Our Pope is Justifiably Against the Iraqi War
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'."
This is Pope Benedict's stand on the Iraqi War.
[Funny thing about this news article, is that I was reading something very similar in the Times Herald Record.]
Before we invaded, and at the time we invaded Iraq, the Holy See was in intense talks with Tarquiz Aziz, then prime-minister of Iraq under Sadam, to settle the question PEACEFULLY. But US President Bush disregared this, and invaded anyway...DESPITE PLEAS FROM JEAN-PAUL !
John Paul II stated before the 2003 war that this war would be a defeat for humanity which could not be morally or legally justified.
In the weeks and months before the U.S. attacked Iraq, not only the Holy Father, but also one Cardinal and Archbishop after another at the Vatican spoke out against a "preemptive" or "preventive" strike. They declared that the just war theory could not justify such a war. Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran said that such a "war of aggression" is a crime against peace. Archbishop Renato Martino, who used the same words in calling the possible military intervention a "crime against peace that cries out vengeance before God," also criticized the pressure that the most powerful nations exerted on the less powerful ones on the U.N. Security Council to support the war. The Pope spoke out almost every day against war and in support of diplomatic efforts for peace.
John Paul II sent his personal representative, Cardinal Pio Laghi, a friend of the Bush family, to remonstrate with the U.S. President before the war began. Pio Laghi said such a war would be illegal and unjust. The message was clear: God is not on your side if you invade Iraq.
Read these articles:
November 7, 2003
"Rush to War, Revisited"
"I appreciate the significance of James Risen's article in yesterday's Times about an 11th-hour Iraqi peace offer last March, it helps to think back to that period. For months the Bush administration had been arguing that the only hope of disarming Baghdad was to steadily ratchet up the threat of an imminent American invasion. Only at that point, Washington asserted, might Saddam Hussein yield to the demands of repeated United Nations Security Council disarmament resolutions.
Yesterday's article shows that such reasoning may well have been sound. With American forces massed and ready to invade, the Iraqis suddenly expressed interest in meeting their obligations. Yet the article also shows that the administration seems not to have been serious about the idea of a coerced but peaceful solution at the very moment it may have been a realistic possibility.
The offer described in the article was conveyed to the Pentagon by a Lebanese-American businessman who said he had been sent by the chief of Iraq's Intelligence Service. The Iraqi message was that Baghdad no longer had any unconventional weapons and that it was willing to let American troops and experts conduct a search to prove this. The envoy also conveyed an offer to turn over a suspect in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and relayed an Iraqi pledge to hold elections.
By March, Washington's military and political preparations for war were complete. The Bush administration was then showing little patience for diplomacy or anything else that might delay what it envisioned as a swift and easy military triumph, with jubilant Iraqis cheering American troops, a model Middle Eastern democracy rising in Baghdad, reconstruction paid for by Iraqi oil revenue and no lengthy military occupation.
Iraq has not worked out as planned in the last seven months. As President Bush frankly acknowledged yesterday, a democratic outcome is still far from assured. Yet even without resorting to hindsight, the Bush administration can be faulted for not making more of an effort to determine whether a satisfactory resolution of the weapons issue might have been achieved without war. Put differently, Washington should have put to the test its own words about using the threat of force to coerce concessions.
With crucial details unexplored, there is no way of knowing whether war could or should have been avoided, or indeed whether the offer was genuine or what kind of inspections would have been allowed. Any last-minute offer might have been unacceptable, particularly if it meant leaving Saddam Hussein's Baathist torturers in power. Yet surely Washington should have made the effort to learn more.
Administration supporters were fond of saying at the time that there were things Bush officials knew but could not share with the public. Little did we imagine that among those things was an offer that might have provided a way to avoid the war."
On 09 October 2003, I also e-mailed the following comment to "Crisis" Magazine:
"Now, as to David Quinn in October's "Crisis" on opposition to the war in Iraq.....
May I please make it primarily clear that I have No Left-leanings; and I go in complete agreement with our Holy Father that the War and our presence in Iraq is immoral. I base this on a number of factors: The enormous number of Iraqi and American lives lost, destroyed or ruined; and the impossiblility of imposing Western morality and civilization on a country totally alien to democracy, representative-government, etc. [A country which for uncountable eons bases its culture on family ties, family bloodlines, vengence, power and vendetta...very contrary to Christianity ...although many of the inhabitants hurt in Bagdad were of a more-than-minority population of Christians, totally ignored by the American Press]. Unfortunately, also, little coverage is given in the American Press about our young, scared and occasionally trigger-happy GIs who have unfortunately, inadvertently murdered countless innocent Iraqi's [either because of lack of understanding the English language, or fear of unknown consequences, or useless bombings, raids, etc. (which never succeeded in "killing" Sadam) and Western traditions and life-styles totally foreign to them.
