There are no speeches or writings, no public records to tell us what Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger - the future Pope Benedict XVI - thought of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

JEFF ISRAELY is herein quite wrong.
On numerous occassions, Joseph Ratzinger spoke-out against the American invasion of Iraq:

As a Cardinal, the new pope was a staunch critic of the U.S. led invasion of Iraq. On one occasion before the war, he was asked whether it would be just. "Certainly not," he said, and explained that the situation led him to conclude that "the damage would be greater than the values one hopes to save." "All I can do is invite you to read the Catechism, and the conclusion seems obvious to me..." The conclusion is one he gave many times: "the concept of preventive war does not appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church."
On the 2nd of May 2003, Cardinal Ratzinger in interview SAID:
"There were not sufficient
reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make
possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is
still licit to admit the very existence of a "just war."
Even after the war, Ratzinger did not cease criticism: "it was right to resist the war and its threats of destruction...It should never be the responsibility of just one nation to make decisions for the world."
Yet perhaps his most important insight came during a press conference on May 2, 2003 (reported on Zenit.org). After suggesting that it might be necessary to revise the Catechism section on just war (perhaps because it had been used by George Weigel and others to endorse a war the Church opposed), Ratzinger offered a deep insight that included but went beyond the issue of Iraq:
"The concept of preventive war does not appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church."
"There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a 'just war'."

In April 2005 this was published on Our Papa's War position:
The election of Pope Benedict XVI brings hope for the continuation of peacemaking as central to the papacy. Just as John Paul II cried out again and again to the world, "War never again!" the new pope has taken the name of the one who first made that cry, Benedict XV, commonly known as "the peace pope." .....
As a Cardinal, the new pope was a staunch critic of the U.S. led invasion of Iraq. On one occasion before the war, he was asked whether it would be just. "Certainly not," he said, and explained that the situation led him to conclude that "the damage would be greater than the values one hopes to save." "All I can do is invite you to read the Catechism, and the conclusion seems obvious to me..." The conclusion is one he gave many times: "the concept of preventive war does not appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church."
Even after the war, Ratzinger did not cease criticism: "it was right to resist the war and its threats of destruction...It should never be the responsibility of just one nation to make decisions for the world."
Yet perhaps his most important insight came during a press conference on May 2, 2003 (reported on Zenit.org). After suggesting that it might be necessary to revise the Catechism section on just war (perhaps because it had been used by George Weigel and others to endorse a war the Church opposed), Ratzinger offered a deep insight that included but went beyond the issue of Iraq:
"The concept of preventive war does not appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church."
"There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a 'just war'."
Along with his actual criticism of war, we take heart in the theological principle behind such criticism. While many Catholics, most notably Weigel, have advocated deference to the heads of state in determining issues such as war and peace, the new pope has consistently taught that the Church "cannot simply retreat into the private sphere."....
He signals an invigorated continuance of the Church speaking truth to power.
That was before the capture of Sadam, and even after his
capture, we remained! Bombings are worse than ever, and contrary to Iraq being safer, she is very unstable and turning quickly into a land of riot, violance and total-desolation. Landmarks and archaeological sites have completely disappeared if not only by bombing, but massive looting and vandalism. American Forces have occupied museums and ancient landmarks, stripped them and made them into military bases without any regard for the culture they preserved prior to the conflict! We said that we would repair and restore them; that NEVER was accomplished.
And more lives, Iraqi and America, Italian and all allies,
have died in this conflict than Sadam Hussein could have murdered in ten lifetimes put together!
__________________________________
Now once again we hear from Our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI, in some very rational and heart rendering thoughts concerning the Iraqi situation.

HEADLINE:
"Expect pontiff to take strong position against war"

Scholars examine thought of Pope Benedict to determine his views on conflict and peace

By William Bole

6/12/2005

Visit www.osv.com/osvnews now for our "More Reading" links, question of the week, emails to the editor, and more!



Is Pope Benedict XVI the "new peace pope," an answer to the prayers of those who question the morality of modern warfare?



Some Catholics who style themselves as orthodox in their theology and unwarlike in their geopolitics think so.

"It's undeniable. He wants this to be a mark of his papacy," said Michael Baxter, a theology professor at the University of Notre Dame and national secretary of the Catholic Peace Fellowship.

