Inquiry on the Diplomatic Offensive of John Paul II's Vatican By Henri Tincq Paris le Monde 25 December 2002 12:16 In his message to the world on December 25, the Pope, John Paul II repeated his warnings to the United States and Great Britain and pronounced himself against any "preventative war." Even if it plays no direct role in international affairs, the Vatican wishes to make its voice heard and toweigh in on the most important issues.

The Christian celebration of Christmas was marred by the situation in Bethlehem and the perspective of a war in Iraq, The "Urbus et Orbus" message thePope pronounced Wednesday December 25 in Rome was marked by this doublepreoccupation.

John Paul II addressed himself during Midnight Mass in a prayer read in Arab "to those responsible for nations and for international organizations", asking thatthey doing everything within their power to promote peace in the MiddleEast.

In his message on December 25th, he repeated this theme and his warnings to the United States and Great Britain: No "preventative action" in Iraq. For weeks, the Pope has expressed his opposition to any "preventative war",which would not be a "just war" when he has spoken of the American andBritishpreparations for a military operation in Iraq.

-- TIO (TIO@aol.com), December 30, 2002

Answers

Do you think you should act differently or promote a different policy because of what the Pope has said?

-- John Booth (grpsrv2@aol.com), December 30, 2002.

I mean, assuming you are Catholic and if you did not oppose a "preventative action" before, would you oppose it now?

-- JOhn Booth (grpsrv2@aol.com), December 30, 2002.

My opinion, (and that is all it can be), is that the pope must be obeyed when speaking on faith and morals. When he speaks from the deposit of faith, it is also binding. However when the pope expresses his ideas about the defense of America, or the death penalty, or that hell is not a place,he only expresses his human beliefs, and one (while respecting his opinion), is not bound by them.

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), December 30, 2002.

Um, Ed, John Booth began his question with these words: "I mean, assuming you are Catholic ..."

Since you are not Catholic, Ed, you were not qualified to reply.

John, I'm sure that a Catholic will be along soon to reply to you.

-- (~@~.~), December 30, 2002.

Actually, I believe that the opinion that assent to the Supreme Pontiff is only required of teachings pertaining to faith and (private) morals has been explicitly denounced in some encyclical or other. I can't do much research on my little PDA now though. Where the "faith and morals" distinction comes in is only for the determination of the status of a doctrine as infallible.

The reason I used the word "private" is that war most certainly is a matter of morals. If liberation thelogians were ever in need for an example of acute social/structural sin, this might be one.

The reason

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), December 30, 2002.

Hello, Skoobouy.
You wrote: "I believe that the opinion that assent to the Supreme Pontiff is only required of teachings pertaining to faith and (private) morals has been explicitly denounced in some encyclical or other."

Well, I have tried, but I can't think of any subject other than faith or morality on which pontiffs and bishops have ever "taught." What did you have in mind?
Are you thinking of -- not a "teaching" -- but something of a disciplinary nature, to which we would be bound to be obedient?

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 30, 2002.

"Um, Ed, John Booth began his question with these words: "I mean, assuming you are Catholic ..." Since you are not Catholic, Ed, you were not qualified to reply. John, I'm sure that a Catholic will be along soon to reply to you."

Look, you are stepping way out of bounds. Knock it off.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 30, 2002.