Posted on 03/06/2003 12:40:07 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
WASHINGTON -- A Vatican envoy Wednesday carried the pope's message to the White House that a U.S.-led war against Iraq without United Nations' approval would be "unjust and illegal."
The stern words from Cardinal Pio Laghi, who met for 40 minutes with Bush, underscored the rift between the president, who considers himself a deeply religious man, and a number of Christian leaders over Iraq.
Pope John Paul II has regularly preached against the war and asked Catholics worldwide to pray for peace and fast on Ash Wednesday.
Several mainstream Protestant denominations also have come out against a pre-emptive strike by the United States against Baghdad.
But the dispute between the White House and the pope over Iraq poses an especially difficult political quandary for Bush, who has aggressively sought to woo traditionally Democratic Catholic voters to the Republican fold.
The meeting Wednesday did not appear to bridge the gap.
While Bush has signaled that he is prepared to confront Saddam Hussein even without the Security Council's approval, Laghi said that the Vatican believes a just war can be waged only with the United Nations' endorsement.
Laghi said before going to war the United Nations should take into account "the grave consequences of such an armed conflict: the suffering of the people of Iraq and those involved in the military operation, a further instability in the region and a new gulf between Islam and Christianity."
He said that any war without U.N. approval "is illegal, it is unjust, it's all you can say."
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that Bush defended his policy to the Cardinal, telling him, "if it comes to the use of force he believes it will make the world better."
Officials said that Bush disagreed with the Vatican's contention that a war would widen the gulf between the West and the Muslim world. The president argued that U.S. efforts to expand educational opportunities for children in Afghanistan had brought the cultures closer.
Laghi, a former Vatican ambassador to the United States who was close to Bush's father, delivered a letter from the pope to the president, which concluded "I ask the Lord to inspire you to search for ways of stable peace -- the noblest of human endeavors."
The White House was clearly nervous about the publicity of the rift between Bush and the Vatican, particularly coming during a period of tense negotiations at the United Nations.
Laghi, addressing reporters at the National Press Club, said that administration officials would not allow him to hold a press conference in the White House. It is customary for visitors to field media questions in the driveway in front of the West Wing after they meet with the president.
The growing tension with the Vatican could undercut Bush's efforts to court Catholic voters.
Since assuming office Bush has twice visited the pope in Italy and has spoken at the commencement at Notre Dame University. The president also has appealed to more observant Catholics by opposing abortion and cloning.
But experts said Bush risks losing support from those voters by pressing ahead with war.
"Bush goes to Catholics and talks about how he is opposed to abortion. It is the same values that lead Catholics to oppose abortion that lead them to oppose war," said John Green, a political science professor at the University of Akron.
Dan Bartlett, the president's chief communications adviser, rejected the contention that the pope's appeal may erode support among American Catholics for possible war.
"There are many Catholics who support," Bush's Iraq policy, Bartlett said. "I am one of them."
Recent polls suggest that so far the Vatican's influence has been limited in the United States.
A recent survey by the Pew Center for the Public and the Press found that about two thirds of American Catholics backed military action in Iraq -- similar to the overall backing for war.
The poll found the highest backing for war comes from evangelical Christians, who have long provided the backbone of Bush's political support.
And not surprisingly it is evangelical leaders who have broken with many Protestant churches on the issue of Iraq.
A practicing Methodist who was raised an Episcopalian, Bush speaks the language of evangelical Christians, according to a number of religious scholars who have studied his speeches.
The president laces his speeches with references to faith and citations from the Bible, often linking his religious faith to domestic and international policy.
"I welcome faith to solve the nation's deepest problems," he recently told a convention of religious broadcasters.
Bush's use of religious rhetoric, however, has troubled a number of secular and religious critics who say the president is unfairly endowing himself with moral authority to justify war.
"While Bush has signaled that he is prepared to confront Saddam Hussein even without the Security Council's approval, Laghi said that the Vatican believes a just war can be waged only with the United Nations' endorsement."
A confederacy of decievers.
Amen. Any overlap of this wacky stuff with conservatism is purely coincidental.
Regards.
I expect this kind of prayer from a fundie.
Isn't this command given to Israel? Regardless, has Iraq made war against us? Maybe in an indirect or attenuated way, at most.
Nevertheless, they haven't abided by the terms of the peace treaty to which they agreed, so war is justifiable as far as I can tell in light of Just War theory, but the case isn't certain.
The Church, which wrote, canonized and preserved Sacred Scripture, and of which Jesus says, "if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector," has given us the conditions necessary for the legitimate exercise of force:
1. the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;The justification for a war against Iraq meets difficulties with all of the points except for #2. I don't think they're insurmountable, but they exist.2. all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
3. there must be serious prospects of success;
4. 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" [CCC 2309].
Expressing disagreement with one's policies (or lack thereof) is NOT "anti-Catholic hate", your persecution complex is YOUR problem, not mine.