"More personally, he has seen the ravages of war up close and is rightly wary of the big talk you hear from heads of state when they seek to justify wars and invasions," said Baxter, alluding to Pope Benedict's decision in 1945 to desert the German army.

The peace fellowship's coordinator, Michael Griffin, has written an analysis titled "Benedict XVI: A New Peace Pope," published by the online Catholic magazine Godspy (www.godspy.com).

The "old" peace pope would be Pope Benedict XV, who famously cried out during World War I, "War, never again!" Pope John Paul II often repeated those words, and now his successor has taken the name of the pontiff who conceived that cry.

As a Vatican cardinal, Pope Benedict spoke out against America's invasion of Iraq and the concept of "preventive war." He has also questioned whether any war can be morally justified in an age of massively destructive weapons.

Pronouncements like these can be a boon to an organization like the Catholic Peace Fellowship, which encourages conscientious objection to war. But other observers are quick to point out that Pope Benedict's approach to war and peace is simply in step with that of his recent predecessors, especially Pope John Paul.

That is enough to please some Catholics, and worry others.

Vatican thinking

Among those who would like to see the Holy See re-examine its approach to international relations is George Weigel, a Pope John Paul II biographer and senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C.

In an interview with OSV, Weigel refrained from directly criticizing Pope Benedict's past statements, including a comment he made two years ago to the Rome-based news service Zenit -- "Today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a 'just war.'"

Asked about that and other Pope Benedict remarks, Weigel said, "All of this falls under the rubric of things that need rethinking by the Holy See."

The first line of Weigel's attack is the Vatican's regular support for peacemaking initiatives of the United Nations, which he described as a "thoroughly corrupt institution."

Weigel also took aim at what he called the Holy See's "functional pacifism." This is "not a pacifism of principle, but a default position" in which Church authorities in Rome oppose practically all wars, he said.

Clearly, the Holy See has been impressed by displays of nonviolent resistance to social evil, especially the largely peaceful toppling of communism in Eastern Europe.

But Weigel questioned if this huge event -- the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 -- is "universalizable" in conflicts throughout the world.

"I think they [Church authorities] are over-learning the lesson of 1989. It's not at all clear to me that you can apply that lesson to the Taliban," he said, referring to the Islamic extremist regime that formerly controlled Afghanistan. Weigel doubts that nonviolent resistance could have dissuaded the Taliban from giving safe haven to Osama bin Laden.

In fact, the Holy See was widely viewed as sanctioning the United State's invasion of Afghanistan in response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

But a year later, Church authorities spoke out against war in Iraq, partly because of the unilateral thrust of that U.S. invasion. At the time, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, said: "It should never be the responsibility of just one nation to make decisions for the world."

Grounds for war

Branding the Vatican as "functionally pacifist" is a stretch, said Baxter, citing Rome's acceptance of the military campaign in Afghanistan. "I think there were clear just-war grounds for making the distinction" between what was perceived as a defensive war against terrorist operations in Afghanistan and "preventive war" against Iraq, he said.

Baxter himself would be hard put to favor the flexing of any military muscle. He and Weigel, who cheered on the invasion of Iraq, would represent two poles of American Catholic thought on war and peace.

Others who view themselves as closer to the Church's mainstream on peace matters would be delighted to see Pope Benedict follow the course set by Pope John Paul and his advisers, including then-Cardinal Ratzinger.

"Given the direction of [Church] statements on war and peace over the past half century, it would be surprising if Pope Benedict were not a peace pope," said Gerard Powers, a former adviser on international affairs to the U.S. bishops who now directs policy studies for the Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at Notre Dame.

"He can be expected to continue to insist that we must find peaceful alternatives to war," while recognizing that a limited use of deadly force may be morally justified under strictly defined circumstances, Powers said.

For his part, Baxter expects Pope Benedict to be more explicit on these questions than was Pope John Paul, whose critiques of war often sounded more poetic than systematic.

Pope Benedict's well-known penchant for theological precision "will translate into a more clearly critical perspective on the waging of modern warfare," Baxter predicted. "He's got a theologian's mind, a scholar's ability to make important distinctions and the clarity to make a point stick."

