See if it will work this time. Moderator can you please delete the other thread with the same title as it cannot be accesssed. This paper is from the respected Australian Catholic Social Justice Council. Enjoy people its well worth a read.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 16, 2003

Answers

The Church speaks on War and Peace In 1998 the Australian Catholic Social Justice Council produced two short documents outlining the statements of Pope John Paul II and teachings contained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the issue of war. At that time, Iraq was facing the threat of military intervention by a contingent of allied forces. Iraq had failed to meet U.N. Resolutions concerning inspections for weapons of mass destruction and the destruction of those weapons. Today, the people of Iraq and, indeed, the world stand on the precipice of another Gulf War. This document is provided as a basic resource for local communities, justice groups and individuals who are seeking further information on the Church’s pronouncements on war and peace. It reviews the teachings of the Church on issues of war and peace as contained in the Catechism. Included are excerpts of statements made by the Holy Father and Church leaders around the world.

Two Strands of Church Teaching on Peace and War There are two strands historically running through the Catholic Church’s responses to questions on the use of force: what we would call today a ‘pacifist’ or non-violent tradition, and the ‘just war’ tradition. As a rule, the pacifist tradition, exemplified especially in the religious orders, seeks the maintenance of peace using non-violent means. Based on Gospel values and the experience of national and global violence, pacifism regards war as being unthinkable and not to be justified. The just war tradition, on the other hand, opposes the use of force for similar reasons, but concedes that engagement in war may be justified in certain circumstances, under strict moral conditions and only as a last resort, in order to protect the innocent or to restore justice. The case of East Timor is a perfect example. Though these traditions are strictly logically incompatible, they have co-existed over the centuries. While there is often disagreement between them on specific issues, there are also areas of strong convergence. For example, in response to emerging forms of warfare involving the threat of mass destruction, the pacifist and just war traditions often find themselves as one in calling for dialogue and the art of diplomacy as a means for avoiding the use of force. It is also important to understand that the Church’s teachings on war and peace have changed greatly over time and will continue to do so in response to new situations. The just war theory, which was formalised in the 5th Century by St Augustine, has continued to evolve as a moral framework for considering the changing nature and circumstances of conflict and, when it is acceptable, to engage in war as a response to aggression. Today, questions have been raised about the adequacy of the ‘just war’ theory in responding to emerging forms of aggression which include ethnic cleansing and global terrorism. Would the suspected possession of weapons of mass destruction by so-called ‘rogue’ states constitute a certain threat or even an actual aggression that would justify the use of force? Could pre-emptive military action be justified? Recent terrorist acts and the ensuing ‘war on terror’ may present challenges for aspects of this theory. But the strict moral requirements of this tradition continue to emphasise that war must remain a last resort and that peaceful and diplomatic means must be used to avoid it. In response to the unfolding events in the Persian Gulf, the Church has called for the peaceful resolution of differences and stated that notions of “preventive war” and “pre- emptive strikes” do not belong to a definition of a just war and would not constitute a legitimate use of force. Over the centuries the views of Christians on issues of war and peace have diverged widely. In the face of current world events, people hold many different opinions and views on circumstances surrounding the crisis in Iraq. We must respect the right of others to form their own conscientious views on this matter. As Christians and as Catholics, however, it is important that our views and our judgements on these world events are informed by Church teaching and the voice of Church leaders at this time. This document is provided as a resource to inform interested readers of the basics of Church teaching on this issue, of the statements of Church leaders around the world concerning the threat of war in Iraq, and a summary of the Church’s teachings on war and peace as presented in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Further information can be gained in a history of Church teachings on war and peace - see ACSJC Series Paper no. 23, The Peace of God, by Dr Paul Rule. Also, a soon to be released Series Paper (no. 47) by Fr Bruce Duncan CSsR with deal with the topic of ‘just war and Iraq’. These papers can be ordered from the Australian Catholic Social Justice Council by Ph: (02) 9956 5811 or email: admin@acsjc.org.au

What the Catechism says about war The Catechism presents the teachings of the Catholic Church drawing on Scripture, the living tradition of the Church, the magisterial texts, and the spiritual heritage of the Saints, Doctors of the Church and key leaders of the Early Church. Even though it is a large document, it does not present a complete history of the development of the Church’s teaching on every issue. For example, in its summary of Church teaching on the avoidance of war, the Catechism does not provide a full treatment of certain principles including: just cause; right intention; restoring justice; legitimate authority; and discrimination in the conduct of war to protect civilians. The Catechism provides a snapshot of current teaching rather than setting out how and why the teachings have developed through time. Paragraphs 2302 to 2317 of the Catechism deal with safeguarding peace and avoiding war. Here is a summary of these teachings.

Respect for life Right at the start of its reflections about war and peace the Catechism recalls the commandment, You Shall Not Kill (n 2302). All that follows must be read in the light of the Church’s fundamental commitment to respect for life. Respect for human life and its flourishing need peace. Peace isn’t just the absence of war. It is a ‘tranquillity of order’ or state of well-being that comes from respect for the dignity and rights of both individual people and whole communities. It requires justice but is also made possible by love (n 2304). Jesus is our peace. It is his love for us that makes peace possible. By his death and resurrection he reconciled us with God and has made the Church a sacrament and sign of the unity of the whole human family. Among the beatitudes he proclaimed “Blessed are the Peacemakers” (n 2305).

Rejecting violence Those who renounce violence bear witness to the serious physical and moral risks involved in the use of violence. In order to defend human rights they make use of non-violent means that are available to the weakest. It is a legitimate option for Catholics to be pacifists. Pacifism can be a way of bearing witness to love, as long as the rights and duties of other people or communities aren’t harmed (n 2306). All war is accompanied by evil and injustice and so the Church urges everyone to pray and act so that we may be freed from the bondage of war (n 2307). Everyone has a duty to work to avoid war. That applies to every person and every government. However, once all peaceful efforts have failed, governments have a right to lawful self-defence. This will be true as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power to perform what would be in effect police actions (n 2308).

Criteria for a Just War There are strict conditions for deciding if a military action is morally acceptable. These are set out in what is known as the ‘just war’ theory. All of the following conditions must be met: -The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave and certain; -All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; -There must be serious prospects of success; -The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition (n 2309). Those who have responsibility for the common good must evaluate whether or not these conditions have been met. They then have a right to impose on citizens obligations that are necessary for the defence of the nation. Members of the armed forces who carry out their duties honourably are serving peace and security and contributing to the common good (n 2310). At the same time, public authorities must make fair arrangements for people who, for reasons of conscience, refuse to bear arms. Their consciences must be respected and other ways in which they can serve the community must be found (n 2311).

Morality in war Moral laws aren’t suspended by the outbreak of war. All is not fair in war (n 2312). Non-combatants, wounded soldiers and prisoners are to be treated humanely. Actions that are against the law of nations are crimes and so are orders to commit such actions. Obeying orders is no excuse. The extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority is a mortal sin. Everyone has a moral duty to resist orders that command genocide (n 2313). Acts of war that indiscriminately destroy whole cities or vast areas and their inhabitants are a crime against God and against humanity. They are to be condemned firmly and unequivocally. The danger of modern warfare is that it provides an opportunity for the use of weapons like atomic, biological and chemical weapons to commit this kind of crime (n 2314).

The arms race The Church has strong moral reservations about the strategy of accumulating weapons as a method of deterrence. The arms race does not ensure peace. It doesn’t eliminate the causes of war but rather risks aggravating them. The accumulation of arms increases conflict and the danger of escalation. Spending on weapons diverts resources from the needy and impedes countries’ development (n 2315). The production and sale of arms affect the common good of nations and the international community. Public authorities have a duty to regulate them. The pursuit of short-term interests cannot legitimate undertakings that promote violence and conflict among nations or compromise international law (n 2316).

Addressing the causes of war Peace is not simply the absence of war. We must also address those issues in our society and around the world that undermine human dignity and cause war. Injustice, excessive economic or social inequalities, envy, distrust, and pride constantly threaten peace and cause wars. We must do everything we can to overcome these disorders so that we can build up peace and avoid war (n 2317).

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 16, 2003.

What Pope John Paul II said about the first Gulf War As we contemplate the possibility of further military action in the Persian Gulf, let us reflect on what the Pope said about the first Gulf War. On nearly fifty occasions from August 1990 to March 1991, Pope John Paul II spoke out urging a non-violent resolution of the conflict in the Persian Gulf. In these interventions he constantly called for dialogue, negotiation, and respect for the rights of people and of nations. He emphasised the role of international law. He said that war was ‘unworthy of humanity’, that war could never adequately resolve the issues at stake and would only give rise to further hatred and injustice. He emphasised the risk of escalation and the unpredictable magnitude of the consequences. He found the indiscriminate effects of modern warfare morally unacceptable.

In his Christmas message of December 1990 he urged world leaders to walk the path of peace. He said: 'May leaders be convinced that war is an adventure with no return! By reasoning, patience and dialogue, with respect for the inalienable rights of peoples and nations, it is possible to identify and travel the paths of understanding and peace.' He also spoke on the role of the United Nations as a moral authority finding the peaceful resolution of world conflicts. In an address to the Secretary of the State of the United he stated: 'I ardently hope that the moral authority of the Organisation which you represent may make its contribution so that ultimately dialogue, reason and law may prevail and thus choices with disastrous, unforeseeable consequences may be avoided. May the supreme good of peace triumph, that peace which is so greatly desired by all the peoples of the earth!' Speaking to the diplomatic corps accredited to the Holy See, the Pope spoke of the strict conditions governing the use of force and legitimacy of war. He said:

'…recourse to force for a just cause would only be admissible if such recourse were proportionate to the result one wished to obtain and with due consideration to the consequences that military actions, today made more destructive by modern technology, would have for the survival of peoples and the planet itself… How can we fail to echo here the warning of the Second Vatican Council in the Constitution Gaudium et Spes; ‘The capability for war does not legitimise every military and political use of it. Nor does everything automatically become permissible between hostile parties once war has regrettably commenced.’ (Gaudium et spes n 79)'

In a Message to the Presidents of Iraq and the United States, the Holy Father warned of the untold consequences of war. He stated:

'No international problem can be adequately and worthily solved by recourse to arms, and experience teaches all humanity that war, besides causing many victims, creates situations of grave injustice which, in their turn, constitute a powerful temptation to further recourse to violence.' Before the Angelus on 20 January 1991, the Pope spoke of the human cost of war borne by innocent civilians: 'Unfortunately that is the terrible logic of war which tends to involve other States in the conflict and indiscriminately threaten civilian populations as well. The deplorable bombings which we have received news about are a painful confirmation of that. In reality, every civilian population, on both sides, has the right to be respected and not to be involved in military action.' One week later, before the Angelus, he prayed for the victims of war: '…Let us pray for the civilian populations who are undergoing the trial of bombings or forced by the hundreds of thousands to abandon their homes and homelands, experiencing the tragic plight of refugees.' [The texts of each of the Pope’s interventions on the Gulf War are reproduced in John Paul II for Peace in the Middle East published by Liberia Editrice Vaticana in 1991.]

Pope John Paul II on the threat of war today Pope John Paul II is deeply committed to peace. In the face of the danger of a war that might disturb the entire Middle East, he has invited all Catholics to dedicate with special intensity Ash Wednesday (5 March 2003) to prayer and fasting for the cause of peace.

World Day of Peace message 2003 Every year on 1 January the Holy Father delivers a message for the World Day of Peace. In the World Day of Peace message for 2003, he devotes attention to Pope John XXIII’s famous encyclical letter Pacem in Terris. Its 40th anniversary in April 2003 is very timely. The call of Pope John XXIII for all people of good will to commit to peace is just as relevant as when his encyclical was promulgated in the darkest days of the cold war. Pope John Paul II calls on us to develop the optimistic outlook of John XXIII for a new vision of world peace in the face of what seems to be a permanent situation of conflict: '…trust in the merciful and compassionate God who calls us to brotherhood, and confidence in the men and women of our time because, like those of every other time, they bear the image of God in their souls. It is on this basis that we can hope to build a world of peace on earth.' He says that, in the end, the work for peace flows from the heart of the individual: 'Certain structures and mechanisms of peace… have been derived from nothing other than the accumulated wisdom and innumerable gestures of peace made by men and women throughout history who have kept hope and not given in to discouragement.' In the realm of international politics, there is a role for a ‘constitutional organisation of the human family’, such as the United Nations, capable of ensuring peace and harmony between people, as well as their development. The Pope calls for the correct use of political authority in international affairs: 'Perhaps nowhere today is there a more obvious need for the correct use of political authority than in the dramatic situation of the Middle East and the Holy Land… The volatility of the situation is compounded by the clash of interests among the members of the international community. Until those in positions of responsibility undergo a veritable revolution in the way they use their power and go about securing peoples’ welfare, it is difficult to imagine how progress towards peace can be made.' The 2003 World Day of Peace Message, Pacem in Terris: A Permanent Commitment, can be accessed at: www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=29130

State of the World address 2003 In mid-January, the Pope addressed the representatives of 177 countries that have diplomatic relations with the Vatican. He said that he has been “personally struck by the feeling of fear which often dwells in the hearts of our contemporaries” in the face of terrorism, the threat of war, famine, disease and environmental degradation. The Holy Father paid particular attention to the threat of war. He spoke of the need for the ‘peoples of the earth’ and their leaders to say “NO TO WAR!”. He emphasised the role of international law, honest dialogue, solidarity between the States and the exercise of diplomacy as methods for resolving differences. Stating that war is always a defeat for humanity, he added that the solution to difference “will never be imposed by recourse to terrorism or armed conflict, as if military victories could be the solution”. Turning to the crisis in Iraq he asked: 'And what are we to say of the threat of a war which could strike the people of Iraq, the land of the Prophets, a people sorely tried by more than twelve years of embargo?' In responding to this question he summarised the Church’s teachings on war and peace as they apply to the Iraq crisis: 'War is never just another means that one can choose to employ for settling differences between nations. As the Charter of the United Nations Organisation and international law itself remind us, war cannot be decided upon, even when it is a matter of ensuring the common good, except as the very last option and in accordance with very strict conditions, without ignoring the consequences for the civilian population both during and after the military operations.' With optimism that war is not always inevitable, the Pope said that good will, trust, fidelity to commitments and cooperation would change the current course of events. The full text of this address can be found at: www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=29883

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 16, 2003.

