POPE TO BUSH: GO TO IRAQ AND YOU GO WITHOUT GODgreenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread |
Pope to Bush: Go into Iraq and You Go Without God Capitol Hill BlueWednesday 5 March 2003
Pope John Paul II has a strong message for President George W. Bush: God is not on your side if you invade Iraq. But the President told the pope's envoy the leader of the world's Catholics is wrong.
Pleading for peace, an emissary from Pope John Paul II questioned Bush Wednesday on whether he was doing all he could to avert what the envoy called an "unjust" war with Iraq.
Bush said removing Saddam Hussein would make the world more peaceful.
The president met with Cardinal Pio Laghi, a former Vatican ambassador to the United States and a Bush family friend, on Ash Wednesday, the start of the Christian Lenten season of penance and spiritual renewal leading up to Easter.
Bush told the envoy in a 40-minute meeting that "if it comes to the use of force, he believes it will make the world better," said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, who attended the private meeting. "Removing the threat to the region will lead to a better, more peaceful world in which innocent Iraqis will have a better life."
Laghi came bearing the pope's message: A war would be a "defeat for humanity" and would be neither morally nor legally justified.
The Pope also questioned the President's statements invoking God's name as justification for the invasion.
"God is a neutral observer in the affairs of man," the Pope said. "Man cannot march into war and assume God will be at his side."
In Rome, the pope called for "common efforts to spare humanity another dramatic conflict."
The Vatican stands by its view that a pre-emptive strike on Iraq is immoral unless backed by the United Nations, Laghi said. "It's illegal, it's unjust," Laghi told reporters after the session with Bush.
"There are still peaceful avenues within the context of the vast patrimony of international law and institutions which exist for that purpose," Laghi said. "There is great unity on this grave matter on the part of the Holy See, the bishops in the United States, and the church throughout the world," he said.
Laghi posed a series of questions to Bush that reflected the differences between the White House and the Vatican on Iraq, said a senior administration official. The questions included the importance of an international effort to confront Saddam and what the envoy said was a gulf between the Western and Muslim worlds.
Bush disagreed on the last point, saying the U.S. effort to expand education opportunities to children had brought the Muslim and Western nations closer together, the administration official said.
Laghi delivered a letter in which the pope urged Bush to listen carefully to the envoy. Neither the letter nor the envoy specifically urged Bush to avoid war, the U.S. official said.
Laghi said he left the White House with hope "in spite of the fact that the situation is what it is."
Bush has rarely met with opponents of his Iraq stand in recent months. He almost always meets with leaders who agree with him, but has spoken by phone with adversaries.
Bush, a Methodist, has taken pains throughout his presidency to court Catholic voters, who made up a quarter of the electorate in 2000 and split their votes between Bush and Democrat Al Gore. White House officials pointed out that Bush and the envoy also discussed abortion and cloning, two issues on which the administration and the Vatican generally agree.
The polite exchange described by White House aides reflected the careful language of diplomacy used by both sides, even when they disagree.
In a May visit to the Vatican, Bush told the pope he was "concerned" about the Catholic church's standing in America, where the church has been rocked by sex-abuse scandal.
-- Tj (TJRICE@aol.com), March 06, 2003
Where is your source for this information?Oracle
-- Ries Oracle (RiesOracle@hotmail.com), March 06, 2003.
The pope is quoted in the article: God is a neutral observer in the affairs of man...Either this is a typo or this article has to be a fraud. God certianly is NOT a neutral observer - that's sounds too much like rationalism, which has been condemned.
-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 06, 2003.
Here's a quote from the Catholic World News (which makes me even more suspicious of the authenticity of the original quote):The cardinal said that he was not "in a position to discuss the substance of our conversation, nor am I able to release the text of the personal letter of the Holy Father to the President."Let's pray that Iraq disarm without the need of force. God bless!
However, Cardinal Laghi did stress two points: "First, the Iraqi government is obliged to fulfill completely and fully its international obligations regarding human rights and disarmament under the UN resolutions with respect for international norms. Second, these obligations and their fulfillment must continue to be pursued within the framework of the United Nations."
-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 07, 2003.
If it is somehow valid I would seriously start to question papel infalabilityOracle
-- Ries Oracle (RiesOracle@hotmail.com), March 07, 2003.
Oracle wrote: "If it is somehow valid I would seriously start to question papel infalability"I don't think you need to question the doctrine of infallibility over this statement (even if the pope really said it as reported)... in this case the pope is obviously not speaking ex cathedra (heck... whatever he said, the pope is clearly trying to be discreet here). And he's not defining doctrine. So while what he says should be VERY important to us - hence we discuss it on forums such as this - it's not a question of infallibility.
I most certainly trust the pope's judgement more than mine in matters such as these, but I do recognize that this is just (reportedly) his personal judgement.
-- Greg Adas (gadas@familink.com), March 07, 2003.
Majority of what the Catholic Church teaches....IS PERSONAL JUDGEMENT!
-- TJ (TJMAX@RPI.COM), March 07, 2003.
Majority of what the Catholic Church teaches....IS PERSONAL JUDGEMENT!Ah. We see.
Thank you. Drive through.
-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), March 07, 2003.