There is no doubt that the Catholic hierarchy has dealt with homosexuality in the priesthood ineffectively, at least in America. Only "froth at the mouth" anti-Catholics believe, however, that the hierarchy "allows and encourages the rape of children by homosexual priests".
Ineffectively? Shuttling abusers from parish to parish so they can begin their molesting anew is not just ineffective, it IS and DOES "allow and encourage" - and maybe you should do a little "frothing-at-the-mouth" over the way the church has handled it, or are the children lives not worth getting upset over.
It appears that any thread mentioning the Pope brings forth the haters like you. I notice that you are not yet banned. It appears that the anti-Catholic bigotry is tolerated around here for some reason.
FreeRepublic is NOT the Catholic church, as we are allowed to disagree on things here, and adults can usually disagree without hating each other - how about you?
And if I should be banned for disagreeing with the way a particular denomination carries itself in society, well then I would be honored to be banned.
I stand corrected.
I do not believe the Pope is part of it, but there may be people around the Pope who do not have the best interests of the Flock at heart.
That is no longer my problem, but it does not mean that I have no right to criticize them for their lack of compassion for certain vulnerable members of that Flock.
To equate Christianity with Islam is sacriligeous, unless, of course, you're an athiest.
Sadly, I have always found your analysis well thought-out and insightfull, until now.
I believe it is a time of persecution for the Church.
Mel Gibson is making a movie about the Passion of Jesus based on the visions of Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich. Here is something she says about a Pope who she sees in the future. Sounds like Pope John Paul II to me. Here it is.
"Among the strangest things that I saw, were long processions of bishops. Their thoughts and utterances were made known to me through images issuing from their mouths. Their faults towards religion were shown by external deformities. A few had only a body, with a dark cloud of fog instead of a head. Others had only a head, their bodies and hearts were like thick vapors. Some were lame; others were paralytics; others were asleep or staggering.
"I saw what I believe to be nearly all the bishops of the world, but only a small number were perfectly sound. I also saw the Holy Father-God-fearing and prayerful. Nothing left to be desired by his appearance, but he was weakened byold age and by much suffering. His head was lolling from side to side, and it dropped onto his chest as if he were falling asleep. He often fainted and seemed to be dying. But when he was praying, he was often comforted by apparitions from Heaven."
"Then, I saw that everything that pertained to Protestantism was gradually gaining the upper hand, and the Catholic religion fell into complete decadence. Most priests were lured by the glittering but false knowledge of young school-teachers, and they all contributed to the work of destruction."
Here's something else she said: "I see many excommunicated ecclesiastics who do not seem to be concerned about it, nor even aware of it. Yet, they are (ipso facto) excommunicated whenever they cooperate to enterprises, enter into associations, and embrace opinions on which an anathema has been cast. It can be seen thereby that God ratifies the decrees, orders, and interdictions issued by the Head of the Church, and that He keeps them in force even though men show no concern for them, or laugh them to scorn."
I'm not equating the two faiths, but the fundamentalist views of some in both faiths are out of the mainstream, and just daffy.
In particular, it's just as ludicrous to talk about God "lifting his divine protection" because of US actions in Yugoslavia, as it is to think there's 72 virgins waiting for Islamic martyrs.
Yeah ... seems to me that I heard a joke to that effect one time. It goes something like this:
"A religious man climbed up onto his roof when a flood hit, praying for God to save him. A boat came by, and he waved them off: "Save someone else, God will save me." A helicopter came by; same thing. The flood waters rose higher, and he drowned. Finally face-to-face with God, he demanded, "Why didn't you save me when I prayed?" God sighed. "I sent a boat, I sent a helicopter..."
And there is the difference - "fundamentalist Christians" rely on the unchanging "Word of God", the Holy Bible, which is not subject to the whims of what is "popular", or mainstream.
It is "the Word of God" Vs the words of men, unless you do not believe that the Bible is Divinely inspired...
(2 Timmothy 3:16)
How do you know which ones are "obviously offending"? There are canonical procedures that must be followed, just as in criminal law. That's why the "zero tolerance" policy was discarded by the Vatican. The policy can be easily abused, and procedures for disciplining offending priests are already in place.
Thanks.
I do not believe the Pope is part of it, but there may be people around the Pope who do not have the best interests of the Flock at heart.
Probably.
That is no longer my problem, but it does not mean that I have no right to criticize them for their lack of compassion for certain vulnerable members of that Flock.
Yes, and the perpetrators should be criticized. Just use more laser-guided bombs rather than daisy-cutters ;-)
Can an offensive war be justly waged against a mad head of state posessing weapons of mass destruction? That's a good point and probably represents ground for valid theological/philosophical speculation. This is unsettled territory as far as I know, so we can only operate on a case-by-case basis. I'm inclined to believe that in this case we would be justified in attacking Sadam for this reason regardless of his treaty violations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.