Other voices from the Vatican When presenting the recent papal message for the World Day of Peace, Archbishop Renato Martino, President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, called on developed countries to ensure that more of the resources involved in the production and sale of arms are allocated to peace and development in the world. On the subject of the war on terror he said: 'Since September 11, peace is threatened by the cancer of international terrorism… The response to terrorism and violence is never more violence. Peace is not weakness but strength.' When asked about the Church’s position on a possible ‘preventive war’ in Iraq, the Archbishop highlighted the difference between preventive war and the right of persons and states to exercise self-defence against an unjust aggression. A preventive war is not the same as defence against unjust aggression he said, “because it is a war or aggression and there is no doubt whatsoever that it does not belong to the definition of a just war”. Refer: www.cathnews.com/news/212/153.html Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith, has also commented that the concept of preventive war does not appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. He said: 'One cannot simply say that the catechism does not legitimise the war… But it is true that the catechism has developed a doctrine that, on the one hand, does not exclude the fact that there are values and peoples that must be defended in some circumstances; on the other hand, it offers a very precise doctrine on the limits of these possibilities.' Refer: www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=25413 Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran, Secretary for Relations with States, has said that the best strategy for countering terrorism is to rediscover the ‘sense of sacredness’ of human life. Responding to the looming war in Iraq he said: 'It is necessary to do everything possible so that this much- discussed attack does not take place. 'The use of weapons is not a given, and moreover a preventive war is not foreseen by the U.N. charter. 'It is important for Iraqi leaders to regulate their political actions according to the code of conduct that is imposed by Iraq’s membership in the United Nations. But no military decisions should be made outside the U.N. authority… If that were the case, the entire system of international rules would collapse. We’d risk the jungle.' Refer: www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/20021223.htm

Archbishop Celestino Migliore, the Vatican’s U.N. nuncio, addressed the U.N. Security Council calling for a diplomatic solution to the crisis in Iraq. He stated: 'The Holy See is convinced that in the efforts to draw strength from the wealth of peaceful tools provided by international law, to resort to force would not be a just one. To the grave consequences for a civilian population that has already been tested long enough, are added the dark prospects of tensions and conflicts between peoples and cultures and the deprecated reintroduction of war as a way to resolve untenable situations… 'On the issue of Iraq, the vast majority of the international community is calling for a diplomatic resolution of the dispute and for exploring all avenues for a peaceful settlement. That call should not be ignored.' Refer: www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=31662 Cardinal Roger Etchegaray, the Pope’s special envoy to Iraq, said that peace is still possible in Iraq and for Iraq. Before returning to Rome from Iraq he stated: '…a small clearing seems to be opening between the great black clouds that hang over us at this time… The new and brief respite that has taken place must be used full time by all in a spirit of reciprocal trust, to respond to the demands of the international community. The smallest step over the next few days is worth a great leap towards peace.' Refer: www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=31497

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 16, 2003.

What Church leaders are saying around the world Over recent months Church leaders around the world have commented on the unfolding crisis in Iraq. Like the Holy Father and senior Vatican officials, they have urged all people of good will to pray for peace. They have urged the political leaders of the world to pursue political and diplomatic solutions with Iraq, while emphasising the strict moral conditions that ensure that the potential for military action would only be considered as the last resort and under very strict conditions. The overwhelming call has been for diplomacy and peace. The structures, means and alternatives for avoiding war are far from exhausted.

Below are excerpts from statements and correspondence of church conferences around the world. They are taken from primary and secondary sources which can be obtained by following the internet links provided.

Australian Catholic Bishops’ Conference “The international community has increasingly focused on the possibility that the Iraqi leadership is amassing weapons of mass destruction, implying the threat of an imminent attack. With other Church leaders around the world, the Catholic Bishops of Australia urge great restraint at this most delicate point and welcome the role of the United Nations Security Council in ensuring that Iraq meets its obligations to disarm… “We call especially on those in our nation who exercise political authority and diplomatic influence to do all in their power to build peace and avoid war. “The Australian Bishops also stress the importance of solidarity with the people of Iraq. Recurrent war and the resulting humanitarian crises have already inflicted grave suffering upon the population, and any further conflict would be a human catastrophe, with the weakest inevitably suffering the most.” www.catholic.org.au/statements/ju_peace.htm Australian Conference of Leaders of Religious Institutes “Our Just War tradition insists that peaceful and diplomatic alternatives, such as those currently in operation by the United Nations Security Council, must first be exhausted. The new doctrine of pre-emptive war is so radical that it has no precedent in international law. War is the worst possible solution to the present situation in Iraq. If fighting breaks out it is a defeat for humanity. The Iraqi people who have suffered greatly the effects of war and economic sanctions over the past decade will face untold suffering.” www.aclri.catholic.org.au/media/0301iraq.html United States Conference of Catholic Bishops “People of good will may differ on how to apply just war norms in particular cases, especially when events are moving rapidly and the facts are not altogether clear. Based on the facts that are known to us, we continue to find it difficult to justify the resort to war against Iraq, lacking clear and adequate evidence of an imminent attack of a grave nature. With the Holy See and bishops from the Middle East and around the world, we fear that resort to war, under present circumstances and in light of current public information, would not meet the strict conditions in Catholic teaching for overriding the strong presumption against the use of military force.” http://usccb.org/bishops/iraq.htm Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops “Iraqis must be the authors of their own change. Yet for many decades Western policy has undermined the pursuit of democracy and relentlessly disempowered the very people of Iraq on whom constructive change depends. The West’s active military and political support for the regime of Saddam Hussein until 1990, as well as comprehensive economic sanctions since then, has left the tyrannical regime strengthened and enriched and the people demeaned and impoverished. We reject the increasing resort to military means to resolve entrenched conflicts.” www.cccb.ca/english/fullpublice.asp?ID=7 Catholic Bishops’ Conference of France The Bishops of France said “the right to legitimate defence presupposes a real or imminent attack, not the simple possibility of an aggression.” “Our fellow citizens and the leaders of our country are resolute in pursuing with courage the search for peaceful ways to remove from the Iraqi people the evils that already oppress them and those that threaten them... “Against every temptation to resignation, we invite all to maintain hope, with all the Christian churches of the whole world, which pronounce themselves these days in profound unity with Pope John Paul II, who multiplies initiatives to avoid the war.“ www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=31383 Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Germany “In the context of a political strategy which finally aims at preventing war, the use of threats might be ethically justified in certain cases. But under no circumstances must this policy fall into the logic of escalation which inevitably ends up in war… “Is there any doubt that a war against Iraq would most probably kill and injure innumerable people, that it would bring about countless refugees and would deprive many people of their existence? A war also threatens to cause the most serious political divergences in the entire Middle East, which would put at risk the achievements of the international alliance against terror. A war against Iraq would probably enable fanatic Islamic fundamentalists to increase their influence everywhere in the region and would threaten to further intensify the serious reservations which the Arab and Muslim world has against the Western world. Would the region have better prospects of peace, stability and the protection of human rights after a war?” www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=30323 Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India has expressed concerns “over the firm stand taken on behalf of some countries that are avowed to put an end to the production of weapons of mass destruction as it has worsened the atmosphere. Every effort must, therefore, be made by the international community to avert such a human made tragedy, and seek other paths to find lasting solutions to the problem of proliferation of arms.” The Bishops said “terrorism, under any circumstances, cannot be accepted as it does not uphold the basic right to live a free life and fearless life.” The Bishops fear that “a remedy for putting an end to such terrorist activities and organizations could cause a full- scale armed conflict.” www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=30952 Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Italy The Bishops’ Conference of Italy has said that a possible U.N. authorisation of military action would not justify a 'preventive war' with Iraq. While “the U.N.’s authorisation is an element that can never be given up in a military action, […] it is not the only one. “If the preventive dimension of a war continues and the conflict in question is not a concrete response to a situation of attack, the U.N. authorisation does not make a war just.” The concept of preventive war is seen to be “unacceptable in itself, because prevention, in fact, has no limit. Without a concrete situation of threat, actual or possible, no act of war can be justified.” www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=30728 Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei (CBC) “The CBC agrees with the Holy See and Bishops from the United States and Middle East that resorting to war against Iraq under current circumstances would not meet the strict conditions in Catholic teaching for over-riding the presumptions against the use of military force… “We urge other Bishops’ Conferences all over the world to join their voices in solidarity to call upon all involved to abide by the principles of international law.” http://202.157.182.164/news/200301160018911.php Catholic Bishops of England and Wales “Sanctions have not worked. They have imposed a decade of misery on ordinary people whilst allowing an exploitative regime to sustain itself in power. It is time to find a policy that offers Iraq a positive incentive to comply with the demands of the Security Council. In return for genuine disarmament, monitored and verified by the United Nations, the lifting of comprehensive sanctions, and the reintegration of Iraq into the international community, is the route which must now be explored. “ www.catholic-ew.org.uk/CN/02/021115.htm Christian Leaders of New Zealand “The current intentions of the United States of America toward Iraq constitute a serious threat to world peace and threaten relationships between Christians and Muslims. The reconstruction of Afghanistan hangs in the balance, several Arab states are experiencing serious internal stress, and the Israel-Palestine conflict endures. This wound in the Middle East is still open and weeping. Rather than opening the wound further the resources of western countries must be employed in healing the wound. “A war against Iraq has been portrayed as an action in the context of the so-called “war on terrorism”. Terrorism is born of grudge and grievance, whether rightly or wrongly held. An invasion of Iraq would greatly increase grudges and grievances already in place. Violence breeds further violence, and there is a moral obligation on us to break this vicious cycle. Peace will have a better chance when we all understand that we are part of the same humanity, that the death of people in Iraq is as terrible as the death of the victims of September 11, 2001.” www.catholic.org.nz/documents/iraqchurchleaders.htm Christian Leaders of Pakistan “We share the concern of our Muslim brethren and all people of good will in expressing their total condemnation of this pre-emptive strike. “We call on President George W Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair to reverse their decision to wage war and, instead, to use other means to force Iraq to comply with the U.N. resolutions for disarmament of weapons of mass destruction. “We also call upon Iraqi leaders and other world leaders to play their part in an all-out effort to avoid war and prevent untold sufferings for millions of innocent people who will be affected by a war.” www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=30268 Patriarch of Babylon of the Chaldeans His Beatitude Raphael I Bidawid said: “The Iraqi people cannot endure any more suffering. They are exhausted by 12 years of sorrow and tribulation. Now a new threat arrives of destruction and annihilation… “If there really is a war, it will end in total destruction: Christians and Muslims will be sold at the same price. I pray to the Lord that he will remove this scourge… “There is an attempt to justify the attack with the intention of striking the president and his government, but it is well known that the war would cause an unheard-of tragedy.” www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=25265 Serbian Orthodox The representatative of the Serbian Orthodox Patriarchate, Metroplitan Amfilohije of Montenegro said: “In the 20th century alone, our Church and our People were subjected to seven wars, and still today they suffer from profound wounds, especially in Kosovo” The Serbian Orthodox Church, “together with His Holiness, requests the powerful of the earth, especially the United States and its allies, not to get involved in a new war, on this occasion with Iraq. “This new war would be a new defeat for all of us and a new disgrace for the whole of humanity, and not just a humiliation and destruction of the honest Iraqi people.” www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=31070

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 16, 2003.

Hey Kiwi:

Thanks for posting this.

Here's a question. The article says, "We call on President George W Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair to reverse their decision to wage war and, instead, to USE OTHER MEANS to force Iraq to comply with the U.N. resolutions for disarmament of weapons of mass destruction."

What other means? I have yet to hear anyone suggest ANYTHING in the way of a real deterent for Saddam. Just for the sake of argument, suppose he had laid down his arms -- that still would have left him and his evil spawns in power for many many many years to come.

Also, just as an observation, the article above lists just war tradition largely as being the plumb line. That's fine, except for one thing, we don't live in Augustine's time. We face much different adversaries today than we did 100 years ago, even 50 or 20 years ago.

I know I am playing devil's advocate (yuck, what a term) a little as I can really see both sides of this argument. I am glad Saddam is gone. I am REALLY REALLY glad he is gone. BUT I do think we have set a dangerous precedent.

Kiwi, what have you heard about Saddam in New Zealand, as far as his past crimes, etc.? Just curious.

Love,

gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), April 16, 2003.

Kiwi - A very fine posting showing your deep concern. As to it being over I feel it has just begun for the geographical area(s) have been in conflict over three thousand years.

Mr. Bush I feel has stirred up a true hornets nest which our Pope had warned him and others as diplomatically as possible.

Historical wars have been taught in schools from the view of cultural/sociological " developments " for a given area and or society. This has been the institional view of Western European man.

Were we to look at the other side of the same coin and accept war on economical grounds we would/will be looking at the current invasion of Irag by a foreign power.

Many countries have despots at the helm but few have the natural resources considered valuable enough to move in and take over a " sytem. "

The U.S.A has presented itself as the saviour of the civilized world which is a farce for thinking individuals are aware the prize in this scenario is a full two percent of the world's output of crude oil.

The ethics presented by Mr. Bush are laughable to the world. The post- war scenario which is unfolding before our eyes daily is horrid. Now it appears Mr. Bush is eyeing Syria for their weapons of destruction.