This thread is entitled: "POPE TO BUSH: GO TO IRAQ AND YOU GO WITHOUT GOD".However, there is nothing in the thread (and I have seen nothing outside the thread) that shows that the pope said (either verbatim or in so many words), "Go to [fight] Iraq, [Mr. Bush,] and you go without God."
Therefore, unless and until I see proof to the contrary, I will have to consider this thread to have been inaccurately (possibly even dishonestly) titled.God bless you.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 07, 2003.
God isn't 100 % neutral. I like the others doubt those were the exact words from the Pope. Unfortunately, the Pope works many times through secret channels that is hard to know what he really stands for. It is part of world politics.
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), March 07, 2003.
Elpidio,You make my point. Not only the Holy Father, but other world leaders also. So what we as Catholics need to believe here are the principles of Just War as enumerated in the Catechism (although one could question if these should be reviewed in light of our modern times and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction).
What the exact facts are in this particular matter, we can only speculate. So I'm just going to pray for those in power to make the right decisions - preferably that Saddam chooses to honor his commitement to disarm now (not another 12 years of not only dragging this on, but building more arms when pretending to support disarmament). But I can speculate that there could be some conditions in which the norms for a just war could be met to justify a US/UK lead coalition to use force to disarm Saddam.
God bless!
-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 07, 2003.
Extracted from the STATEMENT OF CARDINAL PIO LAGHI, SPECIAL ENVOY OF JOHN PAUL II TO PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH, Washington D.C., United States of America, Wednesday, 5 March 2003:"A decision regarding the use of military force can only be taken within the framework of the United Nations, but always taking into account the grave consequences of such an armed conflict: the suffering of the people of Iraq and those involved in the military operation, a further instability in the region and a new gulf between Islam and Christianity."
REPEAT: "can only be taken within the framework of the United Nations".
It then says; "I want to emphasize that there is great unity on this grave matter on the part of the Holy See, the Bishops in the United States, and the Church throughout the world." So he clearly has not been to this web-site recently.
-- White House officials (White.House@officials.gov), March 12, 2003.
Please, would someone please explain to me exactly what theory of political science or moral theology grants the UN security council this status of being the "governing legal authority" over the United States?I mean, would war automatically be OK provided the UN says so? Is morality that arbitrary?
So instead of the US offering solid arguments in favor of war: self defense, liberation of Iraq, and the resolution of unending terrorism in the Middle East... the world offers more of the status quo (which after all, isn't threatening anyone but the US!)?
Oil is selling for $36 per barrel. http://www.tax.state.ak.us/Oil/2003/032003.htm
Why? because supply is currently restricted by the UN embargo on Iraq. So guess who is making a KILLING on the oil market? Russia for one. Guess who is owed billions of dollars in oil contracts? France for one.
After a war and occupation with Iraq, the supply of oil will only increase - thus lowering the cost per barrel - making gasoline cheaper and having a direct, positive effect on the world's economy - And guess who most benefits from lower fuel costs? THE POOR!
But naturally lower fuel costs would save the US economy too, so I guess that makes more supply a bad thing eh?
Get it people? The countries protecting Saddam are the ones who are profiting from current high oil prices - prices double that of the 1990's!
The people arguing against a war - including every diplomat and cardinal I've read to date - have not offered any, ANY reason based on scripture, Catholic moral theology, precedent, or legal political theory to back up their stance.
They are against a US-led war "just because". No one has even tried to offer evidence that a blitzkrieg war would result in more Iraqi deaths than a continued status quo definitely WILL.... no one has even tried to offer evidence that a quick war will result in further religious conflict or terrorism in the Middle East.
Just claiming it will is not enough. Where is your evidence? If you are going to make an argument against this just war, then you have to provide evidence, arguments, precedents, examples, etc.
We all agree "in theory" and principle that a just and tranquil civil order is better than a state of warfare. But Iraq is not currently enjoying a just and tranquil civil order.... so how are we to restore justice and order to them?
The "DIPLOMATS" have NO CONCRETE PLAN.
They say things like "It would be good for Saddam to stop repressing his people..." yeah. and????? And how do you propose he do so? What concrete steps do you propose - based on hard evidence - will make him choose an alternative course of action?
Wishful thinking. I'm sorry folks. I'd love to go along with the "peacemongers" on this one. But without the barest shred of evidence in favor of the status quo, or the slimmest whisper of a concrete, viable, real-world alternative to war and the status quo which would restore justice and civil tranquility to Iraq while providing the US with security from mad-men...
I mean, when the Pope challenged the Clinton administration in the UN Cairo conference in 1994, he offered the world a whole year of conferences, talks, meditations, and an encyclical defending concrete alternatives to abortion and force-fed UN sponsored homosexual "rights".... Us Catholics had the moral and intellectual high ground. We could argue persuasively against the UN and US proposals...
But today? Today we have "Let's be nice and hope Saddam changes".
Hope Saddam changes?! We, the US, the party directly affected by terrorism and directly threatened by Saddam on more than one occasion...we go to the UN for a resolution against Iraq. We get one. (1441) unanimously calling on Saddam to disarm. He doesn't. The US logically and legally points this out and talks about war (what else?) to forcibly remove Saddam and make Iraq comply with the will of the UN as expressed in 1441.... and the UN balks!
