Skip to comments.
War in the Gulf. What the Pope Really Said
L'Expresso ^
| 3-20-03
| Sandro Magister
Posted on 03/30/2003 5:42:07 AM PST by LadyDoc
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-33 next last
Interesting from the point of press bias...
1
posted on
03/30/2003 5:42:07 AM PST
by
LadyDoc
To: LadyDoc; sinkspur
L'Osservatore Romano and Avvenire: The Two Discordant Voices of the Church of Rome
The Popes newspaper and that of his vicar are speaking different languages with regard to the war in Iraq. But the realists have the upper hand, even in the Secretariat of State
by Sandro Magister VERSIONE ITALIANA
ROMA Above is the front page of the February 24-25, 2003 edition of the Osservatore Romano, showing the word never framed by the words of John Paul II at the Angelus on Sunday, February 23.
The media have almost unanimously interpreted this never as an absolute No from the Pope to the war against Iraq being threatened by the United States and its allies.
Even more so as the next day, the Holy Sees foreign minister, Archbishop Jean Louis Tauran, seemed to confirm this absolute No to war in a speech in Rome on Monday the 24th. At least, thats the way almost all the newspapers reported it.
There was a conspicuous exception, however: the newspaper Avvenire, which is owned by the Italian bishops conference and very close to the thought of Camillo Cardinal Ruini, the president of the conference and the Popes vicar.
On Tuesday the 25th, just when the Osservatore Romano was on the newsstands with its gigantic never, Avvenire came out with this headline on its front page: UN, the United States is Picking Up the Pace. And just below it: Archbishop Tauran: Only the UN Can Decide.
Inside, the article on the Vatican foreign ministers speech carried a title that stretched across the page: Tauran: The UN Has the Last Word. On another page, the words of the Pope at the Angelus were given this title: We Christians Are the Guardians of Peace. No to the Logic of Terrorism and War. The Osservatores huge never was reported as a news item.
Moreover, in the same edition of Avvenire, on its very popular letters to the editor page, the leading letter with a reply by the papers editor carried the title: No Peace without Justice.
In the reply, editor Dino Boffo, after describing the horrors of Saddam Husseins regime, made this conclusion:
We would wish that not even one Iraqi or one American soldier should die in a conflict that, fortunately, is yet to be fought, and therefore, it can be hoped, may never begin. But can we meanwhile overlook the million Iraqis and Kurds who have already been massacred? Are lives of unequal value? Can peace fall into place without the conditions for justice? [...] As a citizen, I find the theory of preventive war unsustainable, and I hope the United States will reconsider it soon. But I believe that in some circumstances the use of force to disarm an aggressor and restore justice can be legitimate, or even a duty. If international bodies cannot do this, why do they exist? Here I think should be added the indication that the Pope repeated to Prime Minister Blair last Saturday: the UN is the way through which every initiative should be channeled, a responsible UN free from ambiguity and private interests. The stronger and more credible it is, the greater its power of dissuasion will be.
From this synoptic reading of the two newspapers most representative of the Churchs leadership we can gather that on the question of Iraq two tendencies coexist, and sometimes have been at odds with each other: a idealistic one, and a realistic one.
The idealistic tendency prevails on the communicative level, at the risk of being confused with pacifism.
But the realistic tendency in both opposing the war and admitting it as an extreme solution undertaken by the UN is substantially the victor.
It is the realism of Angelo Cardinal Sodano, the Vatican Secretary of State, when he said: Is it worth it to irritate a billion Muslims? Is it a good idea? We will have the hostility of that whole world for decades.
It is the realism of Archbishop Jean Louis Tauran when he admitted, near the end of his pacifist speech on Monday, February 24, that the Security Council of the UN can decide that some circumstances constitute a threat to international security, and consider the appropriate measures.
It is the realism of John Paul II with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, as found in a document released by the Vatican after their meeting on Saturday, February 22: The Holy Father hopes that, in the solution to the grave crisis in Iraq, every effort be made to avoid new divisions. Which is as much as to say that the armed Iraqi threat is a serious problem that must be resolved, possibly without recourse to war.
Among the recent official pronouncements, the one that reflects most accurately the Vaticans realist position is the speech given in New York on February 19, before the UN Security Council, by the Holy Sees new permanent observer to the United Nations, Archbishop Celestino Migliore.
In his speech, Migliore invokes all of the possible initiatives for arriving at the peaceful disarming of Iraq. But he does not exclude war as a last resort in the context of the United Nations, in the case of failings on the part of Saddam Hussein:
The Holy See encourages the parties concerned to keep the dialogue open that could bring about solutions in preventing a possible war and urges the international community to assume its responsibility in dealing with any failings by Iraq.