William Bole is a senior correspondent for OSV
Our Holy Father uses his own [and in Committee] Catechism of the Catholic Church in his argument against the Iraqi War, quote AGAIN:
"and perhaps his most important insight came during a press conference on May 2, 2003 (reported on Zenit.org). After suggesting that it might be necessary to revise the Catechism section on just war (perhaps because it had been used by George Weigel and others to endorse a war the Church opposed), Ratzinger offered a deep insight that included but went beyond the issue of Iraq.
As a Cardinal, the new pope was a staunch critic of the U.S. led invasion of Iraq. On one occasion before the war, he was asked whether it would be just. "Certainly not," he said, and explained that the situation led him to conclude that "the damage would be greater than the values one hopes to save." "All I can do is invite you to read the Catechism, and the conclusion seems obvious to me..." The conclusion is one he gave many times: "the concept of preventive war does not appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church."

Even after the war, Ratzinger did not cease criticism: "it was right to resist the war and its threats of destruction...It should never be the responsibility of just one nation to make decisions for the world."

Yet perhaps his most important insight came during a press conference on May 2, 2003 (reported on Zenit.org). After suggesting that it might be necessary to revise the Catechism section on just war (perhaps because it had been used by George Weigel and others to endorse a war the Church opposed), Ratzinger offered a deep insight that included but went beyond the issue of Iraq:

"The concept of preventive war does not appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church."
"There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a 'just war'."
Along with his actual criticism of war, we take heart in the theological principle behind such criticism.
Ratzinger Says No to preventive war !
John Paul II, Ratzinger, Tauran, Ruini. The position of the Church has been reiterated through the mass media. The crisis with Iraq has to be resolved within the framework of the United Nations
BY LUCIO BRUNELLI :
Is the war that has been announced against Iraq a just war? All I can do is invite you to read the Catechism, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger replied with a mischievous grin, and the conclusion seems obvious to me For the guardian of Catholic orthodoxy, the obvious conclusion is that the military intervention that is taking shape has no moral justification (September 20, interview on the Italian national news program). The Catechism, Ratzinger explained, does not embrace a pacifist position a priori; indeed, it admits the possibility of a just war for reasons of defense. But it sets a number of very strict and reasonable conditions: there must be a proper proportion between the evil to be rooted out and the means employed. In short, if in order to defend a value (in this case, national security) greater damage is caused (civilian victims, destabilization of the Middle East, with its accompanying risks of increased terrorism), then recourse to force is no longer justified. In light of these criteria, Ratzinger refuses to grant the moral status of just war to the military operation against Saddam Hussein. The Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith added another consideration: Decisions like this should be made by the community of nations, by the UN, and not by an individual power.
It is perhaps paradoxical that in this grave international crisis the Holy See finds itself in a diplomatic and political position closer to the Social-Democratic Germany of Schroeder and the orthodox Russia of Putin than to the America of George W. Bush. But this is precisely the situation. And the Church, fortunately, does not let herself be imprisoned by partisan logic. Rather, she is one of the few powers free to have as her sole criterion the passion for truth and compassion for all men, especially the poorest and most defenseless.
The law of the strongest
The Vaticans first perplexities were expressed, very prudently, on September 9 by the papal foreign minister Jean-Louis Tauran. In an interview with the Italian newspaper Avvenire, on the eve of the commemoration of the attack on the Twin Towers, the French-born diplomat insisted that the Iraqi crisis be resolved within the sphere of the United Nations, without unilateral acts on the part of America. If the international community were to judge the recourse to force to be opportune and proportionate, this should take place on the basis of a decision made within the framework of the United Nations, after weighing the consequences for the Iraqi civilian population as well as the repercussions that it could have on the countries of the region and on world stability; otherwise it would simply be a case of the imposition of the law of the strongest. But it can legitimately be asked if the type of operation that is being considered is an adequate means for bringing about peace.
Archbishop Taurans doubts were echoed a week later in Cardinal Camillo Ruinis inaugural speech to the permanent council of the Italian Episcopal Conference, which met in Rome on September 16. His words were awaited. Last year, he had in some way justified on a moral plane the military operation Enduring Freedom against the terrorist groups of Al-Qaida in Afghanistan. Ruini now affirmed that he agreed with the need to fight terrorism also by subjecting Iraq to more attentive and rigorous vigilance. But he pronounced a first clear No to the war and the so-called Bush doctrine. This does not mean that the road of preventive war can be undertaken, which would have unacceptable human costs and very grave destabilizing effects on the entire Middle East, and probably on all international relations. The alternative to war, according to Ruini, must be sought in the weapon of dissuasion exercised within the sphere of the United Nations.
Good news
Thus, his was an appeal to the UN to regain the political initiative, forcing Baghdad to accept the return of the UN inspectors in order to ascertain (and subsequently to defuse) the possible threat posed by Saddams armaments. The next day, on the night of September 17th, the Iraqi dictator made the surprise announcement that he unconditionally accepted the return of the inspectors. A delaying action, huffed the White House, which had already mobilized its land, sea, and air troops and was disappointed because Iraqs move upset its plans. The Popes practically immediate comment took a completely different tone. At the end of the general audience of the faithful on Wednesday, September 18th, John Paul II spoke of the good news about the renewal of collaboration between Iraq and the international community. And he prayed to the Lord to enlighten the leaders of the nations and open up and sustain the glimmers of good will, in order to avert the winds of war that had begun blowing again in the Middle East. Two days after these clear words from the Pope came the interview with Cardinal Ratzinger that we mentioned above.
There is also something unsaid in the Churchs public distancing from military intervention in Iraq. It is bitterness, or rather, disdain for the disparity in the treatment given in recent months by the powerful of the earth to the question of the Holy Land. A strong and expeditious manner is used to force Iraq to respect the UN resolutions, while indifference and immobilism meet Israels lack of respect of the UN resolutions concerning the Palestinians. Is this the law of the strongest again? The director of the Vatican press office, Navarro Valls, let himself make these very considerations in an informal conversation that improperly ended up on the front page of an Italian newspaper on September 20th. But the sense of this injustice which is tearing Jesus land apart is deeply felt by the Pope and those responsible for Vatican foreign policy. And it contributes to the skepticism with which they view the latest decisions by the White House. The Pope has repeated numerous times in recent months: the just fight against terrorism cannot be separated from the commitment to remove the most scandalous situations of injustice on the international level. He had in mind first and foremost the Palestinian situation. His is the truest and most realistic position. It is the opposite of an abstract preaching based on good sentiments or a position of pure principle. It is realistic, because it takes all the factors into consideration. Whoever does not savor the taste, which is sometimes bitter, of this freedom of judgment, of this sacrosanct independence from the propagandistic machine of power, loses something of the extraordinary experience of the Christian event...."
"The concept of preventive war does not appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church."
"There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a 'just war'."