Russia balks because the Iraqi regime has several billion dollars in arms contracts yet to pay off...and the status quo = $36/barrel for oil... China balks because it too has contracts with the Iraqi regime... France balks because its companies have contracts with Saddam both for oil and for military spare parts! Germany balks because Iraq has purchased biological and chemical facilities from them...
In short, the vaunted "governing legal authority" of the UN has direct, vested interest in the status quo - regardless of US security issues or the humanitarian and moral needs of the Iraqi people.
Alot of people have claimed a US war would be unjust. I ask - what argument do you have for a moral status quo?
-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 12, 2003.
TO FURTHER REPEAT THE STATED POSITION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, WHICH MAY EVENTUALLY BE REPUDIATED BY MANY (INCLUDUNG APOSTATE CATHOLICS); BUT THERE CAN BE NO HARM IN REPEATING IT. ITS TERMS ARE VERY CLEAR. IT IS DE FACTO A PERSONAL OPINION OF THE POPE.Extracted from the STATEMENT OF CARDINAL PIO LAGHI, SPECIAL ENVOY OF JOHN PAUL II TO PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH, Washington D.C., United States of America, Wednesday, 5 March 2003:
"A decision regarding the use of military force can only be taken within the framework of the United Nations, but always taking into account the grave consequences of such an armed conflict: the suffering of the people of Iraq and those involved in the military operation, a further instability in the region and a new gulf between Islam and Christianity."
REPEAT: "can only be taken within the framework of the United Nations".
It then says; "I want to emphasize that there is great unity on this grave matter on the part of the Holy See, the Bishops in the United States, and the Church throughout the world." So he clearly has not been to this web-site recently.
NOW, THINK ABOUT CRITICISING THIS OPINION AND THEN THINK WHY. PRIDE; JINGOISM; RACISM; GREED; IGNORANCE; .......
T
-- White House officials (White.House@officials.gov), March 12, 2003.
TO FURTHER REPEAT THE STATED POSITION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, WHICH MAY EVENTUALLY BE REPUDIATED BY MANY (INCLUDUNG APOSTATE CATHOLICS); BUT THERE CAN BE NO HARM IN REPEATING IT. ITS TERMS ARE VERY CLEAR. IT IS DE FACTO A PERSONAL OPINION OF THE POPE.Extracted from the STATEMENT OF CARDINAL PIO LAGHI, SPECIAL ENVOY OF JOHN PAUL II TO PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH, Washington D.C., United States of America, Wednesday, 5 March 2003:
"A decision regarding the use of military force can only be taken within the framework of the United Nations, but always taking into account the grave consequences of such an armed conflict: the suffering of the people of Iraq and those involved in the military operation, a further instability in the region and a new gulf between Islam and Christianity."
REPEAT: "can only be taken within the framework of the United Nations".
It then says; "I want to emphasize that there is great unity on this grave matter on the part of the Holy See, the Bishops in the United States, and the Church throughout the world." So he clearly has not been to this web-site recently.
NOW, THINK ABOUT CRITICISING THIS OPINION AND THEN THINK WHY. PRIDE; JINGOISM; RACISM; GREED; IGNORANCE; .......
This is pretty unequivocal stuff by normal standards.
-- White House officials (White.House@officials.gov), March 12, 2003.
I see. So you have no answer to the question "why"? huh.So we must all submit our sovereignty immediately to the UN "just because".
All nations and states must be disbanded immediately "just because".
No reason, no argument, no justification, no historical or theological syllogism... just blind faith.
You are claiming that Pio Laghi's turn of expression, is gospel? That it is = to the Pope's magisterium?
What theology have you been reading my friend?
-- Joe (Joestong@yahoo.com), March 13, 2003.
DOES THIS HELP YOU UNDERSTAND BETTER?? I REALLY PRAY THAT IT DOES. IT IS TAKEN FROM THE LONDON TIMES. YOU WILL FIND OTHER SOURCES IF YOU USE YOU SEARCH ENGINE. I SUGGEST THAT THE PHRASES "JUST WAR" AND "IRAQ" WILL GET YOU MOST OF THE WAY THERE IN GOOGLE. THE POINT I WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK YOU TO BEAR IN MIND IS THAT THE JUST WAR ANALYSIS IS, FIRSTLY THEOLOGICAL, AND ONLY THEN IS IT POLITICAL. CATHOLIC MORALITY TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER ANY PARTICULAR NATION'S WANTS, BELIEFS, NEEDS, ETC ETC. I HOPE THIS HELPS.Pope takes issue with America's 'just war' From Richard Owen in Rome
THE POPE launched an eleventh-hour crusade yesterday to avert a war against Iraq, for which he believes there is no justification.
The ageing pontiff rebuffed attempts by the Bush Administration to persuade him that impending military action against Baghdad amounted to a Christian “just war”.
Today he will dispatch a personal peace envoy to Baghdad to urge President Saddam Hussein to co-operate fully with United Nations weapons inspectors.
At the end of the week he will meet Tariq Aziz, Iraq’s Deputy Prime Minister and an Arab Christian, in Rome, and will also meet Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General. Diplomats said that Mr Aziz might remain in Rome to meet Mr Annan under the auspices of the Vatican.