Iraq's oil was going to be given back to the Iraqi people to rebuild their county. This is far from the reality of totally unusuable and ruined wells; which must totally be rebuilt, reenginered and remanned. Sanitary conditions were never fully restored. The many magestic building projects of Sadam that could have been used for important Iraqi Universaties, hospitals, and other functions, were turned into ugly, unusable, rubble. Archaeological sites were not spared....
And for Americans alone to rebuild Iraq would not only mean the end of any future economic growth for the United States; but the total neglect of needy Americans as well. Now, we expect the world to pay for our mistake in judgement...and we never did accomplish the end of Sadam Hussein [much less the demise of once Hussein's enemy, BinLaden]...."
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!
On 22 March of this year, a week prior to Jean-Paul last and mortal disapation from his earthly existence, Michael Peroutka wrote the following e-mail:
"After Two Years, Iraq War Still Terrible Mistake --- Un-Biblical And Un-Constitutional
Dear Friends of the Constitutional Republic,
From day one, I opposed President Bush's war against Iraq because, among other reasons, it is un-Biblical (not truly a war of self-defense), un-Constitutional (no declaration of war) and a huge waste of Federal tax dollars. Now, two years later, 1,511 U.S. troops have been killed there; 11,000 wounded; and, literally, God only knows how many innocent, civilian, non-combatant Iraqis have been killed and wounded.
My position today is unchanged. I still believe, more fervently than ever, that this war was and is a terrible mistake. And it saddens me to see that Mr. Bush is, falsely, trying to make us think that he launched this war because Iraq had something to do with the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001. In a national radio broadcast on the second anniversary of his war (3/19/05), Mr. Bush began by saying that one of the purposes of "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was to "disarm a brutal regime." Reciting a list of bad things Saddam Hussein had done, he said this: "And we know that September 11 requires our country to think differently."
Well, now. First, as things turned out, there wasn't much "disarming" to do. No weapons of mass destruction were found. Nothing was found that might create that "mushroom cloud" that we heard a lot about as a rationale for this war. And even President Bush has said --- before this radio broadcast --- that there was no link between 9/11/01 and Iraq/Hussein. In a joint news conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair (1/31/03), this exchange occurred:
Q: One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?
President Bush: I can't make that claim.
In mid-September of 2003, speaking with reporters after speaking with leaders of Congress about energy legislation, Mr. Bush said, alluding to the 9/11 terrorist attacks: "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved." About this same time, on this same subject, Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld was asked about a poll showing 70 percent of respondents believed Saddam Hussein was personally involved in 9/11. Rumsfeld said: "I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that."
So, why is Mr. Bush now trying to leave the impression that Iraq/Hussein WAS involved in 9/11? One reason is obvious. He thinks support for his war against Iraq --- which is weakening --- is most likely to be become stronger if the American people believe Iraq/Hussein were involved in 9/11.
What a difference two years makes.
Two years ago, when Mr. Bush went on national TV to announce his attack on Iraq (3/19/03), he said he was doing this, in part, because: "The people of the United States and their friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace WITH WEAPONS OF MASS MURDER." But, as I say, no such weapons have been found.
Now, two years later (3/19/05), in his national radio address, Mr. Bush talks about how his war has been a success because: Millions of Iraqis have voted in "free elections;" elected leaders include "more than 85 women;" Iraq will draft "a new constitution;" and Iraq will be "democratic." He also says, erroneously: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands" --- though it is by no means certain that the people of Iraq will now experience true "liberty."
In any event, I do not believe that anything listed here by Mr. Bush is worth even ONE American soldier being killed, much less 1,511 U.S. troops being killed, 11,000 being wounded and tens of thousands of innocent, civilian, non-combatant Iraqis being killed. But, lest I be misunderstood, I, too, "support the troops," as those yellow magnetic ribbons say. And I think they are best supported by bringing all of them home as soon as possible.
For God, Family, & the Republic,
Michael A. Peroutka"
And Michael Perouka had continued to speak out against this monstrous war.