In 2003 from the "Houston Catholic Worker", Mark and Louise Zwick, ended an excellent summery on the Holy See's stand on the Iraqi stuation. I want to quote the ending:

"As talk escalated about a U. S. attack on Iraq, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Prefect of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, began stating unequivocally that "The concept of a 'preventive war' does not appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church." His comments had been published as early as September 2002 and were repeated several times as war seemed imminent.
Cardinal Ratzinger recommended that the three religions who share a heritage from Abraham return to the Ten Commandments to counteract the violence of terrorism and war: "The Decalogue is not the private property of Christians or Jews. It is a lofty expression of moral reason that, as such, is also found in the wisdom of other cultures. To refer again to the Decalogue might be essential precisely to restore reason."
Preparation of a new shorter, simpler version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church will soon begin and, according to reports and interviews with Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, it will probably include revisions to clarify the section on just war, as the official version has done against capital punishment in a civilized society. Cardinal Ratzinger will head up the Commission to write the new catechism. In an interview with Zenit on May 2, 2003, the Cardinal restated the position of the Holy Father on the Iraq war (II) and on the question of the possibility of a just war in today's world.: "There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a 'just war.'"
As talk escalated about a U. S. attack on Iraq, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Prefect of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, began stating unequivocally that "The concept of a 'preventive war' does not appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church." His comments had been published as early as September 2002 and were repeated several times as war seemed imminent.

Cardinal Ratzinger recommended that the three religions who share a heritage from Abraham return to the Ten Commandments to counteract the violence of terrorism and war: "The Decalogue is not the private property of Christians or Jews. It is a lofty expression of moral reason that, as such, is also found in the wisdom of other cultures. To refer again to the Decalogue might be essential precisely to restore reason."