Looking and sounding like a man rejuvenated by the urgent need to avert the imminent conflict, the Pope, 82, also gave his backing to the new Franco-German plan to resolve the Iraq crisis through beefed- up weapons inspections and the deployment of UN troops. The plan was disclosed to the Pope on Friday by Joschka Fischer, the German Foreign Minister. Diplomats said that the Pope had been “the first world figure to be told of the plan”.
Yesterday the Pope made a dramatic and impassioned appeal for world prayers, declaring that only God could stop the conflict now. “At this hour of international worry we all feel the need to look to God and beg him to grant us the great gift of peace,” he told pilgrims and visitors in St Peter’s Square. Only “an act from on high” could offer hope of altering what appeared to be a bleak future.
The Pope is sending Cardinal Roger Etchegaray, his diplomatic troubleshooter, to Baghdad. Cardinal Etchegaray, a French Basque, has undertaken sensitive diplomatic missions for the Pope in the past. Last year he helped to negotiate an end to the siege of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, where Palestinian gunmen had taken refuge.
At the weekend the Pope said that efforts to stave off war must be multiplied. “One cannot do nothing in the face of terrorist attacks, but equally one cannot be idle in the face of the threats now on the horizon,” he said. “War is not inevitable.”
The case for a “just war” was made at the weekend by Michael Novak, a conservative Roman Catholic theologian and a close ally of President Bush, in talks with senior Vatican officials, including Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran, the Pope’s Foreign Secretary.
Under the principles of “just war”, as formulated by St Augustine of Hippo and later by St Thomas Aquinas, war can be waged only as a last resort and by a “legitimate authority”. It must be fought with “right intentions”, for example in self-defence or to redress a wrong, and with a reasonable chance of success to avoid excessive death and injury. The theory of just war also holds that civilian casualties must be avoided, that the means used must be proportionate and that the ultimate goal should be to establish a peace “preferable to what would have prevailed if the war had not been fought”.
Mr Novak, who today will address a conference in Rome on just war organised by James Nicholson, the US Ambassador to the Holy See, insisted that war against Iraq amounted to self-defence. He told Archbishop Tauran that Saddam was using Iraqi scientists “to breed huge destruction in the US and Europe”. He said that those who opposed war would have a lot on their consciences if the United States failed to act and Americans were later killed by Saddam’s weapons. The Catholic catechism also justified the use of force provided that it was sanctioned by those responsible for the common good, Mr Novak said.
But the Archbishop, speaking for the Pope, said that US arguments were insufficient and that there was no imminent threat from Baghdad that could justify a war.
Civiltà Cattolica (Catholic Civilisation), a Jesuit journal that reflects Vatican views, said that “the Islamic masses, which already harbour a deep hatred of the West, will see it as an act of war against Islam”. The journal said that the real US motive was economic and that the concept of “preventive war” was highly dangerous. “If every country which feels threatened attacks first, there will be war without end on the entire planet,” it said.
-- White House officials (White.House@officials.gov), March 13, 2003.
OK, obviously you are NOT a thinking person. You think you have a good, air-tight argument or reason for thinking the Pope has officially taught that the US is the unjust aggressor. You're wrong.I'll walk you through it step by step.
In your above article, it was NOT THE POPE BUT THE NEWSPAPER that said "if you go to war you will go without God"
The newspaper ALSO MISQUOTED THE POPE: he didn't say "this war" but "war" is a defeat for humanity. That's a big difference.
Pio Laghi CLAIMS a war would be "unjust, illegal" but DOES NOT OFFER US ANY REASON WHY THIS IS SO.
Pio Laghi claims that: "There are still peaceful avenues within the context of the vast patrimony of international law and institutions which exist for that purpose."
REALLY? NAME THEM! If it's soooooooo simple and sooooooo obvious that viable alternatives exist........ list them. Name them. Let's hear them.
BUT NO ONE - NEITHER THE ESTEEMED CARDINAL OR ANYONE ELSE HAS DONE SO.
Your own quote above states: " Neither the letter nor the envoy specifically urged Bush to avoid war, the U.S. official said. "
The Vatican has been arguing against war. It has not officially taught - as Magisterium and binding on our Catholic faith - that war as contemplated by the US (and not dreamed of in worst case scenarios by Europeans) is unjust and immoral.
"Laghi said he left the White House with hope "in spite of the fact that the situation is what it is." BUT HOW CAN YOU MAKE A MORAL ARGUMENT WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT A GIVEN SITUATION ACTUALLY IS?
You guys are not using your reason here. You're not even using your faith. You ASSUME way too much. You have no alternative, no options, no reasons, nothing!
Just knee-jerk antagonisms against ANYTHING THE US DOES OR TRIES TO DO...and not because of America per se, but most likely because you are anti-Republican.
Just today the party has passed a bill banning partial birth abortion. I can hear the crickets. No one is praising the President for his moral stance...and the ant-lifers as usual offer no REASONS why women have a "right" to an abortion...only emotion. Just like you. A quote from www.opinionjournal.com
"the Vatican has been careful to argue that the coming war is immoral, stopping short of "declaring" it so. That is an important distinction, for it recognizes that--as just-war theory spells out-- it is President Bush who must bear the moral obligation of defending his nation. The Vatican doesn't carry that burden; its role is to offer advice.
