that when someone responds unfavorably to something you've written, you treat that response as the carefully thought-out and constructed thing it is, read it critically, and respond to the thing itself, not to some semi-random gestalty take, not just on that comment, but on every other comment in a thread filled with many, many different layers and levels of criticism of the original post. You had no cause to defend Betty Clermont against my statements, because I said nothing at all -- positive or negative -- about Betty Clermont's essay.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
This is a horrible thread jack
and it's an insult to Betty.
This happens more often lately and I don't understand why people are doing it. It'd be nice if people could stick to the topic that's being discussed.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
hmm, perhaps.
conversations about interesting and important things generally expand and branch out pretty organically, to abuse that word. somebody said something, and i objected to its formulation. i could have ignored the matter, on the grounds that it's off the main topic, or i could have treated it as part of dialogue deserving attention -- which is what i did.
and of course, by the time i wrote that the whole thread had gone completely awry anyway, because MANY people had failed to parse out certain sections of the essay as being extended quotes from something else, and so were assailing BC as if those sections represented her opinions. basically, the whole thread was just one big jack.
in the not even very long run, i think BC's status in these parts is pretty safe, though.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
Thank your for the link to Betty's incredible record of work
on TOP. I encourage anyone who has the time to explore it, and learn!
Now for your comments...
"The Holy Father, as head of one of the world's major religions and a head of state, a very small one to be sure, is fully entitled to meet with any other head of state who is willing to talk to him."
"Leftists can criticize the Church's stances on matters of doctrine all they want, that is of course their right, but it is no part of the Pope's authority to revise long standing doctrine to please secular critics, nor does he have the power to do so."
So, this is how it works.... the RCC has the right to interfere in the secular world of politics, policies, government, etc., but the secular world has no right to interfere with the RCC in any of its capacities, policies, actions etc.
Give me a break, please. Betty said it all so perfectly here....
"Ever since the Vatican aligned with the Roman Empire, they have supported tyrants, despots and dictators."
Putin and Francis.... I'd call it the Holy Snake convention. Bet you won't see those good religious folks at TOP criticize Francis for meeting with Putin because that's what Democrats do best... hypocrisy.
"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin
Jesus wept.
How may red baiting untruths are can you peddle in a single essay?
I'd like to consider your critiques of the Catholic church on their own merits, but your clumsy attempts to turn the Pope into yet another 'Putin puppet' diminish your credibility to the level of a militaristic Cold War II pushing Hillbot.
Word of advice: save the jingoistic disinformation for the TOP rubes. Most of us are around here are fully woke to the 'Evil Russian' schtick.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
The Pope IS another Putin puppet.
AND Putin is another POPE Francis puppet. They are both using each other for their own power purposes. Betty sees that, and is simply reporting it.
"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin
In the world of facts and reality
Somewhere along the way, two of your wires shorted out, and you ended up with some sort of brain trauma that is triggering you emotionally and scrambling your logic board. I'm talking about facts, not opinions, here.
I've noticed recently that you're a very smart person with the right amount of complexity to be interesting and quick. So something fearful and tangled like this stands out as alarming.
Unless you've had a troubling encounter with either one of these men (or with an authority whom you believe represents them), then an evidence-based fact-checking of the Crimea incident, and a biographical fact-check on Putin should resolve the issue. As for the Pope, we must assume that his involvement with the 900-year-old profit-seeking multinational corporation, of which he is the CEO, naturally compromises all of his actions.
Religious corporations are third parties to all wars on this planet, and they side with the party that will return the greatest profit through their church/factories; their interest is to protect their assets and investments, at all times. My understanding of the meetings from Russia's point-of-view is to bring the Russian Orthodox Church into greater alignment with the European Catholic culture. Russia identifies as European. From the Vatican's point-of-view, this is a financial service and investment.
The third and final meeting at the Vatican focused on Ukraine's plan to transform those same Russian Orthodox churches located in Ukraine into a brand new Neonazi religion that will cut the Vatican out of the cash flow. I'm not sure how Putin can help. Russia under Putin is not now, nor has it ever been, at war with Ukraine. Ukraine has been suffering from some sort of hallucinatory madness that was triggered by the US overthrow of it's democratically elected government. Again, evidence-based fact-checking can help with this.