Many despots in history have attempted to overthrow the middle east - Mr. Bush is just another whith a modern pinstrip rhetoric. He has not done the world at large any favour here for sure.

What is he going to do about North Korea. Back down I feel as God has not guided him in that venture. Remember he states God is on his side. Sound familiar at all???????

-- jean bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), April 17, 2003.

Kiwi, I am allways cautious about many documents that come from the "peace & Justice" wing of the church, since this group has the ability to take many things out of context, to the point of outright lifes.

This in terms of the Iraqi situation, is a academic debate. The war has started, US troops are in Bhagdad, and hopefully soon the rebuilding can beigin. All Catholics can do is read the church teachings on the Just War, and respect what Pope John Paul II has to say. That said, the Popes opinion on if this war is just or not is his opinion, it is not a BINDING MATTER OF FAITH, as the "peace & justice" Catholics would have people believe.

-- John B (rftech10@yahoo.com), April 17, 2003.

Thank you Kiwi for providing me with the very same documents which I use in justifying my position.

I will first outline my points, then quote the salient texts you have provided for our reflection and underneath each make my case for your consideration.

1) "Peace is not just the absence of war but the existence of just order." Thus he is not a "peacemaker" who perpetuates through inaction a continued situation of injustice.

2) In the absence of an international authority with the sufficent power to right wrongs, a nation may defend itself...provided certain moral norms are maintained:

3) The US civil authority cannot rely on any "international authority" for the simple reason that the US IS the only power capable of defending itself. Furthermore it has duly acted in self- defence, and has followed the just-war criteria as ennumerated by the Church based on the US government's knowledge of fact as opposed to 3rd party second guessing.

4)Certain moral arguments posited on dire fears must logically give way to fact and history once those fears are proven wrong.

Point One, what Peace is and what it is not.

"Peace isn’t just the absence of war. It is a ‘tranquillity of order’ or state of well-being that comes from respect for the dignity and rights of both individual people and whole communities. It requires justice but is also made possible by love (n 2304)."

Up to now we have witnessed the spectacle of violent "peace" protests (they threw Molotov cocktails in Milan recently). ANSWER and other groups have called not on the Saddam Regime, or on OBL or other Muslim extremists to respect human rights, to not target civilians, or to pursue peaceful means of redressing what they feel to be wrong. Instead they have targetted those governments who actively seek to remove illegitimate regimes from power, liberate their peoples and thus pave the way for the tranquility of order needed for political and economic progress. 12 years of UN "oil for food" programs and an embargo has proven only to hurt the Iraqi middle class (wiping it out) and strengthening the regime's grip on power. Further "diplomacy" which dealt with the Baath party as an equal and offered it all the consideration of other governments could only perpetuate the FICTION that somehow Iraq was operating for the true common good of its people and the tranquilitas ordinis.

Tranquility of order which includes respect for human rights (including freedom of religion and speech) is conspiciously absent in the Middle East. America has restored it with force of arms. How this action is not one of peace-making is beyond me. Short of a miraclous metanoia of corrupt tyrants, "revolution in the way of thinking" to quote the Pope, this action was the only way to proceed.

Point Two, who is the "governing legal authority"? The US. "Everyone has a duty to work to avoid war. That applies to every person and every government. However, once all peaceful efforts have failed, governments have a right to lawful self-defence. This will be true as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power to perform what would be in effect police actions (n 2308)."

"when all peaceful efforts have failed..." The US and UN tried to work peacefully with Iraq for 12 years to no avail. No alternative to war offered real hope of actually changing the situation for the better while simultaneously respecting the common good. - embargos only hurt the people, toothless inspectors or even armed inspectors would only serve to jeopordize Iraqis brave enough to cooperate because the regime threatened their families... In short, the Iraqi regime was not honest. You can't negotiate with someone who is not honest.

On 9/11/01 the USA was attacked by an international terrorist network which has received help from certain state regimes. Nations have the right to self-defence. If Papa New Guinea or New Zealand were attacked by such a network, the USA would have been called on by the UN to provide help. But since it was the USA who was attacked and certain states sponsored this assault, it is unthinkable that other smaller countries should have to defend the US.

The UN is NOT an authority endowed with the sufficient power to punish rogue states which sponsor terrorism. Indeed, the UN without the US has NEVER fielded any substantial armed force to redress any invasion or act of aggression. Since they cannot be counted on to defend the US, the US must defend itself - along with whomever wished to join us. 50 states have so decided. It's notable that many of these are states that the USA has defended and protected.

Point three. The US has indeed followed the Catholic Just war guidelines given questions of FACT. Moral arguments not based on fact but on conjecture are not binding.

"Criteria for a Just War There are strict conditions for deciding if a military action is morally acceptable. These are set out in what is known as the ‘just war’ theory. All of the following conditions must be met: -The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave and certain; -All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; -There must be serious prospects of success; -The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition (n 2309). Those who have responsibility for the common good must evaluate whether or not these conditions have been met. They then have a right to impose on citizens obligations that are necessary for the defence of the nation. Members of the armed forces who carry out their duties honourably are serving peace and security and contributing to the common good (n 2310)."

The damage inflicted on the US on 9/11/01 was grave - 3000 civilians dead, billions of dollars in damages, and given that those who organized this attack had assaulted the US abroad for 10 years and promised continued assaults means that the threat is lasting.

Iraq, Iran, and North Korea have protected and cooperated with international terrorist organizations in the past. There was reason to believe they - who all call the US their chief enemy and whose military doctrine includes "asymetrical warfare" - would use such terrorists as a means of attacking this foe.

Short of our unconditional surrender, all other means of resolving conflict had proven futile. Iraq would not cooperate with the UN, and Iran and North Korea have both ratched up both rhetoric and military capabilities far beyond their legitimate defensive needs. Past attempts to negotiate a settlement has hitherto been rejected.

However, US resort to armed intervention stood every chance of success in Iraq, and the US unparalleled military technology guaranteed that civilian casualties and infrastructure damage would be as low as humanly possible - far lower indeed than any other country could manage. Only the Iraqi regime's connivance to put civilians in harms way, using them as human shields, dressing in civilian clothing, etc. caused Iraqi casualties.

Finally, the Just War theory states that the foreseeable likely consequences should not be worse than the evil to be confronted.

In this point too, the USA had (and has proven to be correct) good reason to believe there would NOT be an environmental disaster, nor a regional spread of war, nor world-wide terrorist outbreaks (since the terrorists themselves were largely IN IRAQ and neighboring states.

So the USA was attacked, could not rely on any other organization for defense, did try diplomacy and resort to international cooperation in rooting out terror cells...did try to negotiate with the Taliban as well as with Saddam for guarantees and proof that he was NOT involved with either terrorists or illegal weapon systems...to no avail. War being the only viable alternative to the status quo which WAS NOT a "tranquilitas ordinis", the US followed and met the Church's conditions for just war: good cause, no practical alternative, good chance of success, as little collaterial damage as possible, and likely positive consequences.

Point Four: the Pope's fears, while possible were not borne out by facts and history, thus his moral argument while good intentioned and valid has been proven to be non-binding because it was wrong.

"In these interventions he constantly called for dialogue, negotiation, and respect for the rights of people and of nations. He emphasised the role of international law. He said that war was ‘unworthy of humanity’, that war could never adequately resolve the issues at stake and would only give rise to further hatred and injustice. He emphasised the risk of escalation and the unpredictable magnitude of the consequences. He found the indiscriminate effects of modern warfare morally unacceptable."

The Pope called for negotiation and dialogue. Tell me, since OBL has told us that we will only have peace if we convert to Islam and unilaterally surrender, how can we "negotiate" with him? How does one "dialogue" with nations that don't accept the right for you to exist - in the case of Israel with the Muslims or with the USA and nations that call us "the great Satan"?

The Pope emphasized the role of international law. Fine, but who enforces the law? If the only country that actually has the power to enforce law and order (as opposed to those who can and do threaten it) is itself harmed, who can it call on for help?

Furthermore, "diplomatic pressure" has almost always meant "economic embargo" which the Church has preached is immoral because of the widespread and INDISCRIMINATE harm it does to "the poor" while leaving those in power even more powerful... so what viable alternative is there? The Church has been quiet. It has told us the principles but left the application up to civil authorities...

The Pope warned of the consequences of war - and alluded to " the risk of escalation and the unpredictable magnitude of the consequences. He found the indiscriminate effects of modern warfare morally unacceptable."

YET THE WAR HAS NOT ESCALATED, the consequences have not been evil in great magnitude and indeed the US method of warfare has been anything BUT INDISCRIMINATE! Our bombs were able to blow into and down underneath buildings rather than up and out, we were able to hit tanks under bridges - without harming the bridge! Our bypassing of towns and cities made urban warfare moot - and our near bloodless conquest of Baghdad proved that the US military is second to none in that most harrowing of all battlefields.

If your moral argument against US led "regime change" was based on a wrong reading of legal authority, sufficient proof, and the actual facts involved in the US strategy and capabilities - mistaking our talk of "tactical nukes and the MOAB" as actual battleplans... then one's argument would by force of reason be wrong.

We were attacked. There is no non-US "international police force" which can protect us. We tried diplomacy. We followed the letter of the Just War theory and successfully fought a war that was quick and relatively bloodless considering the sheer numbers of men and materiel involved... and we are actively engaged in rebuilding and improving Iraq and Afganistan AT NO CHARGE TO THEM... actually creating the conditions for tranquility of order...

and the anti-Bush or anti-US world hates us like hell because we didn't follow their preference or whim or "wishful thinking" and armchair general approach.

The Pope prayed that the war would be quick - and it was! I think the miracle of Gulf War 2 is certainly attributable to His intercession as well. I know most of the Marines were Catholics and good Protestants who prayed for peace so armed for war.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 18, 2003.

I keep reading the requirements for a "just war," and keep coming up with the same answer....It met the requirements.

The only addition is the Holy Father adding in that the UN is the only body that can call one.

This deeply disappoints me. That is not strong enough. This angers me to the point to where I'm not attending Mass any more.

The position of the Church seems to be that allowing a people to be subjugated to a horrible regime day after day with literally thousands being killed is somehow preferable than ending that cycle if it means war.

Where were the rebukes to those in the UN that would have Saddam's regime protected? The point of oil there cuts both ways - are we to chastise the USA for freeing the Iraqi people because there is oil there and not the countries that would maintain a dictator for the exact same reason?

I can't reconcile my favoring the end of repression of a people with the stance of the Church, which seems to be for the repression of people.

Under current rules, it must be an "International Body" to be a just war.

But only certain ones, it would seem. The UN is okay, and so is NATO (in the case of the Balkins). But a coalition of 40+ countries under neither of those banners is not (spare me the rhetorical sneers at the number - with full UN approval, it would be the same countries doing all the fighting, with the others giving "moral support.").

My faith remains strong, but my faith in my religion is weak for the first time in my life.

How can I proudly say I am Catholic if our Holy Father stands with tyrants?

-- Frank Giger (gigerfr@bellsouth.net), April 20, 2003.

Mr. Bouchard,

"..the ethics presented by Mr. Bush are laughable to the world."

You mean "laughable" to a Canadian(you)? You can't speak for the world can you?

What about the ethics you present to people looking for Catholic advice in this forum? Weren't you just in forum bragging about making your 65 year old body unable to.....?

-- David (David@excite.com), April 20, 2003.

Hi Gail and Jean and John thanks for taking the time to read the document. Happy Easter to you all!

Its only a position paper but I think it provides a good basis for the morality of this war. Jean yeah I know its sad to think there are still folks (tens of millions of them) out there who lap the fundie literal evangelical crusade type language up. Still such “god fearing Christian” trailer park and rural corn fed bible belters are Bush’s bread and butter. It’s a crying shame that Christianity should be mudied by such voices.

Gail Ill try and answer your questions the best I can below. John I agree it is all a bit academic but all I’m saying to Joe is that he can take whatever position he likes but to claim it reflects the Church’s view is just plain wrong and a lie. I may be an idealist but well I don’t think so anyway Joe and me have been going at each other for a while. No one really delivering a knock out blow indeed only going round and round in circles. My pride probably forces me to overstep my capabilities, as Joe is a very accomplished republican spin-doctor. But well Ive got a spare couple of hours this morning...

Like a runaway stars n stripes bulldozer America charges onward for the good of humanity...riding roughshod over all voices of concern and complaint be they from the international political or religious community. Ker splat there goes the Pope; does Joe care a damn? Hell no, the Popes WRONG and Joe only wants to drive faster. Yes Sir... a hot dog on a stick and cola for everyone. Christ how depressing. Onward you charge. WHY? Because you can. It’s as simple as that. America can do whatever it wants because it CAN. No one or nobody … can do a damn thing about it. Now Joe is no theologian and his attempts to interpret the Just war theory for himself are simply not Catholic. Read what the Pope and the voices of the church around the world say and read Joes interpretation. Yes hes got a protestant interpretation all right. No surprise considering to whom he looks for moral guidance...Dubbya.

The Church’s position is clear. This war is immoral and unjust. If you can’t handle it go away and improve your prayer life so you will come to the truth as seen by the Vicar of Christ and all his Bishops.

Now the values America hold dear of capitalism, utilitarianism, libertarianism etc not the same values that The Catholic Church holds. The comparison is absurd. OJ Simpson style “justice”, Hugh Hefner style “freedom”, Charlton Heston style “rights”, Enron style “Capitalism” Nike styled “workers rights”, trailer park devotee republican “Christianity”. Not surprisingly most of the world is saying thanks but “NO THANKS AMERICA”.

Up to now we have witnessed the spectacle of violent "peace" protests (they threw Molotov cocktails in Milan recently >Yeah they’re called anarchists

ANSWER and other groups have called not on the Saddam Regime, or on OBL or other Muslim extremists to respect human rights, to not target civilians, or to pursue peaceful means of redressing what they feel to be wrong.