That advice, at times, seems to be free flowing. Cardinal Pio Laghi met with President Bush last week and told him to get further U.N. approval before acting on Iraq. Vatican officials have condemned the war saying it might inflame a billion Muslims against the West. But these objections are political, not moral, arguments. The Vatican has no special standing in making political arguments."
-- Joe (Joestong@yahoo.com), March 13, 2003.
OK, obviously you are NOT a thinking person.### ad hominem. nasty! people in glass houses...
You think you have a good, air-tight argument or reason for thinking the Pope has officially taught that the US is the unjust aggressor.
### the Pope has indeed taught that the US will be the unjust aggressor if it commences a war. just read the press. however sanitised the reports may be, it is always clear that he is against the war. do i have to re-post these posts time and time again? do i have to go around collating news reports? don't you know how to do this?
You're wrong. I'll walk you through it step by step.
### strident language.
In your above article, it was NOT THE POPE BUT THE NEWSPAPER that said "if you go to war you will go without God"
The newspaper ALSO MISQUOTED THE POPE: he didn't say "this war" but "war" is a defeat for humanity. That's a big difference.
### so he means all "wars", which include this "war". just as he was against the Persin Gulf war. doooooh.
Pio Laghi CLAIMS a war would be "unjust, illegal" but DOES NOT OFFER US ANY REASON WHY THIS IS SO.
### and so what? this is the Church speaking. do you have no respect for the Church? anyway,..., who is more liley to provide the correct Just War analysis: the Catholic Church? or anyone else??
Pio Laghi claims that: "There are still peaceful avenues within the context of the vast patrimony of international law and institutions which exist for that purpose."
REALLY? NAME THEM! If it's soooooooo simple and sooooooo obvious that viable alternatives exist........ list them. Name them. Let's hear them.
#### "sooooooooooo"?? grandiose.
it is only natural to get agitated at things that you do not understand. however, please bear in mind that you are talking about the Church. do you not trust the Church? do you have NO respect for it Cardinal entrusted personally by His Holiness??
furthermore, the statement -- "There are still peaceful avenues within the context of the vast patrimony of international law and institutions which exist for that purpose" -- seems quite clear. further peaceful remedies are available.
Your own quote above states: " Neither the letter nor the envoy specifically urged Bush to avoid war, the U.S. official said. "
### oh please. You quote -- "There are still peaceful avenues within the context of the vast patrimony of international law and institutions which exist for that purpose". for the time being, war is to be avoided.
The Vatican has been arguing against war. It has not officially taught - as Magisterium and binding on our Catholic faith - that war as contemplated by the US (and not dreamed of in worst case scenarios by Europeans) is unjust and immoral.
## there is a Just War and there is the invasion of Iraq. i can say no more.
"Laghi said he left the White House with hope "in spite of the fact that the situation is what it is." BUT HOW CAN YOU MAKE A MORAL ARGUMENT WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT A GIVEN SITUATION ACTUALLY IS?
### explain the sense of this
You guys are not using your reason here.
### and you are!
You're not even using your faith.
### see above, the moral case must be determined according to Catholic theology. where is teh case for the Just War?
You ASSUME way too much.
### exactly what is being "assumed away"?
You have no alternative, no options, no reasons, nothing!
### the alternative is clear. further dialogue; no matter how unpalatable that may seem by common humanistic standards, that is what our faith requires. full stop.
Just knee-jerk antagonisms against ANYTHING THE US DOES OR TRIES TO DO...and not because of America per se, but most likely because you are anti-Republican.
#### ad hominem and incorrect.
Just today the party has passed a bill banning partial birth abortion. I can hear the crickets. No one is praising the President for his moral stance...and the ant-lifers as usual offer no REASONS why women have a "right" to an abortion...only emotion. Just like you. A quote from www.opinionjournal.com
### great stuff (the "bill banning partial birth") if its true, in fact fantastic stuff, but completely irrelevant to the debate at hand. if Saddam stopped gassing children, does that mean that its OK to murder women. NO it isn't acccording to Catholic moral values.
"the Vatican has been careful to argue that the coming war is immoral, stopping short of "declaring" it so. That is an important distinction, for it recognizes that--as just-war theory spells out-- it is President Bush who must bear the moral obligation of defending his nation. The Vatican doesn't carry that burden; its role is to offer advice.
### the Pope, as ever,is conscious of the practical ramifications of his pronouncements. they are , therefore, couched. however, if you have to dig so deep for Papal blessing for the invasion, then well,...
during WWII, Pope Pius did not exactly go all out. he had good reasons. he is now criticised for doing the right thing. are you going to set this Pope up in the same way. as ever,our Pope is leading by example.
That advice, at times, seems to be free flowing. Cardinal Pio Laghi met with President Bush last week and told him to get further U.N. approval before acting on Iraq. Vatican officials have condemned the war saying it might inflame a billion Muslims against the West. But these objections are political, not moral, arguments. The Vatican has no special standing in making political arguments."
### the arguments are based upon Just War doctrine. until you have a knowledge of what that means, this is all mere speculation. inevitably, politics, inasmuch as it supplies the inputs to the algorithm that is doctrine, is relevant. surely you msut see that, it is pretty obvious.
anyway, i will repeat the message in the hope that you start to see that Church must always come before country:
"A decision regarding the use of military force can only be taken within the framework of the United Nations, but always taking into account the grave consequences of such an armed conflict: the suffering of the people of Iraq and those involved in the military operation, a further instability in the region and a new gulf between Islam and Christianity."
