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.
Not supposedly. Correlate Isaiah 22:22, Matthew 16:19 and Revelation 3:7.
...needs to either be prepared to back up his statements on this war with Scripture or stay silent.
He would be so obligated if he was a "Bible only" Christian, but he's not. Nevertheless, the Just War doctrine is derived from Biblical principles as is the doctrine regarding Jesus' two natures, although neither doctrine is explicitly mentioned in the Bible. (Then again, your doctrine of "the Bible alone" isn't mentioned in the Bible either.)
Both doctrines are the result of the Church's reflection on Oral Tradition, Written Tradition (Scripture), previous Church teachings (the Magisterium), and a result of the Holy Spirit guiding the apostolic successors (and hence the Church) into all truth. Church teaching rests on Oral Tradition, Written Tradition and the Magisterium, not the Bible alone. This must be so even under your rubric since the Bible calls the Church "the pillar and foundation of truth." (1 Tim 3:15)
The relatively recent tradition of "the Bible alone" was made famous by Luther and made possible by the invention of the printing press.
Someone should tell this guy that this Gulf was opened by the freak Suicidal Islamic followers that are on a JIHAD against every society that doesn't follow "their interpretation" of Islam. Gulf? We're in the Gulf alright and about to close that so-called 'gulf' just a bit tighter too.Question: How are we as American citizens, supposed to tell the difference between A Muslim that wants to Kill us and The average Muslim? Anyone have any tips? I didn't think so. Those Airport Security pictures of the guys who flew the planes on 9/11, sure looked harmless to me.
And I don't understand that part because they could care less what the Pope or the Church has to say.
Might as well start another Crusade.
Yes, we all use the same bible, but unfortunately we all now have different interpretations, we're not on the same page. What is good for one is not good for another.
What we need, in my humble opinion, is one leader. I, should say we since you are catholic, are fortunate enough to have that in the Catholic Church, in the person of the Pope.
No, the Pope is not our president. I would guess that this country could not tolerate a "truly" catholic president. But the Pope is the leader of Christendom, like it or not,and he has a responsibility to his duty.
And I, being Catholic, owe my allegiance to the Pope.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I believe in the simple Word of God and that each and every word in it is the infallible Word of the Living God. I don't believe that Jesus has more than one nature- He has the nature of God, Who, after all, He is. I don't believe in the supposition that presumes that the Bible itself is lacking in truth and requires a lot of extraneous explanations and extra-Biblical writings to fill in the supposed "gaps in truth" in the Holy Word of God. I also don't believe that the "Church" as Paul describes it refers to the Roman Catholic Church. I believe the "Church" is the body of believers who have accepted Christ as the one and only atonement and sacrifice for their sins, and do not believe that their salvation derives from what church they belong to. Denominations, after all, are something created by man, not God.
God has fulfilled His absolute truth in the Bible and the Bible alone. I will stake my eternal security on what God in His wisdom has decided to reveal to us in His Word and His Word alone. I need nothing else.
Might as well start another Crusade. It's about G.D. time somebody said that out loud too!Everyone forgets the purpose of the crusades.They were created against MUSLIM AGGRESSION! Here for the uninitiated or go here and read both parts.They're very long but damn worth it. http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/90sep/rage.htm
From 1990:
"The struggle between these rival systems has now lasted for some fourteen centuries. It began with the advent of Islam, in the seventh century, and has continued virtually to the present day. It has consisted of a long series of attacks and counterattacks, jihads and crusades, conquests and reconquests.
For the first thousand years Islam was advancing, Christendom in retreat and under threat. The new faith conquered the old Christian lands of the Levant and North Africa, and invaded Europe, ruling for a while in Sicily, Spain, Portugal, and even parts of France. The attempt by the Crusaders to recover the lost lands of Christendom in the east was held and thrown back, and even the Muslims' loss of southwestern Europe to the Reconquista was amply compensated by the Islamic advance into southeastern Europe, which twice reached as far as Vienna.
For the past three hundred years, since the failure of the second Turkish siege of Vienna in 1683 and the rise of the European colonial empires in Asia and Africa, Islam has been on the defensive, and the Christian and post-Christian civilization of Europe and her daughters has brought the whole world, including Islam, within its orbit".
Which I personally think is inevitable.
Answer: they all do, as even do the Catholics in their original (non-Apocrypha) Bible. As you yourself have pointed out, it's not the Bible that's in question, disputes about minor textual variations aside. It's how it's read that is.
If by Protestantism he means entities like the mainline churches today, he has a point. But if the Catholic church was like the old time Protestants and their intellectual progeny today (e.g. Southern Baptists, Missouri Lutherans, any number of independent conservative fundamentalist congregations), it would have a much stiffer backbone.
I think there are people in every denomination who are fervent and those who are not. For instance, I work with a guy who says he's a Southern Baptist in good standing, yet he is a notorious womanizer who often talks of his escapades. He said in briefing one day "hey, I'm a Southern Baptist, we believe in young chics and fried chicken." Says all he has to do is tell God he's sorry and that's the end of it.
And he's serious. I think we all know better than that.
Maybe the Vatican wants to keep up with the National Council of Churches.
I hope you read both parts and very glad for you if you did. I re-read it every 90 days or so, using different colored highlighters for points I missed before. I came across it shortly after 9/11 and have since printed copies at my work and easily given ( including EMail) entire copies to over 50 people and swayed their opinion and they have seen the light. The disinformation/total lack of comprehension regarding the history of "The Crusades" is particularly offensive, after you read it, isn't it? Had George W. NOT allowed the media to abuse him for using that word,(which in all honesty he was correct to use---it just wouldn't be possible for a Crusade in 2001 like it was 800-1100 years ago) every Muslim on earth might be dead right now, almost 2 years later, without a doubt,and we couldn't have that could we.(Imagine That )(Our DSL line was out all day today.I'm going home,thanks for reading my link and please remember to pass it on, if you ever find time.)
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.