>Lets ignore the term “group” as its not helpful and just use the term Church. We can see Joes words here are quite obviously absurd- the Church is just one of many groups who have been calling for the above to happen.) Lets make it clear there is no link between 9/11 OBL and Iraq at all… only in Joe’s imagination. Let’s make it clear again also Iraq was not though perhaps soon will be an Islamic State.)

Instead they have targeted those governments who actively seek to remove illegitimate regimes from power >Its not the outcome were looking at for the hundredth time Joe but the means...illegal under international law, and immoral as defined by Christs church,

liberate their peoples and thus pave the way for the tranquillity of order needed for political and economic progress

> Liberation of the Iraqi people is the last thing America cares about, the pretext of this war was removing WMD and the “threat “ they posed to American security as it has become clear Iraq does not pose a threat to anyone through WMD. Suddenly the focus shifts to “liberation “ of the Iraqi people.

12 years of UN "oil for food" programs and an embargo has proven only to hurt the Iraqi middle class (wiping it out) and strengthening the regime's grip on power

>There are more effective sanctions that could have been put in place that targeted the upper classes more effectively yet Americas view was that the suffering and starvation of the Iraq’s poorest and most vulnerable might destabilise the regime.

Further "diplomacy" which dealt with the Baath party as an equal and offered it all the consideration of other governments could only perpetuate the FICTION that somehow Iraq was operating for the true common good of its people and the tranquilitas ordinis

>And during this Easter time at least I hoped Joe might try and find some Christian hope and faith in mankind...how mistaken I was)

Tranquillity of order which includes respect for human rights (including freedom of religion and speech) is conspicuously absent in the Middle East >Oh so you wish to bring them abortion on demand, rampant crime, obesity, pornography, cable television with 500 channels of immoral junk, unrestricted gun ownership, hideous bland and unhealthy junk food and beverages, sexual promiscuity, widespread drug use homosexual and lesbian rights, face it ISLAMIC LAW for all its weaknesses is closer to Catholic LAW than the secular values and “freedom” America holds so dear.

America has restored it with force of arms. How this action is not one of peace making is beyond me. >Oh dear, again all outcomes based missing the point that war is never a victory for anyone and can only be undertaken under exceptional circumstances certainly not as a pre emptive strike against a non existent threat

Short of a miraclous metanoia of corrupt tyrants, "revolution in the way of thinking" to quote the Pope, this action was the only way to proceed. >Wrong most of the rest of the world outside the coalition of the killing, incredible that despite all the political, economic and military strength of America most of the rest of the world stood strong against such bully tactics and religious groups including THE CATHOLIC CHURCH accepted that the UN was the organisation to do this through beefed up inspection process and the threat of force for no compliance.

The US and UN tried to work peacefully with Iraq for 12 years to no avail. No alternative to war offered real hope of actually changing the situation for the better while simultaneously respecting the common good. - embargos only hurt the people, toothless inspectors or even armed inspectors would only serve to jeopordize Iraqis brave enough to cooperate because the regime threatened their families... In short, the Iraqi regime was not honest. You can't negotiate with someone who is not honest.

> False before 9/11 Iraq hasn’t been on your political radar since 1991, indeed when the last uprising occurred by the Iraqi people after Gulf War 1 your government turned a blind eye to supporting the people in over throwing the rigeme. The reason? The State Department believed an Islamic Iraq was more dangerous than a Saddam Iraq, a senior official even said “Saddam is the lesser of two evils”

On 9/11/01 the USA was attacked by an international terrorist network which has received help from certain state regimes. >Not Iraq

Nations have the right to self-defence.

>No kidding

If Papa New Guinea or New Zealand were attacked by such a network, the USA would have been called on by the UN to provide help.

>You better! Actually we have the ANZUS Treaty 1951 that guarantees our security through the United States although the current standing of this treaty is somewhat uncertain given our anti nuclear ship policy since 1984. So while we may not be allies strictly speaking we are as Colin Powell said “very very very good friends”

But since it was the USA who was attacked and certain states sponsored this assault, it is unthinkable that other smaller countries should have to defend the US.

>Not at all unthinkable, indeed it is desirable that other small nations help you defend yourself against aggression. There are such things as international laws and sovereignty and its always desirable for a country, no matter how powerful, to act with the full support of the United nations and the international community. Just as New Zealand, Australia and Canada did in the war in Afghanistan

The UN is NOT an authority endowed with the sufficient power to punish rogue states which sponsor terrorism.

>Wrong. Only through US mistrust of the UN does it fail. Terrorism is not something that can be defeated through conventional wars, that’s the point you seem to be missing. Such misguided actions only serve as a recruitment drive. Settling long held and deeply troubled points of difference through diplomacy is the only way to do this. Solving the Palestinian problem will be crucial obviously.

Indeed, the UN without the US has NEVER fielded any substantial armed force to redress any invasion or act of aggression.

>I have already provided you with the example of East Timor as one of the many current successful United Nations sponsored actions against aggression. However you are right in saying that without US support the UN does not have the capability to to tackle situations like The Iraqi problem .

Since they cannot be counted on to defend the US, the US must defend itself - along with whomever wished to join us

>Ask yourself... what you were defending yourself against? The answer is nothing. The UN actions in not using force have been vindicated by the lack of substantial WMD. But as your post as shown it was never about this. It was about America proving she has the power to do what she likes where she likes how she likes and I agree it sends a chilling message to any state that wishes to sponsor terrorism. You have been warned is the message. Does this make your actions moral or just? Of course not, whatever the outcomes may be.

50 states have so decided. It's notable that many of these are states that the USA has defended and protected.

>Haahhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! 50 states have caved in to enormous pressure and the only thing is notable is that ALL 50 states stand to gain massive trade and economic benefits from their decision.

Point three. The US has indeed followed the Catholic Just war guidelines given questions of FACT.

>Wrong its not interested in just war theory its interested in self interest don’t delude yourself any longer.

The damage inflicted on the US on 9/11/01 was grave - 3000 civilians dead, billions of dollars in damages, and given that those who organised this attack had assaulted the US abroad for 10 years and promised continued assaults means that the threat is lasting.

>You’ve shot yourself in the foot here BRILLIANT. Case closed! HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA thanks Joe...oh BTW the link between Iraq and 9/11 was?????…yes that’s right I forgot…. YOUR IMAGINATION!

Iraq, Iran, and North Korea have protected and cooperated with international terrorist organisations in the past.

>Nothing is as simple as Joe would like it too seem. America has done its fair share of sponsoring of terrorists and rouge states (when it suited their interests as defined by them), indeed America along with many of the nations of the coalition of the killing provided the technology and support to Saddam to develop his arsenal of WMD.

There was reason to believe they - who all call the US their chief enemy and whose military doctrine includes "asymetrical warfare" - would use such terrorists as a means of attacking this foe.

>And the proof is…again an over active imagination and a handful of Pentagon press reports can do strange things to a man.

Short of our unconditional surrender, all other means of resolving conflict had proven futile.

>Get real Joe sort out Palestine and see where that leaves international terrorism.

Iraq would not cooperate with the UN,

>Iraq was cooperating with the UN albiet under the threat of invasion still read the UN reports of Scott Ritter and Hans Blix to see for your self don’t take my word for it.

and Iran and North Korea have both ratched up both rhetoric and military capabilities far beyond their legitimate defensive needs.

>….and America hasn’t!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Which one nation is the leading obstacle to global disarmament as called for by the Church? America consistently blocks efforts to reduce WMD. Last time I checked you had enough nuclear capability to destroy the earth a few hundred times over. Wait a minute you’re the good guys right and they’re………evil!

Past attempts to negotiate a settlement has hitherto been rejected.

>All means were certainly not exhausted and progress was being made again read the UN reports yourself people don’t listen to Pentagon Joe. BTW that’s the view of the Church and the UN.

However, US resort to armed intervention stood every chance of success in Iraq,

>Yes…even against such overwhelming odds you succeeded what was it 12 divisions against 3 eh Joe. Congratulations. I’m being sarcastic the result was a no brainer.

and the US unparalleled military technology guaranteed that civilian casualties and infrastructure damage would be as low as humanly possible - far lower indeed than any other country could manage. >yeah yeah makes great tv viewing doesn’t it. Of course if it were your town being bombed your clean antiseptic view of war would be somewhat different.

Only the Iraqi regime's connivance to put civilians in harms way, using them as human shields, dressing in civilian clothing, etc. caused Iraqi casualties. >Sometimes you say things without thinking Joe...even someone as one eyed as yourself couldn’t swallow this rubbish.

Finally, the Just War theory states that the foreseeable likely consequences should not be worse than the evil to be confronted. In this point too, the USA had (and has proven to be correct) good reason to believe there would NOT be an environmental disaster >True finally in all this ranting a bit of truth,

nor a regional spread of war, >Hold fire there Joe I’m sure Syrians or Jordanians feel quite so safe.

nor world-wide terrorist outbreaks

>I hope you’re right but this war has done nothing to fight terrorism and in all likelihood has only turned moderate Muslims into fanatical Muslims and increased fear mistrust and hatred on all sides. Id be interested in your surveys of how this war has changed attitudes of Islamic people toward your nation….

(Since the terrorists themselves were largely IN IRAQ and neighbouring states. >Yeah and you’ve found so many of them...what a Palestinian terroist is your only catch. I reckon you’d find more terrorists in your local bowling ally Joe.

Point Four: the Pope's fears, while possible were not borne out by facts and history, thus his moral argument while good intentioned and valid has been proven to be non-binding because it was wrong. >Joe calls the Popes moral decision wrong. Take your pick folks on morality Joe “the Pentagon” Strong or Pope John Paul II.

The Pope called for negotiation and dialogue. Tell me, since OBL has told us that we will only have peace if we convert to Islam and unilaterally surrender, how can we "negotiate" with him? >Well I think the Pope wasn’t specifically referring to OBL it’s like asking how do we negotiate with Timothy McVeigh? I think hes referring to diplomacy in terms of States although the principles I guess remain the same. What drove Mr McVeigh to do things he did… what was his motivation could he have been talked down from his position if someone reached out to him.? Could common ground be found?

How does one "dialogue" with nations that don't accept the right for you to exist - in the case of Israel with the Muslims or with the USA and nations that call us "the great Satan"? >Well Joe its like the way America labels some countries as “Evil” diplomacy is never easy, as long as both parties are open and honest ground cannot can be made and settlements reached. The Irish issue is a case in point and there are many others. Specifically in relation to Israel you’ve shot yourself in both feet now. Israel is not interested in being open and honest just look at its failure to comply with UN resolutions and the role America plays in blocking UN peacekeepers and diplomacy to solve the issue. Don’t use Israel as a barrow for your arguments you’ve been taken to the cleaners with that argument on another thread by Atila

The Pope emphasized the role of international law. Fine, but who enforces the law? If the only country that actually has the power to enforce law and order (as opposed to those who can and do threaten it) is itself harmed, who can it call on for help? >Your logic is faulty on many counts here firstly the UN fails only through US apathy and secondly 9/11 doesn’t justify pre emptive strikes on whatever country takes your fancy.

Furthermore, "diplomatic pressure" has almost always meant "economic embargo" which the Church has preached is immoral because of the widespread and INDISCRIMINATE harm it does to "the poor" while leaving those in power even more powerful... so what viable alternative is there? The Church has been quiet. It has told us the principles but left the application up to civil authorities...

>Diplomacy is much more complicated than sanctions they are when used effectively and appropriately are but one tool. However the church favoured the use of inspection teams and negotiation. Yes its easier to just roll on in and declare war but the easiest path is not always the right or moral path nor a sustainable one YET THE WAR HAS NOT ESCALATED, the consequences have not been evil in great magnitude Oh so you know what the consequences have been do you. Lets wait and see a year down the track before we start patting ourselves on the back eh.

and indeed the US method of warfare has been anything BUT INDISCRIMINATE! Our bombs were able to blow into and down underneath buildings rather than up and out, we were able to hit tanks under bridges - without harming the bridge! …. >And they explained it all to me on a fox TV news special...apparently smart bombs can tell the differnce between a civiclian and a soldier. Wow believe this drivel as the whole truth and you’re even more indoctrinated than I thought.

Our bypassing of towns and cities made urban warfare moot - and our near bloodless conquest of Baghdad proved that the US military is second to none in that most harrowing of all battlefields.

>Give us a break from your patriotic drivel, it wasn’t a war it was a slaughter I told you so right from day one of the war. The result was a no brainer. Yet you continue to paint the picture of 3 gallant divisions overcoming incredible odds to defeat 12 divisions. You’re in dreamland. Sure the level of resistance was even less that some pundits predicted but it was always going to be a cakewalk in Military terms.

We were attacked. >Yes and the world supported your actions in punishing those who attacked you in Afghanistan. There is no non-US "international police force" which can protect us. >No your military strength dwarfs even the combined strength of ALL of Europe. Its quite simply mind blowing the size of your armed force. This does not reduce the obligation for America to follow international law. We tried diplomacy. >Pull the other one Joe a plan was set in action right from 9/11. The current administration had been looking for an excuse to get rid of Saddam since 1991 but they hadnt been in power. The motivations behind this are many and we wont go there but all we need to know is that GETTING RID OF SADDAM was the goal not liberation of Iraqis or WMD or Terrorism. It merely provided a smokescreen. Saddam was a sitting duck from 9/11 nothing he did or the world did was going to change this fact. Your administration went through the motions, but war was always going to happen

We followed the letter of the Just War theory >! Oh but somehow every expert Catholic theologian not to mention the Pope and all his Bishops interpreted it differently. Your arrogance is incredible! This is a blatant lie justify Americas position if you must but don’t pretend you used the just war theory you’re making a fool of yourself.

and successfully fought a war that was quick and relatively bloodless considering the sheer numbers of men and materiel involved... and we are actively engaged in rebuilding and improving Iraq and Afghanistan AT NO CHARGE TO THEM... actually creating the conditions for tranquility of order...