REPEAT: "can only be taken within the framework of the United Nations".
I hope and pray that God opens the eyes of Bush and Saddam. these are tough times and naked ignorance does not help.
God Bless you, friend.
-- White House officials (White.House@officials.gov), March 13, 2003.
topping ...
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 14, 2003.
So, it's morally better to turn a blind eye to the torture and death that Saddam has brought to his people?Funny how this reminds me of how the Catholic church said nothing when the Nazis were exterminating the Jews.
-- md (m.drenning@attbi.com), March 23, 2003.
"....the Catholic Church said nothing..."these views have no basis. E.G. go and look at a few Jewish website and you will see that the Pope handled the horrific plight of the Jews in the most admirable and subtle way. Puis XII is very well regarded by the Jewish people. and rightly so. he did the right thing during WWII as i think you will find (if you honestly look) the Jews agree. if you do not agree, then let's debate it.
"...morally better to turn a blind eye ..."
the preponderance of facts/ analysis that is available suggests that the attack on Iraq is unjust: it is immoral, in other words. this is not just the view of the Pope (which is the "only view", as far as i am concerned) but it is also the view of most other religious (moral) leaders. the idea that this is "turning a blind eye" is as naive as yr other suggestion. but as before you probably need to further explain these serious allegations.
-- White House officials (White.House@officials.gov), March 23, 2003.
Apparently the pope never said this war is immoral/unjust - it appears to be yet another misquote from the unbiased (ha, ha!) press.--------------------- All,
Here's a great article correcting a misquote of the Holy Father stating this war to be unjust. The author is the editor of Catholic World News and has access to news sources we do not to be able to correct the misquote.
Further evidence that my statement that one can be a loyal Catholic and defend the military action in Iraq as just.
Phil Lawler is very loyal to the Holy See and the editor of Catholic World News.
---------------------------
Has the Pope Condemned the War? (Opinion/Analysis) Boston, Mar. 24(CWNews.com) - (Analysis by CWN Editor Phil Lawler)
Despite a barrage of media reports to the contrary, Pope John Paul II has not issued a moral condemnation of US military action against Iraq.
There can be no doubt that the Pope has staked out his opposition to the use of force against Iraq. For weeks before the war began, he issued a steady stream of pleas and prayers for a diplomatic solution. Vatican diplomats worked energetically to explore non- military options. When the fighting began last week, he indicated his "deep pain" that war had begun.
Yes, certainly the Pope has made it clear that he would have preferred negotiations rather than a military confrontation. But has he condemned the war? No.
According to one Associated Press report, which has been cited frequently in the American press: "John Paul has said there is no legal or moral justification for military action."
There's just one problem with that AP report. It is wrong.
If he said that there is "no legal or moral justification" for this war, the Pope would be saying that this war is unjust. And if the war is unjust, then Christians cannot participate in or support it. The Pope has said no such thing.
In the weeks leading up to the war, the Holy See has insisted on two points: First, Iraq should disarm. Second, that disarmament should be achieved without the use of military force, through the authority of the United Nations. Notice that this public stance did not "tilt" toward Iraq; on the contrary, the Vatican has always agreed with the proposition that Saddam Hussein must be disarmed.
When the war did break out, the Vatican issued a formal statement that said, in part:
On the one hand, it is to be regretted that the Iraqi government did not accept the resolutions of the United Nations and the appeal of the Pope himself, as both asked that the country disarm. On the other hand, it is to be deplored that the path of negotiations, according to international law, for a peaceful solution of the Iraqi drama has been interrupted. Notice that once again, the finger pointed first toward Baghdad, blaming the Iraqi regime for its failure to disarm. Only then did the Vatican lament that a peaceful solution had not been achieved.
Just a few days earlier, Pope John Paul had issued his own appeal, directing his remarks first to Baghdad and then, indirectly, toward Washington:
The political leaders of Baghdad certainly have the urgent duty to collaborate fully with the international community to eliminate every reason for armed intervention. To them I direct my urgent appeal: the fate of your fellow-citizens should always have priority. But I would also like to remind the member countries of the United Nations, and especially those who make up the Security Council, that the use of force represents the last recourse, after having exhausted every other peaceful solution, in keeping with the well-known principles of the U.N. Charter. That is why, in the face of the tremendous consequences that an international military operation would have for the population of Iraq and for the balance of the Middle East region, already sorely tried, and for the extremisms that could stem from it, I say to all: There is still time to negotiate; there is still room for peace, it is never too late to come to an understanding and to continue discussions.
When US President George W. Bush announced that he was prepared to issue attack orders, the Vatican responded with an interesting statement:
Whoever decides that all peaceful means that international law has put at our disposition have been exhausted assumes a serious responsibility before God, his conscience and history. Does that statement convey a moral condemnation? Not at all! The Vatican indicates that when a President (or any world leader) makes the decision to go to war, he takes on "a serious responsibility." President Bush acknowledged as much himself, in that same speech.
No one can doubt that the Pope would have preferred to see President Bush make a different choice. But the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that political leaders have the ultimate responsibility for judging whether the conditions for a "just war" have been fulfilled. In accordance with that teaching, the Pope has avoided any direct statement on the morality of the war.