_______________________________________________
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
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'."
This is Pope Benedict's stand on the Iraqi War.
[Funny thing about this news article, is that I was reading something very similar in the Times Herald Record.]
Before we invaded, and at the time we invaded Iraq, the Holy See was in intense talks with Tarquiz Aziz, then prime-minister of Iraq under Sadam, to settle the question PEACEFULLY. But US President Bush disregared this, and invaded anyway...DESPITE PLEAS FROM JEAN-PAUL !
John Paul II stated before the 2003 war that this war would be a defeat for humanity which could not be morally or legally justified.
In the weeks and months before the U.S. attacked Iraq, not only the Holy Father, but also one Cardinal and Archbishop after another at the Vatican spoke out against a "preemptive" or "preventive" strike. They declared that the just war theory could not justify such a war. Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran said that such a "war of aggression" is a crime against peace. Archbishop Renato Martino, who used the same words in calling the possible military intervention a "crime against peace that cries out vengeance before God," also criticized the pressure that the most powerful nations exerted on the less powerful ones on the U.N. Security Council to support the war. The Pope spoke out almost every day against war and in support of diplomatic efforts for peace.
John Paul II sent his personal representative, Cardinal Pio Laghi, a friend of the Bush family, to remonstrate with the U.S. President before the war began. Pio Laghi said such a war would be illegal and unjust. The message was clear: God is not on your side if you invade Iraq.
Read these articles:
November 7, 2003
"Rush to War, Revisited"
"I appreciate the significance of James Risen's article in yesterday's Times about an 11th-hour Iraqi peace offer last March, it helps to think back to that period. For months the Bush administration had been arguing that the only hope of disarming Baghdad was to steadily ratchet up the threat of an imminent American invasion. Only at that point, Washington asserted, might Saddam Hussein yield to the demands of repeated United Nations Security Council disarmament resolutions.
Yesterday's article shows that such reasoning may well have been sound. With American forces massed and ready to invade, the Iraqis suddenly expressed interest in meeting their obligations. Yet the article also shows that the administration seems not to have been serious about the idea of a coerced but peaceful solution at the very moment it may have been a realistic possibility.
The offer described in the article was conveyed to the Pentagon by a Lebanese-American businessman who said he had been sent by the chief of Iraq's Intelligence Service. The Iraqi message was that Baghdad no longer had any unconventional weapons and that it was willing to let American troops and experts conduct a search to prove this. The envoy also conveyed an offer to turn over a suspect in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and relayed an Iraqi pledge to hold elections.
By March, Washington's military and political preparations for war were complete. The Bush administration was then showing little patience for diplomacy or anything else that might delay what it envisioned as a swift and easy military triumph, with jubilant Iraqis cheering American troops, a model Middle Eastern democracy rising in Baghdad, reconstruction paid for by Iraqi oil revenue and no lengthy military occupation.
Iraq has not worked out as planned in the last seven months. As President Bush frankly acknowledged yesterday, a democratic outcome is still far from assured. Yet even without resorting to hindsight, the Bush administration can be faulted for not making more of an effort to determine whether a satisfactory resolution of the weapons issue might have been achieved without war. Put differently, Washington should have put to the test its own words about using the threat of force to coerce concessions.
With crucial details unexplored, there is no way of knowing whether war could or should have been avoided, or indeed whether the offer was genuine or what kind of inspections would have been allowed. Any last-minute offer might have been unacceptable, particularly if it meant leaving Saddam Hussein's Baathist torturers in power. Yet surely Washington should have made the effort to learn more.
Administration supporters were fond of saying at the time that there were things Bush officials knew but could not share with the public. Little did we imagine that among those things was an offer that might have provided a way to avoid the war."
On 09 October 2003, I also e-mailed the following comment to "Crisis" Magazine:
"Now, as to David Quinn in October's "Crisis" on opposition to the war in Iraq.....
May I please make it primarily clear that I have No Left-leanings; and I go in complete agreement with our Holy Father that the War and our presence in Iraq is immoral. I base this on a number of factors: The enormous number of Iraqi and American lives lost, destroyed or ruined; and the impossiblility of imposing Western morality and civilization on a country totally alien to democracy, representative-government, etc. [A country which for uncountable eons bases its culture on family ties, family bloodlines, vengence, power and vendetta...very contrary to Christianity ...although many of the inhabitants hurt in Bagdad were of a more-than-minority population of Christians, totally ignored by the American Press]. Unfortunately, also, little coverage is given in the American Press about our young, scared and occasionally trigger-happy GIs who have unfortunately, inadvertently murdered countless innocent Iraqi's [either because of lack of understanding the English language, or fear of unknown consequences, or useless bombings, raids, etc. (which never succeeded in "killing" Sadam) and Western traditions and life-styles totally foreign to them.