____________________
The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato
slight adjustment
Pluto, you said:
Please allow me a slight adjustment:
Religious corporations are third parties to all wars on this planet, and they side with the party that will return the greatest profit through their church/factories; their interest is to protect their ass, at all times.
There, it's now accurate.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
I have been reading Betty's work for years and so
I immediately recognized what points she was trying to make and which she was just adding as background. The main point is that this RELIGIOUS institution is continuing to have great power and sway with governments around the world, and it SHOULD NOT have that power at all! Francis is a conservative politically and the RCC has joined with Protestant evangelicals (like the Kochs and DeVoses) in pouring millions of dollars into influencing policies not only in the US, but recently in Europe. Betty continues to expose this despite the fact that she is a Catholic and used to work for a diocese in the US. She is upset with the corruption and the bold faced lying that Francis is representing while the liberals in the US think he's one of them. If liberals are upset with the faux Russia narrative, then pointing out that Francis is playing patty cake with Putin just might get some of them to tear the religious film from their eyes and SEE Francis for what he is.
I think Betty was treated poorly in some of the commentary.
"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin
Are Clapper and John Brennan secret co-authors of this crap?
It certainly reads like that with a healthy dose of Russia Maddow's ravings about Russia but maybe it's a job application for a high position in the Dim Party and/or Adam Schiff's office.
It's nothing but a 'gish gallop' of unsubstantiated conspiracy stories, and total lies like the Crimea story,ignoring the well known facts about the people voting twice to return to Russia. Maybe they don't like the Neo-Fascist Regime ushered into power by the Coup under Obomber and Killary with 'Fu*k the Eu' Victoria Nuland at the helm of the violent upheaval.
Not to mention, compare the standard of living with the people in Crimea to that of the Ukrainian population and it is a day and night difference with the unfortunate Ukrainian people living in darkness with no light on the horizon.
There are too many wild baseless conspiracies and mainstream misinformation stories that have already been debunked to unpack here in one short response,something others can address if they feel it's worth the time because I expect no feedback to comments made here by the author of this ranting that borders on delirious.
It's probably a 'dump and run' pile.
That whole section on Ukraine is a REPORT
on the Pope's actions/interactions regarding this issue. It's not an editorial on the conflict itself. If you read it with that in mind, you might want to retract some of your accusations against Ms. Clermont.
"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin
People should question the links in the Gish Gallop article
I'll just take the Obama article linked for an example, maybe I'll address the other things later but for the sake of brevity I'll stick with this part for now. Anything by De Souza I don't find worth a comment, his reputation/history speaks for itself.
But I do shake my head at her concern about Putin being late for a meeting with the Pope more than once, and anyone can read into it anything they wish but I do like the idea expressed in the article linked about trying to stop another escalation of war, no matter what person is promoting the idea.
I'll take Seymour Hersh's opinion over that link to war monger deluxe Obama.
"Barack Obama did not tell the whole story this autumn when he tried to make the case that Bashar al-Assad was responsible for the chemical weapons attack near Damascus on 21 August. In some instances, he omitted important intelligence, and in others he presented assumptions as facts. Most significant, he failed to acknowledge something known to the US intelligence community: that the Syrian army is not the only party in the country’s civil war with access to sarin, the nerve agent that a UN study concluded – without assessing responsibility – had been used in the rocket attack. In the months before the attack, the American intelligence agencies produced a series of highly classified reports, culminating in a formal Operations Order – a planning document that precedes a ground invasion – citing evidence that the al-Nusra Front, a jihadi group affiliated with al-Qaida, had mastered the mechanics of creating sarin and was capable of manufacturing it in quantity. When the attack occurred al-Nusra should have been a suspect, but the administration cherry-picked intelligence to justify a strike against Assad."
'...Obama’s certainty was echoed at the time by Denis McDonough, his chief of staff, who told the New York Times: ‘No one with whom I’ve spoken doubts the intelligence’ directly linking Assad and his regime to the sarin attacks.