>Well money would be an important consideration to you wouldn’t it, but lets not fool ourselves the argument is not about outcomes.

and the anti-Bush or anti-US world hates us like hell because we didn't follow their preference or whim or "wishful thinking" and armchair general approach. >Right so the Pope and all the Bishops of the world are anti Bush and anti US? Im dumbfounded. The Pope prayed that the war would be quick - and it was! >Well I don’t know about that I never read the Pope say this but I guess it would make obvious sense that if a war has started for him to wish it to be over quickly I think the miracle of Gulf War 2 is certainly attributable to His intercession as well. >You’re one sick puppy. I know most of the Marines were Catholics and good Protestants who prayed for peace so armed for war. >Ah ha,... right... of course. God was on our side eh; jeez the lunacy of the logic is incredible. Most of them like you saw this as revenge for 9/11 even painting messages to this effect on their bombs and guns. Ignorance truly is bliss.

>Lord give me strength.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 20, 2003.

"We followed the letter of the Just War theory >! Oh but somehow every expert Catholic theologian not to mention the Pope and all his Bishops interpreted it differently. Your arrogance is incredible! This is a blatant lie justify Americas position if you must but don’t pretend you used the just war theory you’re making a fool of yourself."

Kiwi, I know you are an emotional person so I forgive you for resorting to name calling and ad hominem arguments rather than point by point rebuttals.

I also forgive you for accusing me of arrogance and falsehoods.

After all The Catechism of the Catholic Church, and the US Catholic Bishops statement point to the fact that the whole discussion hinges on questions of fact.

Ratzinger pointed to the Catechism.

2308 "All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war. However, as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right to lawful self-defence, once all peace efforts have failed."

This number makes it clear that war may sometimes be necessary. It also posits that it can be legal once all peace-efforts have failed.

But who decides when such peace-efforts have failed Kiwi? World opinion? 3rd party arm-chair generals? Countries with vested oil interests in the Status quo (Syria, France, Russia and China)?

No, the text makes it clear: the country concerned with its own defence makes the call.

CCC 2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigourous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain" [again, KIWI, who makes the call on this? the Pope? the EU? the UN? or the country directly threatened? Terrorism is grave - and with OBL and Al Qaeda, it's certain. If they get hold of Iraqi weapons it would be lasting]

- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective" [ Thus, KIWI, the Church doesn't preach pacifism. Nor do states have go wait until their capital is in flames... all your wacky "alternatives" were impractical and ineffective! again - who makes the call? The Catechism teaches that it's the state that is threatened.]

-There must be serious prospects of success [KIWI, YOU HATE US BECAUSE OF OUR HUGE MILITARY - YET THIS MADE THE WAR A SURE SUCCESS. Based on this condition alone New Zealand will forever be banned from war because the chances of you ever winning one are nil.]

-The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition. [KIWI, this number points to nuclear, chemical and biological weapons - the use of which is always immoral. But this moral condition for just war depends in large degree on one's arsenal. The US didn't use any WMD in Iraq. And our very sophisticated weaponry directly led to FEWER civilian deaths.

CCC 2309 "These are the traditional elements ennumerated in what is called the just war doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the PRUDENTIAL JUDGEMENT OF THOSE WHO HAVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE COMMON GOOD.

CCC 2310 "Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense."

How could the UN be the authority in question if the Catechism CLEARLY STATES, that the public authorities in question are NATIONAl?

And besides, the UN does not have the responsiblity for the common good in ANY nation.

If you have the facts of the case, you can make the prudential decisions as to the morality of an action. If you DO NOT HAVE THE FACTS or your analysis of the outcomes is incorrect, then no matter what authority or prestige or position you have, you are not in a condition to render moral judgement of the case.

You claim to know what the US is really motived by. But you have no proof, just accusations. Accusations Kiwi, are not the same thing as proof. But that's OK, Liberals always confuse the two. You just don't know any better.

You also claim that "top theologians" have cogently argued that this war was unjust. I have read their "arguments" which are really just statements - they make affirmations but not counter-arguments. Thus while you uneducated people take their positions as "arguments" and authoritative teaching, they are really set out as opinions and hence are non-binding.

If you want to Kiwi, compare for us the arugments from Ratzinger and the Pope on the topic of Abortion or the fact that women can not be priests... notice how DIFFERENT the texts are and how differently the documents are set up.

So we're dealing with apples and oranges. Not everything the Vatican says is infallible and not everything the Pope says is morally binding.

Admit it, you just don't like the US or the Bush administration and are fishing for real reasons to justify your hatred. Unable to call us Nazis or Communists or tyrants, you feel satisfied with condeming us guilty of the worst crime: we don't care what opinions the world has about what we should do. But of course, when New Zealand banned nuclear powered ships from your waters, you disdained world opinion - so sometimes countries have to do what they feel is right regardless of other countries' opinion.

You also condemn us for having a huge military - as though it was created for the fun of it instead of as the bulwark of your freedom from the past USSR and communist scourge.

Your final condemnation of me as a person and Bush as a leader is that we are ignorant. Ignorance is as ignorance does Kiwi. I'm far more well read and studied than you. Unlike you I can admit to being wrong as well as notice differences, distinctions, and varying levels of moral discourse and argumentation.

You simply can't accept the fact that Iraqi is better off now than it was before - so you look for some "principled" reason to be mad.

Yet if you were a true defender of the Pope, you'd actually quote him! You'd actually argue based on documents he's written, instead of out-of-context press releases with added editorialized baggage.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 21, 2003.

Pope's Address to the Diplomatic Corp

The Pope's message begins with three focuses for the diplomatic corp. - Say Yes to Life, Respect for Law and Duty of Solidarity. The Pope then goes on to say No to Death, No to Selfishness, and No to War.

The Pope's words are clear - he does not want war in Iraq. He has grave reservations with this course of action. But in the media you don't hear that he states, "war cannot be decided upon...except as the very last option and in accordance with very strict conditions..." The Pope is obviously stating that the Just War Doctrine must be in place with regard to the pending war with Iraq, but he has never stated that this would be an unjust war. He urges and challenges us that war must always be the last resort. Read the Pope's Address to the Diplomatic Corp

all these are so many plagues threatening the suvival of humanity, the peace of individuals and the security of societies.

3. Yet everything can change. It depends on each of us. Everyone can develop within himself his potential for faith, for honesty, for respect of others and for commitment to the service of others.

It also depends, quite obviously, on political leaders, who are called to serve the common good. You will not be surprised if before an assembly of diplomats I state in this regard certain requirements which I believe must be met if entire peoples, perhaps even humanity itself, are not to sink into the abyss.

First, a "YES TO LIFE"! Respect life itself and individual lives: everything starts here, for the most fundamental of human rights is certainly the right to life. Abortion, euthanasia, human cloning, for example, risk reducing the human person to a mere object: life and death to order, as it were! When all moral criteria are removed, scientific research involving the sources of life becomes a denial of the being and the dignity of the person. War itself is an attack on human life since it brings in its wake suffering and death. The battle for peace is always a battle for life!

Next, RESPECT FOR LAW. Life within society – particularly international life – presupposes common and inviolable principles whose goal is to guarantee the security and the freedom of individual citizens and of nations. These rules of conduct are the foundation of national and international stability. Today political leaders have at hand highly relevant texts and institutions. It is enough simply to put them into practice. The world would be totally different if people began to apply in a straightforward manner the agreements already signed!

Finally, the DUTY OF SOLIDARITY. In a world with a superabundance of information, but which paradoxically finds it so difficult to communicate and where living conditions are scandalously unequal, it is important to spare no effort to ensure that everyone feels responsible for the growth and happiness of all. Our future is at stake. An unemployed young person, a handicapped person who is marginalized, elderly people who are uncared for, countries which are captives of hunger and poverty: these situations all too often make people despair and fall prey to the temptation either of closing in on themselves or of resorting to violence.

4. This is why choices need to be made so that humanity can still have a future. Therefore, the peoples of the earth and their leaders must sometimes have the courage to say "No".

"NO TO DEATH"! That is to say, no to all that attacks the incomparable dignity of every human being, beginning with that of unborn children. If life is truly a treasure, we need to be able to preserve it and to make it bear fruit without distorting it. "No" to all that weakens the family, the basic cell of society. "No" to all that destroys in children the sense of striving, their respect for themselves and others, the sense of service.

"NO TO SELFISHNESS"! In other words, to all that impels man to protect himself inside the cocoon of a privileged social class or a cultural comfort which excludes others. The life-style of the prosperous, their patterns of consumption, must be reviewed in the light of their repercussions on other countries. Let us mention for example the problem of water resources, which the United Nations Organization has asked us all to consider during this year 2003. Selfishness is also the indifference of prosperous nations towards nations left out in the cold. All peoples are entitled to receive a fair share of the goods of this world and of the know-how of the more advanced countries. How can we fail to think here, for example, of the access of everyone to generic medicines, needed to continue the fight against current pandemics, an access — alas — often thwarted by short-term economic considerations?

"NO TO WAR"! War is not always inevitable. It is always a defeat for humanity. International law, honest dialogue, solidarity between States, the noble exercise of diplomacy: these are methods worthy of individuals and nations in resolving their differences. I say this as I think of those who still place their trust in nuclear weapons and of the all-too-numerous conflicts which continue to hold hostage our brothers and sisters in humanity. At Christmas, Bethlehem reminded us of the unresolved crisis in the Middle East, where two peoples, Israeli and Palestinian, are called to live side-by-side, equally free and sovereign, in mutual respect. Without needing to repeat what I said to you last year on this occasion, I will simply add today, faced with the constant degeneration of the crisis in the Middle East, that the solution will never be imposed by recourse to terrorism or armed conflict, as if military victories could be the solution. And what are we to say of the threat of a war which could strike the people of Iraq, the land of the Prophets, a people already sorely tried by more than twelve years of embargo? War is never just another means that one can choose to employ for settling differences between nations. As the Charter of the United Nations Organization and international law itself remind us, war cannot be decided upon, even when it is a matter of ensuring the common good, except as the very last option and in accordance with very strict conditions, without ignoring the consequences for the civilian population both during and after the military operations.

5. It is therefore possible to change the course of events, once good will, trust in others, fidelity to commitments and cooperation between responsible partners are allowed to prevail. I shall give two examples.

Today’s Europe, which is at once united and enlarged. Europe has succeeded in tearing down the walls which disfigured her. She has committed herself to planning and creating a new reality capable of combining unity and diversity, national sovereignty and joint activity, economic progress and social justice. This new Europe is the bearer of the values which have borne fruit for two thousand years in an "art" of thinking and living from which the whole world has benefitted. Among these values Christianity holds a privileged position, inasmuch as it gave birth to a humanism which has permeated Europe’s history and institutions. In recalling this patrimony, the Holy See and all the Christian Churches have urged those drawing up the future Constitutional Treaty of the European Union to include a reference to Churches and religious institutions. We believe it desirable that, in full respect of the secular state, three complementary elements should be recognized: religious freedom not only in its individual and ritual aspects, but also in its social and corporative dimensions; the appropriateness of structures for dialogue and consultation between the Governing Bodies and communities of believers; respect for the juridical status already enjoyed by Churches and religious institutions in the Member States of the Union. A Europe which disavowed its past, which denied the fact of religion, and which had no spiritual dimension would be extremely impoverished in the face of the ambitious project which calls upon all its energies: constructing a Europe for all!

Africa too gives us today an occasion to rejoice: Angola has begun its rebuilding; Burundi has taken the path which could lead to peace and expects from the international community understanding and financial aid; the Democratic Republic of Congo is seriously engaged in a national dialogue which should lead to democracy. The Sudan has likewise shown good will, even if the path to peace remains long and arduous. We should of course be grateful for these signs of progress and we should encourage political leaders to spare no effort in ensuring that, little by little, the peoples of Africa experience the beginnings of pacification and thus of prosperity, safe from ethnic struggles, caprice and corruption. For this reason we can only deplore the grave incidents which have rocked Côte-d’Ivoire and the Central African Republic, while inviting the people of those countries to lay down their arms, to respect their respective constitutions and to lay the foundations for national dialogue. It will then be easy to involve all the elements of the national community in planning a society in which everyone finds a place. Furthermore, we do well to note that Africans are increasingly trying to find the solutions best suited to their problems, thanks to the activity of the African Union and effective forms of regional mediation.

6. Your Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, it is vital to note that the independence of States can no longer be understood apart from the concept of interdependence. All States are interconnected both for better and for worse. For this reason, and rightly so, we must be able to distinguish good from evil and call them by their proper names. As history has taught us time and time again, it is when doubt or confusion about what is right and wrong prevails that the greatest evils are to be feared.

If we are to avoid descending into chaos, it seems to me that two conditions must be met. First, we must rediscover within States and between States the paramount value of the natural law, which was the source of inspiration for the rights of nations and for the first formulations of international law. Even if today some people question its validity, I am convinced that its general and universal principles can still help us to understand more clearly the unity of the human race and to foster the development of the consciences both of those who govern and of those who are governed. Second, we need the persevering work of Statesmen who are honest and selfless. In effect, the indispensable professional competence of political leaders can find no legitimation unless it is connected to strong moral convictions. How can one claim to deal with world affairs without reference to this set of principles which is the basis of the "universal common good" spoken of so eloquently by Pope John XXIII in his Encyclical Pacem in Terris? It will always be possible for a leader who acts in accordance with his convictions to reject situations of injustice or of institutional corruption, or to put an end to them. It is precisely in this, I believe, that we rediscover what is today commonly called "good governance". The material and spiritual well-being of humanity, the protection of the freedom and rights of the human person, selfless public service, closeness to concrete conditions: all of these take precedence over every political project and constitute a moral necessity which in itself is the best guarantee of peace within nations and peace between States.