If American "hawks" are unhappy with the Pope's public statements, they can take some comfort from the fact that European pacifists are also unhappy. As the Italian newspaper L'Espresso recently pointed out, a group of Catholic pacifists recently wrote an open letter to the Holy Father, pleading for "a simple and unequivocal" denunciation of the war. As L'Espresso also pointed out, those pacifists remain unsatisfied; they have never seen the clear papal statement that they want.
Since the war began, Pope John Paul has issued two public statements, each touching on the subject only obliquely.
In a meeting with a group of American Lutherans, the Pope said that "in a world filled with danger and insecurity," Christians "must stand together in proclaiming the values of the Kingdom of God." He said this solidarity was particularly important in light of "the events of recent days." Can anyone disagree with that statement?
Similarly, during his public audience on Sunday, March 23, the Pope said: "When war, like the one underway in Iraq, threatens the future of humanity, it is even more important to proclaim, in a strong and decisive voice, that peace is the only way to build a more just and unified society." He added that "violence and arms can never resolve men's problems." Can anyone reasonably interpret that statement as a denunciation of US policy?
Pope John Paul has frequently raised questions about US strategy toward Iraq-- as have many other world leaders. But to say that the Pope has "condemned" or "denounced" the war is to go well beyond the facts.
------------------
God bless!
-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 24, 2003.
I think a big part of the problem is that mainstream news organization - and even some Catholic ones - are only posting the quotes from the Pope that supports their own viewpoint, rather than the complete picture - which is that the Pope IS opposed to war, but also wants Saddam Hussein out of power & disarmed.
-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), March 25, 2003.
This is obviously a heated topic and having read all of the articles in this thread, I am compelled to weigh in.Before I express my strong and passionate feelings, let me say a few things. First, I am a practicing Catholic who has a tremendous amount of respect for our Holy Father. The pope is an amazing human, Catholic and leader of the Church.
All that said, he is dead WRONG here!!! And to convey as much does NOT render me a 'bad' Catholic. The precept of infallibility does not extend to geopolitical matters. Nor does it apply with every word uttered by the pontiff. So, yes, John Paul II can and is in fact wrong here, in my humble opinion!
Why? Many reasons. Let's take the easiest one first. Linkage of moral and legal justification with a UN endorsement is flawed! The UN has only "officially" endorsed two wars in its 50+ year existence: Korea and the first Gulf War. The UN has a history of standing by and watching innocent people stand by and be slaughtered and terrorized - reference Rwanda, Yugoslavia, and Iraq to name a few.
Now, just for fun, let's just say that you buy this whole UN endorsement nonsense (yes, that's right, nonsense), FACT is that the UN endorsed this war when it passed Resolution 1441 when it called for the immediate disarmament by Iraq or that it would face "serious consequences". And don't try to suggest for one minute that the term 'serious consequences' was subject to interpretation, because that is simply not the case. According to Colin Powell, one of the most trusted leaders in the world, ALL members of the UN Security Council knew EXACTLY what this meant. And if that's not enough, consider the FACT that Iraq is and has been in violation of the cease- fire agreement from the first Gulf War (UN-backed, ahem ahem) and therefore the cease fire agreement is null and void under international law. So much for pre-emption. Not to mention that an intelligent argument can and has been made for self defense here.
Let's talk about morality? I am not a theologian by any stretch, but it seems to me that the "just war" doctrine is subject to debate, is not clear cut, and is very dated and in need of updating in this world of weapons of mass destruction we find ourselves in this 21st century. Is it moral to stand by and let innocent people be tortured and murdered? Is it moral to allow a regime to continue to starve its people (5,000 babies per month according to one source)? Is it moral for an institution (read the catholic church)to look the other way when illegal and immoral behavior occurs? (Reference the child abuse scandal amongst priests in the U.S.).It seems to me that the Catholic Church should be very careful about speaking out on what constitutes morality...
12 years and 17 resolutions - is this rushing to war? Failed diplomacy, embargoes, limited military strikes, failed inspections - what could possibly be gained by continued diplomacy when it is clear that the Butcher of Baghdad has no desire or intention of disarming and has thumbed his nose at the world community for the past 12 years?
The pope's criticism of President Bush and the US is not only wrong, but it is irresponsible. I for one am angry, saddened, disappointed and ashamed over the pope's comments. Many Catholics incorrectly accept whatever comes out of the Vatican as infallible - simply not true! I applaud the Pope's desire and appeal for peace - that in my opinion should be his role and that of other religious leaders. But to make political condemnations is simply irresponsible and flat out wrong. Contrast this with the official statement and position of the US bishops - http://www.ewtn.com/Peace/Gregory.htm.
"Defeat for humanity" - I submit to you that a defeat for humanity is when evil is allowed to go unchecked while "good" stands on the sidelines and does nothing. THAT is a defeat for humanity! Let's face it, war is ugly and should be avoided whenever possible. We have exhausted all reasonable and practical alternatives. To sit idly on our hands and lack the courage of our convictions would be immoral and sinful in my humble opinion.
This is not about trusting the Church, listening to the Pope, or any of that nonsense that some people have written. This is NOT a religious matter for which we should look to the Church for guidance or direction. This is a complicated, geopolitical matter for which the pope is not an expert. This is about principle-centered leaders named George W. Bush, Tony Blair and others who refuse to let evil go unchecked.