But in recent interviews with intelligence and military officers and consultants past and present, I found intense concern, and on occasion anger, over what was repeatedly seen as the deliberate manipulation of intelligence. One high-level intelligence officer, in an email to a colleague, called the administration’s assurances of Assad’s responsibility a ‘ruse’. The attack ‘was not the result of the current regime’, he wrote. A former senior intelligence official told me that the Obama administration had altered the available information – in terms of its timing and sequence – to enable the president and his advisers to make intelligence retrieved days after the attack look as if it had been picked up and analysed in real time, as the attack was happening. The distortion, he said, reminded him of the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident, when the Johnson administration reversed the sequence of National Security Agency intercepts to justify one of the early bombings of North Vietnam. The same official said there was immense frustration inside the military and intelligence bureaucracy: ‘The guys are throwing their hands in the air and saying, “How can we help this guy” – Obama – “when he and his cronies in the White House make up the intelligence as they go along?”’
(all highlights are mine)
Read the whole thing, it's even worse than these excerpts point out
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n24/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarin
Betty is being lectured on poor formatting
while you are going on a gish-gallop of your own about Obama etc. THAT has nothing to do with what she has written here or the focal point of her essay.
"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin
If Ms. Clermont had formatted her essay
...to indicate that it contained a report — by blockquoting passages from the report — then c99 readers would have perceived it that way.
Still, the misinformation is pretty offensive — even to put it on display in order to mock it. We have been through three-years of hell as a result of this same misinformation pushed by the Democratic Neocons and the politicized Intelligence Agencies — and we are still trying to wash this filth away.
Proper formatting would have helped.
____________________
The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato
false accusation
Maintain whatever opinion of the content you will. But one thing Betty Clermont isn't is a "dump and run" essayist.
Now, do you actually have a fact-based objection to the essay, or is there more than one of us who is writing "rantings that border on delirious", to borrow your very own turn of phrase?
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
thanatokephaloides, what do you know about
Ms. Clermont? I wasn't able to find out very much except the TOP articles.
Mary Bennett
Ms. Clermont
What I know is directly to the point I was discussing: Betty's been pretty good about coming back with answers when I asked questions in her Essays.
Otherwise, I have what you do.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Ask her about her background.
She will share it with you. I know it because we discussed it many times on TOP. She was attacked constantly on that site by religionists who didn't want their precious RCC to be exposed for what it is. What many didn't know is that she is Catholic. Anyway, those nice Christians got her banned despite the fact that everything she wrote was footnoted thoroughly.
I was the one who tracked her down and put her in touch with this site. The response has mostly been better here.... until this column. I found the attacks and criticisms unwarranted.
"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin
I don't appreciate the Russia disinformation
Sex scandals, bad.
Efforts for peace and climate mitigation, good.
Marilyn
"Make dirt, not war." eyo
Talk about buying narratives without scrutiny!
Pope Francis uses the Peace and Climate stuff to enhance the power and influence of the RCC. Within his declarations about climate change are RCC theological prohibitions against birth control. Now just how are we going to address climate change without addressing overpopulation and poverty?
There is absolutely no other goal for this man than to keep the money flowing and the butts in the pews. Betty has written extensively about how Francis hired a Fox news PR team to come up with these "liberal" declarations in order to stifle the mass exodus of parishioners.
If you think this man is for peace and for addressing climate change, I've got a bridge to sell you.
"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin
no disinformation
I don't think there is any significant disinformation. This is "par for the course" for the RCC/Holy See -- Russia -- Ukraine -- their nations' Churches -- Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarchate combined intrigue. This ongoing kerfluffle is older than St. Augustine, Florida; i.e., it antedates Europeans living in cities in North America.
In fact, Russia herself inherited this little intrigue (and a zillion related ones) from the Christian Eastern Roman Empire when the latter ceased to exist in 1453 CE.
So if you find the events described in the essay to be rather Byzantine, there's a reason for it!
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
No....