So KIWI, are you prepared to accept ALL OF THE POPE'S TEACHINGS OR JUST THE ONE'S YOU LIKE?

I am. Unlike you, though, I am able to understand the core issues, define terms, make proper distinctions and above all, not substitute pre-chewed slogans for my own reasoning.

For fun, KIWI, why don't you visit www.catholicjustwar.org

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 21, 2003.

THE POPE SAYS "Second, we need the persevering work of Statesmen who are honest and selfless. In effect, the indispensable professional competence of political leaders can find no legitimation unless it is connected to strong moral convictions. How can one claim to deal with world affairs without reference to this set of principles which is the basis of the "universal common good"

His teaching thus makes it clear that politicians such as Bill Clinton - universally loved abroad but who never had more than 50% approval here in the USA - was not a good leader.

He also makes clear that those politicians whose moral lives and positions leave much to be desired should not be elected to high authority. Yet, in the last Presidential debates, most "sophisticates" laughed at the idea that private morality had anything to do with foreign policy or being a good President.

So most Bush-haters and anti-USA ideologues condemn him and the US as immoral because of a suposed "ignorance" or stupidity. But he is not immoral. Apparently Clinton was preferrable to most BECAUSE he was immoral! AMAZING.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 21, 2003.

In my continued effort to enlighten those who choose to guide their lives based on passion, emotion, and irrational allegiance to slogan such as "no blood for oil" or "it's the economy, stupid", I have posted below the classic CATHOLIC argument for just war.

St. Thomas Aquinas: Summa Theologica Objection 1. It would seem that it is always sinful to wage war. Because punishment is not inflicted except for sin. Now those who wage war are threatened by Our Lord with punishment, according to Mt. 26:52: "All that take the sword shall perish with the sword." Therefore all wars are unlawful.

Objection 2. Further, whatever is contrary to a Divine precept is a sin. But war is contrary to a Divine precept, for it is written (Mt. 5:39): "

But I say to you not to resist evil"; and (Rm. 12:19): "Not revenging yourselves, my dearly beloved, but give place unto wrath." Therefore war is always sinful.

Objection 3. Further, nothing, except sin, is contrary to an act of virtue.

But war is contrary to peace. Therefore war is always a sin.

Objection 4. Further, the exercise of a lawful thing is itself lawful, as is evident in scientific exercises. But warlike exercises which take place in tournaments are forbidden by the Church, since those who are slain in these trials are deprived of ecclesiastical burial. Therefore it seems that war is a sin in itself.

On the contrary, Augustine says in a sermon on the son of the centurion [Ep. ad Marcel. cxxxviii]: "If the Christian Religion forbade war altogether, those who sought salutary advice in the Gospel would rather have been counselled to cast aside their arms, and to give up soldiering altogether. On the contrary, they were told: 'Do violence to no man . . . and be content with your pay' [Lk. 3:14. If he commanded them to be content with their pay, he did not forbid soldiering."

I answer that, In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary. First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged. For it is not the business of a private individual to declare war, because he can seek for redress of his rights from the tribunal of his superior. Moreover it is not the business of a private individual to summon together the people, which has to be done in wartime. And as the care of the common weal is committed to those who are in authority, it is their business to watch over the common weal of the city, kingdom or province subject to them. And just as it is lawful for them to have recourse to the sword in defending that common weal against internal disturbances, when they punish evil-doers, according to the words of the Apostle (Rm. 13:4): "He beareth not the sword in vain: for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil"; so too, it is their business to have recourse to the sword of war in defending the common weal against external enemies. Hence it is said to those who are in authority (Ps. 81:4): "Rescue the poor: and deliver the needy out of the hand of the sinner"; and for this reason Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 75): "The natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority."

Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault. Wherefore Augustine says (QQ. in Hept., qu. x, super Jos.): "A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly."

Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil. Hence Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. [The words quoted are to be found not in St. Augustine's works, but Can. Apud. Caus. xxiii, qu. 1): "True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandizement, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good." For it may happen that the war is declared by the legitimate authority, and for a just cause, and yet be rendered unlawful through a wicked intention. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 74): "The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war."

Reply to Objection 1. As Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 70): "To take the sword is to arm oneself in order to take the life of anyone, without the command or permission of superior or lawful authority." On the other hand, to have recourse to the sword (as a private person) by the authority of the sovereign or judge, or (as a public person) through zeal for justice, and by the authority, so to speak, of God, is not to "take the sword," but to use it as commissioned by another, wherefore it does not deserve punishment. And yet even those who make sinful use of the sword are not always slain with the sword, yet they always perish with their own sword, because, unless they repent, they are punished eternally for their sinful use of the sword.

Reply to Objection 2. Such like precepts, as Augustine observes (De Serm. Dom. in Monte i, 19), should always be borne in readiness of mind, so that we be ready to obey them, and, if necessary, to refrain from resistance or self-defense. Nevertheless it is necessary sometimes for a man to act otherwise for the common good, or for the good of those with whom he is fighting. Hence Augustine says (Ep. ad Marcellin. cxxxviii): "Those whom we have to punish with a kindly severity, it is necessary to handle in many ways against their will. For when we are stripping a man of the lawlessness of sin, it is good for him to be vanquished, since nothing is more hopeless than the happiness of sinners, whence arises a guilty impunity, and an evil will, like an internal enemy."

Reply to Objection 3. Those who wage war justly aim at peace, and so they are not opposed to peace, except to the evil peace, which Our Lord "came not to send upon earth" (Mt. 10:34). Hence Augustine says (Ep. ad Bonif. clxxxix): "We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace. Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may vanquish those whom you war against, and bring them to the prosperity of peace."

Reply to Objection 4. Manly exercises in warlike feats of arms are not all forbidden, but those which are inordinate and perilous, and end in slaying or plundering. On olden times warlike exercises presented no such danger, and hence they were called "exercises of arms" or "bloodless wars," as Jerome states in an epistle [Reference incorrect: cf. Veget., De Re Milit. i].

The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas Second and Revised Edition, 1920 Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province Online Edition Copyright © 2002 by Kevin Knight

Nihil Obstat. F. Innocentius Apap, O.P., S.T.M., Censor. Theol. Imprimatur. Edus. Canonicus Surmont, Vicarius Generalis. Westmonasterii. APPROBATIO ORDINIS Nihil Obstat. F. Raphael Moss, O.P., S.T.L. and F. Leo Moore, O.P., S.T.L. Imprimatur. F. Beda Jarrett, O.P., S.T.L., A.M., Prior Provincialis Angliæ TAKEN FROM: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/304001.htm

SO, KIWI, If you think I'm a liar, or ignorant, or stupid, because I argue from actual texts, and base my position on clear Catholic precedent and moral argumentation you should ask yourself why those "churchmen" you believe don't use argumentation but instead simply make statements and affirmations - without proof, without argumentation, without evidence that what they fear or think is actually reflective of the reality of the situation.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 21, 2003.

Dear Joe.

Your theology is so appalling you couldn’t even find one theologian who would agree with you yet alone a Bishop. Even Micheal Novak (the well know American dissenter of the past) who leads the “Catholic“ pro war argument would would laugh at you …read what he says before you make more of a clown out of yourself . The only basis he could come up with justification of this war was that it was a continuation of Gulf War 1 in effect the same war! Slightly different to your home spun theology but just as faulty.

Your typical reasoning .. AMerica alone have the FACTS and KNOWLEDGE” all others are in the dark, all opposition is “emotional not rational” is just as crude and simplistic. And I have encountered this from many arrogant athiests before. More on that later ....

The Church is well aware of the FACTS as are many of the nations of the world in including members of the security council. But theres no stopping your bulldozer ride, I do hope you find gainful employment try the State department or let me guess youre already working for them? If so I hope for your long suffering workmates a paino is dropped on you from a great height…. Jokes ;-)

A simple and obvious contridiction (one of many but Im sqeezed for time) to your inane theology is this; The doctrine of "pre-emption" does not require a demonstrable threat, merely that the US believes there is one. There is no proof required, no provision for discussion with the accused country, no deference to any sort of world body. Mr Bush means to be prosecutor, judge and executioner in his own right.

I could continue but I have a job and the the poof is above you in the words of the Pope, the Vatican and the Bishops I provided, (for more proof read here . http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch- msg.tcl?msg_id=00AedJ)

As for my motivations....

“a truth that’s told with bad intent beats all the lies you can invent.” ;-) Face it GI no one in the Church agrees with your tripe as much as you twist it. Chow.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 21, 2003.

Right. get mad. Call me names. Wish that harm may come to me. Then tell yourself that you are right, that YOUR moral argument holds water. that every country should only obey the UN - and whatever the UN says is good, is good, because the UN says so...

Saying my theology is appalling and proving it so are two very different things KIWI.

It's a proven fact - by events - that the Vatican supposed that the oil wells would be blown up, that the Muslims would rise up in total war, that terrorism would explode and all hell break loose... that thousands if not millions of civilians would die...

And so, basing itself on these suppositions it condemned any military action.

But none of these dire consequences have come to pass. Instead every day we hear more and more immoral practices and devices unearthed in Iraq: a prison filled with little kids, 1000 tombs of political prisoners, shot or hanged, chemical precursors to WMD found buried, schools and hospitals used for military depots against all conventions of war, millions in US Cash in this country where children starved... and what do you say to all this KIWI? YOu say the war was "unjust" that it was "for the oil", that it's all for nought....

Instead of admitting you and your ilk were wrong in your doom and gloom, you hate and shoot the messenger.

Instead of admitting that you underestimated the evil of Saddam and exaggerated the potential for bloodshed, while simultanteously giving a free check to the UN which did NOTHING to alleviate poverty and injustice in Iraq....you complain about the only country that DOES do something to change the status quo.

This inability to accept responsiblity for mistakes, to admit that you were wrong, to try to find someway to condemn those who followed their conscience, argued correctly based on fact and not fiction, will only tie you in knots.

May God be merciful on New Zealand when the Chinese come for you....I think the US will probably let the UN handle that little one.... maybe as long as the Security Council gives them the green light a communist occupation of the islands will be moral huh?

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 21, 2003.

No proof? KIWI, what do you live on an Island or something? Oh sorry, right, of course you do! ;-)

No proof? Or do you mean, no proof that even the Europeans who couldn't spot genocide when it happened next door, could avoid recognizing?

Rwanda, 1994. 500,000 people get killed with machine guns, fire, and machetes... it takes the UN 5 years to admit "oops, it WAS genocide".

Typical. Keep asking for proof until the problem cures itself! or all those involved die of old age.

Right now we're finding all the proof we said existed. We're finding the chemicals and secret labs, the terrorist camps, the links to international terrorism, the illegal oil pipelines to Syria (remember that little fictional UN run "oil for food: program that let Saddam control the Iraqi economy and skim off the top for his military programs? Of course not. You don't read the news.

We're finding all the French, German, Russian, and Chinese connections - the military hardware produced in France and Russia that "somehow" got in through the supposedly "air-tight" embargo.

We're finding scientists who admit to working on banned weapons...

Of course, none of this proof will be good enough for you. YOu don't need any proof because for you the war was "unjust"- hell, according to your idea of proof we can't even prove that Saddam WASN'T A SAINT.

I suppose you don't believe in the holocaust or Soviet Gulags either because evidence didn't leak out unil after those regimes fell?

Judging from your concept and threshold of proof, there's no way that you could prove that New Zealand even exists! Maps? fabricated! photos? taken from Australia! Satellite photos? Doctored! eye witnesses? liars all liars!

The USA has the proof and it doesn't matter. You hate us because we did what we had to do - while the world was hoping we'd loose somehow. No one is hated more than the one who is right and sticks to his guns, does the right thing and poo poo's the naysayers.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 21, 2003.

Kiwi - some friendly advice mate, hang it up. Your comments lack logic, fact and reason. Joe has checkmated you seven ways to Sunday. If you're not man enough to admit you were wrong, then at least be silent about it. Find another channel to vent your hatred for the U.S. You got to know when to hold 'em, and when to fold 'em. You don't even have a pair of three's pal... I'd suggest folding...

-- Bob M (itsallgood777@hotmail.com), April 21, 2003.

Hey Joe Im dropping out of this debate.Ive made all the points I want to make. All your new posts have been covered before and your generalisations about my personal feelings on war and AMerica are grossly exaggerated at best. No offence taken from my smartarse quips I hope ..Alls fair in love and war eh.

Cheers

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 21, 2003.

Oh my "mini me" has appeared again! Like a dung beetle appearing from a heaving steaming pile of excrement so too we are blessed with the unwelcome paranoia of Bob. His thought processes reflect his christian name; common, short and simple. You need to get out more Bob, and I dont mean just from the trailer park. Theres a big ol world beyond the 24/7...Lord give me strength.....

Bye Bye Bob

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 21, 2003.

Kiwi - I'm not interested in exchanging insults with you fyi (as tempting as it may be). I was merely taking exception with much if not most of what you have written. Adieu adieu.

-- Bob M (itsallgood777@hotmail.com), April 22, 2003.

Kiwi writes: "The doctrine of 'pre-emption' does not require a demonstrable threat, merely that the US believes there is one. There is no proof required, no provision for discussion with the accused country, no deference to any sort of world body. Mr Bush means to be prosecutor, judge and executioner in his own right."

To this, Joe replies: "No proof? KIWI, what do you live on an Island or something? [etc.] ..."

Kiwi wants proof, but I'll bet he already has plenty of 151 proof (e.g., Ron Rico) on hand (if not sloshing around inside him).

[I wasn't going to let loose with this little barb until I saw Kiwi's outrageous slam on Bob M -- a gent who was so kind that he gave the pacifist a free pass.]
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), April 22, 2003.

Piss off John, no one asked for your opinion and I have specificaly asked you to keep your warped views away from my threads.