Let us all pray that this conflict will end soon, that the Iraqi regime will be fully disarmed of weapons of mass destruction, that casualties will be minimized, and that the innocent Iraqi people stay out of harm's way. And when the people of Iraq are liberated and are dancing in the streets, what message will that send to Muslims around the world? That the U.S. and the Coalition of the Willing is not imperialistic, that we are in fact liberators, and that we are one step closer to world peace. And I for one will be proud of my President for being the individual most responsible for this. And for that, George W. Bush will be happy to answer to God.
-- Bob M (itsallgood777@hotmail.com), March 26, 2003.
Bob M:PREMISE 1 "Let's talk about morality? I am not a theologian by any stretch, but it seems to me that the "just war" doctrine is subject to debate, is not clear cut, and is very dated and in need of updating..."
PREMISE 2 "I am a practicing Catholic who has a tremendous amount of respect for our Holy Father. The pope is an amazing human, Catholic and leader of the Church"
PREMISE 3 "This is not about trusting the Church, listening to the Pope, or any of that nonsense that some people have written. This is NOT a religious matter for which we should look to the Church for guidance or direction."
Let me just say this in response:
PREMISE1 Catholic doctrine is Catholic doctrine is Catholic doctrine is...
PREMISE2 Catholic doctrine is Catholic doctrine is Catholic doctrine is ... PREMISE3 Catholic doctrine is Catholic doctrine is Catholic doctrine is ...
to put it another way, the views expressed above, as they themselves admit (see especially PREMISE1), represent a personal, stylised "morality", not the morality that accords with Catholic teaching. one must think about this in the context of Catholic morality (such as that expressed in the just war analysis), and one must also take into account the duty that every Catholic owes to the Holy Father.
-- White House officials (White.House@officials.gov), March 28, 2003.
White House officials:1. Who are you? I am curious to say the least...
2. Catholic doctrine is Catholic doctrine - yes, this much is true. So, that speaks to my comment about it being in need of updating, however, that's about it.
3. Help me understand how the Pope/Church/Vatican/Cardinal Laghi's position that the war is not just unless sanctioned by the UN is founded in the just war doctrine? I am VERY skeptical of this linkage to put it mildly.
4. Morality - the Catholic Church has no business 'throwing stones' at what constitutes morality when many of her leaders have been guilty of immoral and illegal actions in the sexual abuse scandal. Help me understand the morality of covering up crimes of this magnitude. Help me understand the morality of the various bishops, Cardinals (Cardinal Law to name one)and Vatican officials who allowed these crimes to go unpunished for so many years and whose actions can only be categorized as covering up so as not to invite litigation or a scandal?
5. Catholic doctrine also speaks to sins of ommission - sitting on your hands and doing nothing can and often times is a sin.
6. Duty owed to the Holy Father - this is too often confused by laity and clergy alike. The Holy Father is due a high level of respect by all Catholics. When speaking infallibly, Catholics have a duty to follow the teachings/principles in question. But Catholics should not treat or look upon the Holy Father inappropriately either. This includes but is not limited to the reality that he is a human being (granted, one that deserves and commands our respect by virtue of his position). His statements on geopolitical matters do not deserve or command our blind and unchallenged acceptance. I respectfully and passionately disagree with his position here. If the Holy Father were to make statements along the lines of the weather or sports, I would find them interesting but would not feel obliged or bound to blindly ascribe to them either.
-- Bob M (itsallgood777@hotmail.com), March 30, 2003.
Jmj
Hello, Bob M.You are right to say that Catholics are not bound to agree with the opinions stated by the pope and other bishops on this subject. The reason is that they are not actually "teaching" us Catholic doctrine nor "binding" us with discipline.
However, you go too far when you imply that Catholics may choose not to agree with Church teachings when they are not stated infallibly (e.g., "ex cathedra"). Instead, Vatican II very clearly teaches you and me that we must be submissive to the pope, assenting to his teachings even when not presented "ex cathedra."
Everyone [especially the person calling herself "White House officials"] interested in the subject of the conflict in Iraq and the morality of the coalition's actions should read Joe Stong's masterful message posted on March 21 on this thread.
Joe S, I think that you may have overlooked the fact that "White House officials" tried to refute your March 13 message, above. (Excuse me if I am mistaken and you actually chose not to reply to her.)God bless you.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 02, 2003.
The point is largely moot by now.I did choose to ignore her.
A liberated and happy Iraq is dawning, which like Afganistan, is going to make fools of the "Arab Street" and alot of other people.
No, it won't be perfect and no, everything won't go smoothly. But the blessings of liberty (from fear, from repression, from persecution) will bear their fruits in due time.
-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 02, 2003.
Hello John (JFG),Thanks for your comments. Your statement re: "ex cathedra" is consistent with my understanding of Catholic doctrine as well.
And yes, Joe Stong has written several notes on this thread which are indeed masterful and on point. I wrote Joe offline and said as much to him previously...
Bob M
-- Bob M (itsallgood777@hotmail.com), April 03, 2003.
why cant the iraq popele just fit with the us they think that they are very bad
-- rudrani ray (rayrudrani@yahoo.com), April 22, 2003.