Sorry, Betty but the US was the aggressor in Ukraine when it overthrew it's elected government that had friendly ties with Russia. We then installed the same offshoot of neo Nazis that had ties to Hitler. Imagine having Nazis in power right off of Russia. If Putin hadn't done what he did in Crimea then the US would have had a naval base right off of Russia's shores and there is no way Putin could have allowed that. Besides Russia has had a naval base in Crimea for a very long time. Once I read that statement I couldn't read anymore of it in good faith.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
Not according to Tulsi Gabbard
https://www.tulsigabbard.org/tulsi-gabbard-on-russia
This essay and thread...
was not about Tulsi Gabbard, but you knew that right?
I don't think anyone really read this piece.
They saw Putin, Russia etc. and jumped to conclusions about points that Betty wasn't even trying to make.
"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin
No I didn't as I explained in my comment
The piece I excerpted is straight from US talking points about what happened in Ukraine. The WaPo is the government's mouthpiece and is telling people stuff that isn't true.
What actions is Russia doing that you disagree with? Russia had every right to defend Syria from our attack because they are partners. As they are with Venezuela and Iran. Other than those countries how is Russia being the aggressor?
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
This would have gone a whole lot better if people
had just asked Betty if she was editorializing about Russia or wanting to point to the relationship between the RCC/Francis and the Kremlin/Putin. Instead, people jumped down her throat and made assumptions.
There was an unwarranted nasty tone to some of the comments, and I found it upsetting and embarrassing.
Betty has an incredible body of work focused solely on exposing the RCC (even though she is Catholic) and Pope Francis for the corruption and fraud that permeates this institution. She should be lauded for her hard work. She is not a young person. A little kindness would have been nice.
"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin
The topic of Crimea came up and this is a political blog,
what's wrong with that?
I don't see the connectiom...
other than a good opportunity for you to ding Tulsi Gabbard, Bernie Sanders, AOC, take your pick. You've become way too predictable Al.
I'm going to stop short of saying it is a threadjack attempt, but that's how it begins.
That's how I saw it
I started to respond, but thought better of it. I certainly didn't bring Tulsi into the conversation so not sure why it was my comment he responded to.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
history.com
You know that history.com is the website of the "History" Channel, right?
The sentence may as well have ended "Walt Disney Studios", as that's who Ms. Popovici's employer really is.
Per Wikipedia:
and the money quote from the Wikipedia article:
That's who Alice Popovici writes for.
Caveat emptor! (let the buyer beware)
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
I think several here are misunderstanding Betty's piece.
Her point is reporting what the RCC has been doing and the views it has been taking in regards to Putin and the actions of Russia in the world. The POINT being that the Pope has no business meddling in world affairs and every time it does, it leans towards dictators. While I don't buy for one minute the Russia election in 2016 meddling nonsense, let's not forget that Putin is not someone to be defended here. And neither is Pope Francis.
"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin
Any disagreement is "defending Putin"?
Let's hear more about Russia's "actions", let's talk about anything Russia has done (proven not alleged) in comparison to the Coup in Honduras and Ukraine, the invasion/destruction of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, the critical support for the genocide in Yemen by a true Dictatorship, our dear ally Saudi Arabia (Egypt is another US supported dictator).
Name what Russia has done instead of just repeating the phrase "actions".
"...On Tuesday, the Intercept published a hitherto unknown document from the trove of National Security Administration (NSA) documents leaked by Edward Snowden over three years ago. The document was notable as it shed light on the early days of the Syrian conflict and the fact that, for the past six years, so-called “revolutionary” groups aimed at toppling Syrian President Bashar al-Assad have largely acted as proxies for foreign governments pushing regime change.
The document explicitly reveals that an attack led by the Free Syrian Army (FSA), which was intended to mark the anniversary of the 2011 “uprising” that sparked the Syrian conflict, was directed by a Saudi prince. The document proves, in essence, that the armed opposition in Syria – from the earlier years of the conflict – was under the direct command of foreign governments pushing for regime change..."
https://www.mintpressnews.com/intercept-withheld-nsa-doc-that-may-have-a...
Browse this and you'll find in Central and South America alone aggression unmatched in history and it ain't Russia.
CIA World Tour: Central and South America
Browse agency records across the decades, broken down by country and presidential administration
"As part of our ongoing project to document Central Intelligence Agency activities around the planet, we’re compiling a curated list of links to records in the CIA archives, divided by country and presidential administration. Today we’re looking at Central and South America..."
https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2018/jul/05/cia-world-tour-centra...