"Bob" (Joe?) is a big boy, although Im sure you can kiss him better, watch out Bob, John will enjoy it more than you could ever imagine, hes one twisted man.

Yes he did the right thing in not carrying on the sillyness and I applaud him for that but it didnt require you poking your nose in.

"You bet" wrongly that Id had a few drinks, "I bet", rightly youve been beating your wife and abusing all the local neighbourhood children.

Get lost pervert.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 23, 2003.

Kiwi - easy there... You're way out of bounds. It's one thing to disagree with someone, tell them you think their reasoning is faulty, doesn't hold water, etc. and it's quite another to go down the road of fabricating slanderous and ridiculous insults. While I don't know John personally, it's obvious to me that he is a reasonable and intelligent man with character. Your accusations and insinuations have no foundation and are ludicrous.

-- Bob M (itsallgood777@hotmail.com), April 23, 2003.

Unlike you, KIWI, I don't hide behind some fake nom de plume.

My name is Joe. I never post as Bob.

I don't question your honesty either. I don't run around thinking that "Kiwi" isn't that "guy from New Zealand".

Let's keep this real. There is no reason we have to be enemies or wish ill befall on each other.

-- joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 23, 2003.

"Let's keep this real. There is no reason we have to be enemies or wish ill befall on each other."

Sure thing Joe I mean neither of you two any real offence, sorry Bob.

John lives by the sword so....

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 23, 2003.

Kiwi,
Sorry if I was wrong to think that you were "under the influence" this time. You have admitted it several times in the past, so I made that assumption. (I also said that it was a "barb" -- and a much milder one than yours to good Bob ["heaving steaming pile of excrement"].)

You stated: "I have specificaly asked you to keep your warped views away from my threads."
No, you did not make that request of me, but if you had, I would have ignored it, because, at this forum, there is no such thing as "my threads." All threads are open to all people (except those who are banned).

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 24, 2003.

I must say I am really disappointed about the way this thread has gone. I guess that's what they say about talking about politics and religion.

Anyway Joe, I think your justification for the attack on Iraq weak. One cannot use self-defence as an excuse after all there were inspectors inside Iraq so it was impossible for any attack to be launched without the rest of the world knowing long in advance. Even so what were they to attack with, even now, no weapons of any real significance has been found.

Secondly to claim that only the USA has the power to defend itself is false. Take away the USA and the world has a much more balanced distribution of power. So in fact what we have today is not a balance of power but a sort of God-Father. (Not unlike Al Capone who was good to his own but ruthless to others).

You are right, those who by their inaction perpetuates injustice is no peaccemaker. But injustice does not reside in Iraq only or even moreso than in USA. Everyone of us who lives in unnecessary luxury perpetuates the grave injustice that kills millions each year through starvation and disease and our apathy and love of comfort blinds us from their plight.

Do not presume that USA acts on God's behalf. In Jesus's day there was a lot of social injustice. But he saw that one cannot force or legislate people to be good one can only try to inspire them to find their own strength. And that means one must try to understand the people and their culture. What US/UK did and are still doing is tyring to impose their standards on Iraq. That cannot bring about lasting change. It can only destroy them. Because you see, the horrors of capitalism in the West is balanced by its culture, tradition and legal system. When capitalism is trust upon Iraq as it was in Russia, what would balance it?

The war was unjust by all logical reasons. (1) The difference in military might was too great and the onus is always on the strong to protect the weak and not start a fight. (2) In modern history 12 years is no time for diplomacy or sanctions. The Israel/Palestine conflict and the Irish conflict are over 30 years old. Apatheid took decades to dismantle. Cuba's sanctions have lasted over 30 years and for what reason? Injustice flourishes all around us but we cannot start a war because we do not like the nation's politics. (3) The doctrine of pre-emptive strike is untenable as a justification for war especially in the hands of the most powerful nation. It is equivalent to a dictatorship (even if you believe it to be a benevolent dictatorship), that threatens force whenever discissions go against them.

Please lets not leave our common sense at the door because we are considering an emotive topic.

God Bless.

-- Angelo (anglead56@hotmail.com), April 28, 2003.

Angelo,

You do well to heed your own advice I dare say, namely not leaving common sense at the door...

I'm sure Joe will answer your comments made directly to him, but I'd like to chime in as well. His justification is anything but weak. It is logical, well reasoned, factual and consistent with Church doctrine and teaching. Self defense is one of many tenets advanced, and to suggest that the presence of inspectors would prevent the use of WMD to be used and/or sold/transferred by Iraq is utterly naive and flat out false. As for the fact that "no weapons of any real significance has been found" just yet, what did you expect? Good grief, fighting has unofficially subsided for all of two weeks or so. Inspectors in the 90's took 4+ years before they found anything. Relax, proof will come indeed in a matter of weeks/months, but certainly less than 4 years.

Your statement about the USA not having the right/power to defend itself lacks all logic and common sense. As for the Al Capone analogy, save it. Never in the history of the world has there been a nation so powerful intent on doing so much good. Not perfect, but "ruthless to others", come now, find another channel to vent your anti-American rhetoric please. Were we ruthless to the good people of Afghanistan? Kuwait? Bosnia? Kosovo? Has our behavior/conduct been "ruthless" to the good people of Iraq? Another baseless contention lacking common sense...

Unnecessary luxury? Whose to say what is necessary? Shame on the rich for working hard and accumulating wealth? There are a good many wealthy people who are very benevolent you know... Let's let God be the judge here. Nobody said that Iraq is the sole place where injustice exists. Why change the subject? The injustice that has taken place in Iraq in recent years is signficant - FACT...

Who said anything about forcing people to be good? All we are trying to do is ensure that the people of Iraq have the opportunity to live in freedom in a civilized manner, whereby the rights of minorities are protected and religious freedom is allowed. Instead, you categorize this as a Western agenda riddle with evil capitalism! "That cannot bring about lasting change. It can only destroy them." Take a look at Germany and Japan my friend. Is that lasting change? Are those people better off today than 50 years ago? Uhhhhhh, let me help you here, the answer is unequivocably YES!!!

Your statements are anything but logical. The fact that the Coalition of the Willing (led by the US) represent a might military force means that we should stand idly by while rogue nations that support, sponsor and engage in terrorism accumulate and manufacture weapons of mass destruction which it has used on both its neighbors and its own people? Logical, come now, hardly... We did not start a war because "we do not like the nation's politics". You would serve yourself by doing a little more homework than spewing utterly false propoganda.

Common sense? I'm all for it. I'd encourage you to try it on for size...

God bless.

-- Bob M (itsallgood777@hotmail.com), April 28, 2003.

The amazing thing about all of this is that while it may strengthen the Church in Europe (where the sentiment is to collectivism of nations and peace at any price, as long as they themselves want it), but it's driving more and more of us American Catholics away.

I'm one of them. Count me in the long ranks of non-practicing. I simply can't abide the politics of the Pope, nor can I seperate the clergy (who are lock-step with the Pope for obvious reasons) who would imply the only Just Wars are those that have UN or EU blessings.

Perhaps when there is a new Pope I'll return.

While no man is the Church, the Pope speaks for the Church. And in this one he stood for maintaining tyranny, whatever the reasoning behind it, in an aggressive and unsolicited manner.

-- Frank G (gigerfr@bellsouth.net), May 01, 2003.

Jmj

Frank G, you are not doing the right thing.

You wrote of "more and more of us American Catholics [being driven] away. I'm one of them. Count me in the long ranks of non-practicing. I simply can't abide the politics of the Pope ..."

The pope does not have "politics." He teaches religious truths that are without error. He (or some other bishop of the world) has the right (and sometimes the duty) to apply general moral truths to specific modern-day scenarios, resulting in a definitive and binding ruling or a non-binding personal opinion on the morality or appropriateness of a past or proposed action.

We Catholics have no right whatsoever to abandon the Church that Jesus founded -- or even to become "non-practicing," simply because a ruling or opinion by the pope or a bishop irritates us.
We must remain in the Catholic Church, and we must "practice" our faith in visible ways (including attendance at Mass every Sunday) -- under pain of mortal sin. If you suddently get killed in an accident tomorrow, don't expect to get into heaven on the excuse that you "c[ould]n't abide the politics of the Pope."

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 02, 2003.

Dear Frank,

If politics is the focus of your faith, there is really no point in returning. The politics will be there whether you participate in God's Church or not. However, your salvation may not be. Going on a spiritual hunger strike over political ideals makes no sense at all, except for someone who is oblivious to the whole concept of The Church. And in that case, as I said, there is little point in going through the motions.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 02, 2003.

"He teaches religious truths that are without error."

So when the Pope stood against the liberation of Iraq solely because the UN didn't back it he was speaking big T Truth?

So we can add in to the Just War theory "only when the UN approves?"

Is anti-Americanism now the Cannon of the Church? Unless, of course, Chirac and Shroeder say it's okay?

When the Pope entered into the fray, he crossed into politics, including giving personal rebukes to national leaders. This is not philosophical teaching - it's direct political intervention, and nothing less.

The Pope sided with some members of the UN and used the trappings of the Church to do it - expanding the Just War theory from multi- national to UN specifically.

I worry about my soul if I follow the teachings of a man that would prefer sanctions that starve the poor while they are terrorized by a tyrant than freeing them, for I can not reconcile the sin of omission that is doing nothing to end evil.

-- Frank G (gigerfr@bellsouth.net), May 02, 2003.

"Going on a spiritual hunger strike over political ideals makes no sense at all, except for someone who is oblivious to the whole concept of The Church."

Sorry for the double post, but there is no edit function here.

My "political ideals" are in synch with my "whole concept of The Church," unless, of course, ending suffering of people is no longer a concept.

Or stepping in to end tyranny isn't a concept The Church can condone.

Or acting without the blessings of the UN isn't a concept The Church can condone.

It's arrogant in the extreme to tell someont they're "oblivious to the whole concept of The Church," as you know neither my background nor my training.

And it further shows that The Church is more and more filled with sanctimonious jerks that discount serious viewpoints plainly stated who cannot respond with more than accustations of ignorance.

-- Frank G (gigerfr@bellsouth.net), May 02, 2003.

Dear Frank--
I disagreed with our Pope about this war. my wife felt, ''OK--But he's the only Vicar of Christ!''

And I agree; but he isn't OF the world. He's ''in the world, but not of the world.''

He has no realistic way of knowing all there is about the Middle East. Naturally, as a non-combatant and pacifist, it appalls him to think of the Holy Land in flames. It simply scared him.

This is a temporal domain, and the u.S. has been ATTACKED very viciously and unjustly by Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. It is no mystery why our government sees it from another point of view than the Pope's. He overstepped.

Our Holy Father's domain is the Church; and what is commonly known as humanitarian involvement, Christian charity. Fine. He tried his best; with the grace God gave Him. But in no way could he foresee there would NOT be any apocalyptic disaster. He only feared there would be.

He had no spies, no operatives or trusted allies to help him foresee how a just war was not only possible, but entirely necessary, knowing what we knew. Nor could he accuratlely estimate the diabolical nature of the Saddam Hussein dictatorship, & its barbarous atrocities now at an end.--All this is what I said to my wife.

But to YOU, I would say, pray for our Holy Father. It's not for us to compel him to our way of thinking. He is old and carries a cross. If you leave the Holy Catholic Church, you add weight to that already heavy cross; because you demand perfection. Remember what Our Lord warned: ''Behold, there is a beam in thine own eye;'' (Matt 7 :4) in our Pope's eye it was truly just a speck. He has done no one harm. For you to abandon your faith on account of this, doesn't fit the crime, Frank. --Get real!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 02, 2003.

Hi Eugene,

A few quick points for your comment if you may

He has no realistic way of knowing all there is about the Middle East.

>No single country, organisation or person has a "realistic way of knowing ALL there there is about the Middle East". That includes AMerica.

Naturally, as a non-combatant and pacifist, >Clearly the Pope is a non combatant, but is he strictly a pacifist? Does he reject war as NEVER being an option, although I think he has said war is never a victory? I thought he has said that engagement in war may be justified in certain circumstances, under strict moral conditions and only as a last resort, in order to protect the innocent or to restore justice. it appalls him to think of the Holy Land in flames.

>I think that is a fair asumption

It simply scared him.

>Im not so sure Pope John PaulII is as "simple" as that.

This is a temporal domain, and the u.S. has been ATTACKED very viciously and unjustly by Islamic fundamentalist terrorists.

>The church would agree with that. I believe the war in Afganistan would be justified under Catholic morality, but Iraq is neither an Islamic state nor a fundamentalist State nor did it attack AMerica.

It is no mystery why our government sees it from another point of view than the Pope's. No mystery at all, at least not to me :-)! Although I wont upset you with a disscussion on such motivations!

He overstepped.

>Yes he did... I presume youre talking about Dubbya and wouldnt dare to suggest the Pope has "overstepped"?

Our Holy Father's domain is the Church; and what is commonly known as humanitarian involvement, Christian charity. Fine.

>I think limiting the churchs moral role according to suit any political agenda you may hold is anything but "fine".

He tried his best; with the grace God gave Him.

>Patronising the Pope now eh?

But in no way could he foresee there would NOT be any apocalyptic disaster. He only feared there would be.

>I cant recall him saying " there is NO WAY I can forsee this war in Iraq NOt being an apolcalyptic disater", perhaps you could tell me where you read this?

He had no spies, no operatives or trusted allies to help him foresee how a just war was not only possible,

>This, to use a Bushism "misunderestimates" the Pope and the Vatican IMO.

but entirely necessary, knowing what we knew.

Yes and what did you know? Zilch, zero, nothing apart from you knew that you had the means and the willingness to pre emptively strike at a country which could pose a threat to you some time in the future. Lets make it clear Iraq posed no immient direct threat to anyone least of all AMerica. Other nations on the security council were privy to "what you knew" as well as smaller allies. Most of them rejected war as unjust also, despite huge econmomic/political costs in taking the morally correct path.