Iraq's oil was going to be given back to the Iraqi people to rebuild their county. This is far from the reality of totally unusuable and ruined wells; which must totally be rebuilt, reenginered and remanned. Sanitary conditions were never fully restored. The many magestic building projects of Sadam that could have been used for important Iraqi Universaties, hospitals, and other functions, were turned into ugly, unusable, rubble. Archaeological sites were not spared....
And for Americans alone to rebuild Iraq would not only mean the end of any future economic growth for the United States; but the total neglect of needy Americans as well. Now, we expect the world to pay for our mistake in judgement...and we never did accomplish the end of Sadam Hussein [much less the demise of once Hussein's enemy, BinLaden]...."
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!
On 22 March of this year, a week prior to Jean-Paul last and mortal disapation from his earthly existence, Michael Peroutka wrote the following e-mail:
"After Two Years, Iraq War Still Terrible Mistake --- Un-Biblical And Un-Constitutional
Dear Friends of the Constitutional Republic,
From day one, I opposed President Bush's war against Iraq because, among other reasons, it is un-Biblical (not truly a war of self-defense), un-Constitutional (no declaration of war) and a huge waste of Federal tax dollars. Now, two years later, 1,511 U.S. troops have been killed there; 11,000 wounded; and, literally, God only knows how many innocent, civilian, non-combatant Iraqis have been killed and wounded.
My position today is unchanged. I still believe, more fervently than ever, that this war was and is a terrible mistake. And it saddens me to see that Mr. Bush is, falsely, trying to make us think that he launched this war because Iraq had something to do with the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001. In a national radio broadcast on the second anniversary of his war (3/19/05), Mr. Bush began by saying that one of the purposes of "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was to "disarm a brutal regime." Reciting a list of bad things Saddam Hussein had done, he said this: "And we know that September 11 requires our country to think differently."
Well, now. First, as things turned out, there wasn't much "disarming" to do. No weapons of mass destruction were found. Nothing was found that might create that "mushroom cloud" that we heard a lot about as a rationale for this war. And even President Bush has said --- before this radio broadcast --- that there was no link between 9/11/01 and Iraq/Hussein. In a joint news conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair (1/31/03), this exchange occurred:
Q: One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?
President Bush: I can't make that claim.
In mid-September of 2003, speaking with reporters after speaking with leaders of Congress about energy legislation, Mr. Bush said, alluding to the 9/11 terrorist attacks: "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved." About this same time, on this same subject, Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld was asked about a poll showing 70 percent of respondents believed Saddam Hussein was personally involved in 9/11. Rumsfeld said: "I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that."
So, why is Mr. Bush now trying to leave the impression that Iraq/Hussein WAS involved in 9/11? One reason is obvious. He thinks support for his war against Iraq --- which is weakening --- is most likely to be become stronger if the American people believe Iraq/Hussein were involved in 9/11.
What a difference two years makes.
Two years ago, when Mr. Bush went on national TV to announce his attack on Iraq (3/19/03), he said he was doing this, in part, because: "The people of the United States and their friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace WITH WEAPONS OF MASS MURDER." But, as I say, no such weapons have been found.
Now, two years later (3/19/05), in his national radio address, Mr. Bush talks about how his war has been a success because: Millions of Iraqis have voted in "free elections;" elected leaders include "more than 85 women;" Iraq will draft "a new constitution;" and Iraq will be "democratic." He also says, erroneously: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands" --- though it is by no means certain that the people of Iraq will now experience true "liberty."
In any event, I do not believe that anything listed here by Mr. Bush is worth even ONE American soldier being killed, much less 1,511 U.S. troops being killed, 11,000 being wounded and tens of thousands of innocent, civilian, non-combatant Iraqis being killed. But, lest I be misunderstood, I, too, "support the troops," as those yellow magnetic ribbons say. And I think they are best supported by bringing all of them home as soon as possible.
For God, Family, & the Republic,
Michael A. Peroutka"
And Michael Perouka had continued to speak out against this monstrous war.
_______________________________________________
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
Carl