All this fooferaw reminded me why I usually avoid such
threads. Much heat, and very little light.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
much heat and no light
And in the case of the specific intrigues being discussed, "much heat and very little light" going back centuries.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
... full of sound and fury,
signifying nothing ...
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
Betty, there is a lot to contend with in your essay.
I salute and praise all who have commented here documenting that the U.S. administration and its media reporting of the Ukraine catastrophe is false. In addition I want to add some visual and auditory facts, especially Victoria Nuland's phone call outlining the U.S. State Department's decision on who would be in the Ukrainian government after the coup in 2014.
Hearing her say what she said is different from journalists, left and right, describing their points of view. Transcription of the phone call is from the BBC. The actual recording with subtitles follows.
Tyahnybok is a Neo-Nazi leader. Why would my government be insisting that the government of Ukraine after the coup should be talking to a Neo-Nazi four times a week? Why should my government be arming Neo-Nazi battalions and private armies in Ukriane? Why would anyone in their right mind think starting the ethnic cleansing of Ukraine and the forcing of over 900,000 refugees into Russia would be a good thing? What did the Robert Kagan/Victoria Nuland Neo-Cons think this viscious action on the part of Ukraine would cause Putin to do?
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV9J6sxCs5k ]
Great comment, Linda
On top of what you said here, Yats lived in Virginia close to the CIA headquarters and he was groomed to take over Ukraine. In 2006 he spoke with Hillary and told her that if he was president then he would open up the country to outside interests. Lo and behold after he did he did just that.
But really the most heinous thing about the coup was installing neo Nazis into the government. And they have been very brutal to the Ukrainian people who get in their way. Good job on including McCain's pictures here. He was there when the Maiden square incident occurred. Imagine watching as people are slaughtered and doing nothing to help them. Boy did Caitlin nail him. You should read what she said about what to do with him instead of having a funeral.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
Thanks for keeping up
with the Roman Catholic Church news. Would not know otherwise. Just finished a fiction about the history of the church, nation or whatever it is.
About suppressing ancient tomes of 'religious matters' written before the church had the power to control a large enough group of the 'faithful'.
Fiction, but an educational read. Will try to find the title.
Thanks again.
Thank you Fishtroller 02 and my other defenders
While it may be easy to dismiss those who, like Trump's base, are averse to real facts, much of this response in favor of the pope should be blamed on the U.S. media. YouGov does a poll in 35 countries based on over 37,000 responses. In the poll of the "Most Admired Men" (there is a separate poll for women) Pope Francis is No. 16 with a 2.2 rating, just above Trump's 2.1 and well behind Dalai Lama who is No. 7. (https://yougov.co.uk/topics/international/articles-reports/2018/04/11/wo...)
The pope is No. 4 in the USA
(https://yougov.co.uk/topics/international/articles-reports/2018/04/11/wo...)
Betty Clermont
Any religion can be criticised
including Judaism and Islam. The Pope can be criticized, as can..Israel or the KSA, for example.
Howsomever, there is no excuse for using religious themes and memes to push the already discredited lying neo-con narrative about The Ukraine. Among other overlooked points, post coup, international agribusiness is now able to buy up the famous black earth of the Ukraine, where formerly only Ukrainian ownership of Ukrainian soil was allowed. But, who cares? borders are passé, right?
Mary Bennett
Gabbard on Russiagate
Gabbard is a mixed bag on the Russiagate thing. I suspect she is still developing her views on this particular subject. Watch this video of a congressional hearing where she questions some "experts" on the subject:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkigREtfAT0&feature=youtu.be
A teachable moment?
I have learned a good lesson from this essay, and the resulting comments: Formatting is really, really important.
I've read Betty Clermont's work here many times, and never have I been so lost, so bewildered as with this essay. As best I can tell, everyone who has read it has come away with their own particular take, and it seems none can agree on what she's even saying ... or if someone else is saying it ... or what.
Unless she comes back and edits the essay with proper formatting, I suspect this essay is going to remain a mystery. It damn sure is one for me.