Nor could he accuratlely estimate the diabolical nature of the Saddam Hussein dictatorship, & its barbarous atrocities now at an end.

>The Pope was well aware of the nature of Saddams dictatorship.

I saw a fascinating documentary on Bush which was made by a young woman ALexander someone I forgot her surname, dont know if youve seen it. She is part of the press corp that travels everywhere with him and she made this documentary on the campaign trail leading up to his election for over a year. ANyway it was really intresting, and personal...George is actually alright!

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), May 02, 2003.

Dear Kiwi,
Today I saw the disgraceful postings of my friend, disgusting, as you must confess; for which he had no excuse. If now he returns to his senses, that does not for a moment give him license to lecture an American citizen. It's presumptuous of anybody, French, German, Mexican, or Kiwi to lecture our people for sakes of a mythical high road which you fancy you have taken.

Our government does know more about the Middle East than you or our Holy Father; our country makes it our business to know. It is (and must be) in the interests of U.S. national security to reconnoiter, perceive and judge what may serve that national security. Which-- has been duly taken care of.

Last time I looked at world news, no citizens of New Zealand were observed jumping for their lives out of burning skyscrapers; under assault by Muslim fanatics in airliners carrying other Kiwis to their deaths in the bargain. It's fine to play the cosmopolitan peacemaker, kneeling at the feet of Kofi Annan, for whatever superiority that affords a neutral and indifferent society in NZ.

I have no obligation as an American to apologise to the so-called United Nations. Maybe to John Paul II, for disregarding his holy qualms. But not the UNO, and certainly not New Zealand. We are a sovereign nation and our President is a world Leader. Understand?

A LEADER, not a chump; as many had underestimated. PM Blair was also brave and wise through all this difficulty with the so-called allies. He is a GAMER, Mate! If you wish to disparage Big Nations in our western society, pick France-- or Belgium. In whose green fields lie buried thousands of English & Yanks that recently enough came to their rescue during a REAL apocalypse. These graves are proof to you & the ''peacemakers'' that no horror frightens us, if evil is to be crushed anywhere in the world. God gave us that right; and permitted our freedom to exercise that right. Diplomacy was prolonged and it FAILED. Not on account of our willing coalition's failure, but by constant interference of nations who have NEVER sacrificed a man for the common good. They take-- but they hardly ever contribute. New Zealand has given more help in past than France or Belgium.

Germany; no one has to explain to you. Shame on them, and shame on you for playing loose and easy with the lives of thousands of Americans. It may one day visit your house. Then you will surely hope America pulls your chestnuts out of that fire. I'll pray you never see the day, Kiwi.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 03, 2003.

Jmj
Hello Frank G.

You correctly quoted me as having said, "[The pope] teaches religious truths that are without error."
To this you responded, "So when the Pope stood against the liberation of Iraq solely because the UN didn't back it he was speaking big T Truth?"

The pope did NOT "st[and] against the liberation of Iraq". On the other hand, what he did say was not an example of "teach[ing] religious truths." Rather it was the output of his best attempt "to apply general moral truths to specific modern-day scenarios" -- which was the other thing I told you last time. [How did you miss it?] In this case, what the pope said was "a non-binding personal opinion on the morality or appropriateness of a past or proposed action" -- another thing that I told you last time!

You wrote: "So we can add in to the Just War theory 'only when the UN approves?'"
I never said that. Why put words in my mouth?

You wrote: "Is anti-Americanism now the Cannon of the Church? Unless, of course, Chirac and Shroeder say it's okay?"
I never said that either. Please take control of your emotions and thoughts.

You wrote: "When the Pope entered into the fray, he crossed into politics, including giving personal rebukes to national leaders. This is not philosophical teaching - it's direct political intervention, and nothing less."
You are not telling the truth. The pope did not "rebuke national leaders." He tried to apply religious principles. He did the best he could. That is all. You are not required to agree with his opinion. You have come completely discombobulated, because you listened to people who wrongly demanded that you agree with an opinion that you were sure was wrong.

So, Frank G, I say again ... You are never required to agree with a prudential judgment. But you may NOT desert the Catholic Church if you disagree.

OK? OK.
God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 04, 2003.

Amen, and BRAVO -- Gene!
BRAVISIMO!
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 04, 2003.

Hey Gene very very quickly Ive got 2 mins here

Dear Kiwi, Today I saw the disgraceful postings of my friend, disgusting, as you must confess; for which he had no excuse. If now he returns to his senses, that does not for a moment give him license to lecture an American citizen.

>Im not sure who or what you are talking about.

It's presumptuous of anybody, French, German, Mexican, or Kiwi to lecture our people for sakes of a mythical high road which you fancy you have taken.

>Im not lecturing anyone, surely I'm able to hold a different view than you though... hang on sounds like I am not!

Our government does know more about the Middle East than you or our Holy Father; our country makes it our business to know.

>Never said otherwise, although its foolish to presume you hold the whole truth or ALL the facts.

It is (and must be) in the interests of U.S. national security to reconnoiter, perceive and judge what may serve that national security. Which-- has been duly taken care of.

> Exactly my point all along, however many Catholic Republicans seem to percieve "national self intrest" as being identical to Catholic natural law.

Last time I looked at world news, no citizens of New Zealand were observed jumping for their lives out of burning skyscrapers; under assault by Muslim fanatics in airliners carrying other Kiwis to their deaths in the bargain.

Wrong my dear Gene New Zealanders died in 9/11. ANd if you stppoed for just one second before posting to consider there is a wolrd outside AMerica you may haver remembered another terrorist attack in Bali in which more New Zealanders and many Australians died. Of course it probably didnt make your weekly redneck rag.

It's fine to play the cosmopolitan peacemaker,

Its not fine its your duty under God.

kneeling at the feet of Kofi Annan, for whatever superiority that affords a neutral and indifferent society in NZ.

> AGian Gene the church belives in the United Nations and muitlaterlism. You dont? Fine by me, your a "realist and good for you. Join the realism of the modern world Gene, abortions for all, but dont try and pretend the church supports you.

I have no obligation as an American to apologise to the so-called United Nations.

>Sorry? In relation to what?

Maybe to John Paul II, for disregarding his holy qualms.

>Finally a small admission of overstepping

But not the UNO, and certainly not New Zealand. We are a sovereign nation and our President is a world Leader. Understand?

>Gene stop getting your knickers in a twist and discuss the issues dont make up things, what are you on about. Im not telling you what to do!

A LEADER, not a chump; as many had underestimated. PM Blair was also brave and wise through all this difficulty with the so-called allies. He is a GAMER, Mate! If you wish to disparage Big Nations in our western society, pick France-- or Belgium. In whose green fields lie buried thousands of English & Yanks that recently enough came to their rescue during a REAL apocalypse. These graves are proof to you & the ''peacemakers'' that no horror frightens us, if evil is to be crushed anywhere in the world. God gave us that right; and permitted our freedom to exercise that right. Diplomacy was prolonged and it FAILED. Not on account of our willing coalition's failure, but by constant interference of nations who have NEVER sacrificed a man for the common good. They take-- but they hardly ever contribute. New Zealand has given more help in past than France or Belgium.

Germany; no one has to explain to you. Shame on them, and shame on you for playing loose and easy with the lives of thousands of Americans. It may one day visit your house. Then you will surely hope America pulls your chestnuts out of that fire. I'll pray you never see the day, Kiwi.

>Bla bla more politcal hot air, for which there is just as much liberal political hot airr. Ive heard it all before havent got time tyo anser all this politcial stuff Ive been doing this with Joe for about 2 months, youve clearly been away.

Listen Gene you didnt anser any of my questions or provide a rational reasonable answer. Stop huffing and puffing and take a deep[ breath. You might do youreslf a serious injury.

God Bless

-- Kiwi (csiherwood@hotmail.com), May 04, 2003.

Kiwi: Your first query-- Talking about you, who did you think?

I'm able to hold a different view than you though...

It's not welcome; keep your view.

Catholic Republicans (Good for them!)

seem to perceive national self interest as identical to Catholic natural law.''

Identical, bull chips; What's ''nat'l ''self'' interest? Is it national or is it self? Lost in translation; from fussy female leftist to male, grown-up rationale. You are spouting self, not I.

''Of course it probably didnt make your weekly redneck rag,'' I read the Bali news; it appalled our nation too. Happily for the free world, Australia supports the U.S. war in Iraq. Except for malcontents like thee & thy cohorts who allow atrocities with no repercussions to be served their country. You ought to stand up for your country. Be a Tazmanian devil. Not a UNO parasite.

''Its not fine its your duty under God.''

God favors the Just over the Unjust, while you would let atrocities visit disaster on innocents. All for ''peace''. An Idiot's ''duty''.

--Kneeling at the feet of Kofi Annan, for whatever superiority that affords a neutral and indifferent society in NZ.-- ''Again, Gene the Church believes in the United Nations and multilaterlism--'' What has the UN ever done for our Church? Support abortion on demand? Give condoms to the Africans? Give Idi Amin a chair in the world community? Stop genocide in Rwanda?

Multilateralism is just a word for letting tyrants object when a curb is put on them. We aren't happy with Orwellian words of that kind. Eat your heart out, Son.

''--getting your knickers in a twist'' --You can kiss my knickers, Bleeding Heart.

''--of my questions, or provide a rational, reasonable answer.'' --What do you think I've been doing? Rejecting YOUR reason-abobble rationalistic leftist, bloody-buggery? Correct, Kiwi. It's what you'll keep getting if you pester me. Ciao & Good sailing.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 04, 2003.

BYE CRUMABA :-)

Looks more serious than I first thought. Take a seat my dear old thing and reach for the oxygen. First John and now Eugene, crikey hope no one calls "age concern" on me.

Listen to the puffed up old badinno, youve gotta love it folks. Gene your political mind was weak a year ago and its much much worse now. My advice is to cut back on such public internet political efforts and share your thoughts with those who will really aprreaciate them. Start with shopkeepers and waitresses.

Im not going down this path of political tit for tat, liberal verus conservative, idealism vs realism, cyncism vs hope, Lord nows I think Joe and I have done that to death. The Churchs position is what this thread is about( and you are badly out of line in regard to the war in Iraq, the role of the UN and mutlilaterism in regard to Papal teachings).

I was merely trying to correct or clarrify some of your unwanted and unnessary political additions to this thread. Your personal political view is as unimportant as mine on a CAtholic forum. I clearly embarrased you in doing so... that was not my intention.

Im not going to fight with you gramps, although a reality check wouldnt hurt you. Take a look in the mirror, yes your body and mind are well past their prime. Like candy from a baby, I couldnt live with myself.

We are all limited by our experiences and worldview and Gene is no exception. Poor guy, a plateful of hot beans, cable tv, a local church, high speed internet and hes happy. Good for him ! Hes living the AMerican dream so many of his country men wish for...

"lifes sooooooooooooo goooooooooooooood amigo, I love ameeeerica".

Bless him hes a lucky man.

Gene what you need is more boredom in your life. Take a five year (life time for you) subscription to the NRA monthly, mow the laws, pick your teeth. A dreary existence is good for the nerves and remember; so much of life is suffering.

Ill leave you in peace my friend for I truely love you even while I jest to amuse myself. Who am I to pop an elderly mans pipe dreams? Who am I to reduce such blissful happiness to soggy enchilada proportions?

Go ahead old boy the threads yours, knock yourself out! I wont dispute your political commentary. The last thing you want in old age is uncertainty.

God Bless you and AMerica

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), May 05, 2003.

Spelling is worse than usual! Must be all those drugs Im meant to be smoking they sure dont help the high speed typing.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), May 05, 2003.

He's funny, isn't he ? I think his feelings were hurt. Mix yourself another Salty Dog, Kiwi; you'll get over it.

Sure; I've accumulated a lot of miles; and your buggy is new. But why lord it over the old boy? His religion's no problem; he won't cause trouble for the Pope. He can't send flowers to Bush by air-mail, because his fixed income won't allow that.

All he can do is give the adolescents something to think about. You may reject it all if you wish. I'm a lost cause to New Zealand sensibility; and what's your final stab at me? Needle me for being an old-timer. Or Mexican. Get your pleasure; What if I'm unflappable?

I don't see you as a lost cause yet. Just don't cultivate a case of cirrhosis. As time goes by, you shall accumulate more common sense. Learning is a lifelong pursuit. I know.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 05, 2003.

Hey Eugene yeah nothing we havent done a hundred times before. Youll be pleased to know Im earning considerably more income this year lecturing at a private college in AUckland, so please forward the address on...a dozen black roses coming right up.

Im only doing the old age and Mexican thing because its the easiest joke line to prod you with. I mean no real nasty intent but I think you already know how this game is played.

ANyway youd be surprised at my own politcal views Im very libertarian inb my outlook. A paid up member of AYn Rand type liberty party in my younger days. Ive seen the light in that such unrestricted freedom and individual based philosophies do not best reflect Christs teachings IMO. My only beef with AMerica is with some members of your current adminmistarion and the harm they are doing to the world, you of all people know I dont hate AMerica, Im a teacher of history and Im not that stupid to forget evrything from the past.

Dont worry about me my liver is fine, you look after YOURSELF please Sir.

God Bless

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), May 05, 2003.

Youll be pleased to know Im earning considerably more income this year lecturing at a private college in AUckland ...

Yes, intoxicants and psychedelics can be quite costly.
(My sympathies for the students in Auckland. I hope that at least they know about apostrophes.)

ANyway youd be surprised at my own politcal views Im very libertarian in my outlook.

I checked the dictionary. The spelling is "libertine."

Ciao, baby. JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 05, 2003.

How can the Church take sides? There are Catholics in Iraq too. Tariq Aziz is a Catholic (nominally).

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), May 07, 2003.