Preparation of a new shorter, simpler version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church will soon begin and, according to reports and interviews with Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, it will probably include revisions to clarify the section on just war, as the official version has done against capital punishment in a civilized society. Cardinal Ratzinger will head up the Commission to write the new catechism. In an interview with Zenit on May 2, 2003, the Cardinal restated the position of the Holy Father on the Iraq war (II) and on the question of the possibility of a just war in today's world.: "There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a "just war."

And I have an old 1993 newspaper clipping as to what Ratzinger said as Cardinal about our First Invasion, which I felt WAS more morally justified because Kwait WAS invaded by Sadam. Then I also have FIRST PERSON [from Our Holy Father's own mouth] accounts from when he was Prefect for the Doctrine of the Faith---the Holy See, along with Jean-Paul II condemning the US invasion.
He IS against this war, [and I am not putting words into Our Holy Father's mouth that are not there...I would NEVER DO THAT]... I, 100% LOVE and totally respect Our Holy Father; and would follow the Magisterium even if it were contrary to my own belief's...which they thank goodness are not!

May I now quote Catholic Journalist Michael Griffin:

"This was perhaps what upset U.S. neoconservatives most, that John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger did not show more deference to the state. Perhaps because of their own experience with violent regimes, they seemed to grasp the biblical axiom from the Acts of the Apostles: "we must obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29)

The decision not to obey men nearly cost the young Joseph Ratzinger his life.
The decision not to obey men nearly cost the young Joseph Ratzinger his life. In 1945 he made the decision to desert his post in the German army. When he was spotted and stopped by SS troops, he could have been shot on the spot. They did not harm him, using his wound (his arm was in a sling) as an excuse. Yet in his memoir, Milestones, Ratzinger gives the deeper reason for his escape from death. Those soldiers, he wrote, "had enough of war and did not want to become murderers,"
Our world, Pope Benedict XVI knows well, has had enough of war. We join the chorus of hope that his ministry as pope will help put an end to war and hasten along God's kingdom of peace."

Some of my quotes above [which I DID post on the "Ratzinger/Benedict XVI board on his "Program") are from as
follows:
POPE BENEDICT XVI OSV SITE

www.godspy.com
Benedict-XVI-A-Co-Worker-of-the-Truth
Charlie Rose Interview
Peace Pope
Ratzinger in 2003:
As talk escalated about a U. S. attack on Iraq, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Prefect of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, began stating unequivocally that "The concept of a 'preventive war' does not appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church." His comments had been published as early as September 2002 and were repeated several times as war seemed imminent.

Cardinal Ratzinger recommended that the three religions who share a heritage from Abraham return to the Ten Commandments to counteract the violence of terrorism and war: "The Decalogue is not the private property of Christians or Jews. It is a lofty expression of moral reason that, as such, is also found in the wisdom of other cultures. To refer again to the Decalogue might be essential precisely to restore reason."

Preparation of a new shorter, simpler version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church will soon begin and, according to reports and interviews with Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, it will probably include revisions to clarify the section on just war, as the official version has done against capital punishment in a civilized society. Cardinal Ratzinger will head up the Commission to write the new catechism. In an interview with Zenit on May 2, 2003, the Cardinal restated the position of the Holy Father on the Iraq war (II) and on the question of the possibility of a just war in today's world.: "There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a "just war."

In a long interview covered by "Wimmer/Gauweiler" in Rome,
2003, the then German Curia/ Cardinal Ratzinger gave his impressions: "Millionen Christen im Irak, in Syrien, in Jordanien und Palstina geraten in die Mhlsteine eines Krieges, der als Konfrontation des christlichen Westens gegen die islamische Welt gesehen wird. Diesen Menschen, die die aramische Sprache Jesu Christi sprechen, droht Vertreibung und Tod."
_________________________________________
_______________________________________

I REALLY DO NOT THINK THAT I HAVE TO ADD ANY MORE, TO MAKE THE POINT, THAT OUR HOLY FATHER [BOTH AS CARDINAL AND POPE] HAS STATED PUBLICLY HIS OPPOSITION TO THE IRAQI WAR. (This, unfortunately, is beginning to sound like the [false] accusations directed against Pope Pius XII concerning negligable Church opposition to Adolf Hitler's policies.) BUT...,
I do not believe this will be discussed with President Bush, as the main directive now is focussing on the safety of the small Christian community left in Iraq: That IS a subject that must be addressed ASAP.