Here is a link to the full text on the Vaticans website:
> Intervention of H.E. Msgr. Celestino Migliore at the Meeting in the Chamber of the Security Council of the United Nations on the Iraqi Issue, Wednesday, 19 February 2003
One particular that the press failed to pick up on is that in this speech Migliore made public the essence of the letter from John Paul II to Saddam Hussein, delivered to Baghdad in mid-February by Roger Cardinal Etchegaray.
The letter said Migliore insisted on the need for concrete commitments in faithful adherence to the relevant resolutions of the United Nations.
And it appealed to the conscience of its recipient with these words: because, in the end, it is conscience that will have the last word, stronger than all strategies, all ideologies and also all religions.
__________
2
posted on
03/30/2003 5:44:30 AM PST
by
LadyDoc
(liberals only love politically correct poor people)
To: LadyDoc
Our local priests have talked of the necessity of liberation of a people under Hussein's repressive regime. I hadn't heard any of the Pope's comments on the war in Iraq but, knowing how the Polish people were so repressed, it seemed odd to me that he would make such statements against a war of liberation. NOW I know it was the liberal media putting interpreting (wrongly, as usual) the Popes true intention. So many who are prejudiced against the church in the first place are too eager and willing to believe the misinterpretations and lies that the media spews.
3
posted on
03/30/2003 5:51:45 AM PST
by
sneakers
To: LadyDoc
Thanks for posting this.
4
posted on
03/30/2003 6:18:47 AM PST
by
Valin
(Age and deceit beat youth and skill)
To: sneakers; LadyDoc
I know it was the liberal media putting interpreting (wrongly, as usual) the Popes true intention.
Great posts!!
The Pope's calls to prayer weren't good enough for the press, so they heavily pursued more fitting statements in hopes of satisfying their agenda.
I have also been keenly aware of the fact that here in America, as Congress was deliberating partial birth abortion, practically nil was written nor spoken on televison news about JPII's *unwavering and absolutely clear* PRO LIFE demands.
In this, I see the press' tactic of calling attention to one issue while deliberately ignoring another less speculative, true message or story. Picture one hand overhead snapping fingers... the other left down continuing to do its dirty work; the media hollers and directs you to look at the snapping hand: "LOOK OVER HERE!".
To: LadyDoc
From Evangelium Vitae:
"legitimate defence can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life, the common good of the family or of the State".( Unfortunately it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose action brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason.
6
posted on
03/30/2003 7:18:38 AM PST
by
Straight Vermonter
(http://www.angelfire.com/ultra/terroristcorecard/index.html)
To: Pippin
All day yesterday I thought about the Pope, the issues of war and peace, the religious imperative...the lambs, the jackals who wish to slaughter the lambs...the choice of Barrabas.
This morning I find this article, which points out the error in my perception as to where the Holy Father stands and what he says.
My apologies to you, dear Pippin, for my thoughtless remark yesterday.
I've already apologized to the Pope.
The times they are confusin'...)
7
posted on
03/30/2003 8:06:19 AM PST
by
jwfiv
To: LadyDoc
Later read bump
To: jwfiv
The following is from
Just War Theory and Aiding the Cause of Peace, by Prof Charles Rice of Notre Dame. The article was published in the
N.D. Observer on Feb 19, 2003. The author is a thoughtful Catholic conservative.
... His [Moussaoui's] possible transfer to a military tribunal reminds us that, regardless of Iraq, we already have a major and just war on our hands, against Islamic terrorists. If there is a significant connection between Iraq and terrorists an attack on Iraq could be justified as an aspect of that just war. [My emphasis]
The "just war" theory is a method of moral reasoning to prevent war and to minimize its effects if it does occur. The requirements for jus ad bellum, justice in going to war, are: proper authority, just cause and right intention. The Catechism lists further details: "[T]he damage inflicted by the aggressor must be lasting, grave and certain;" war must be a last resort, with "all other means impractical or ineffective;" "there must be serious prospects of success;" and "the use of arms must not produce evils graver than the evil to be eliminated." Jus in bello, justice in fighting a war, requires proportionality and discrimination (non-combatant immunity from intentional attack). [Some will say that none of these criteria have been met. I think they have all been met.]
Pope John Paul II has emphasized, with reference to Iraq, that war "is always a defeat for humanity" and cannot be waged "except as the very last option and in accordance with very strict conditions." On Nov. 13, the U.S. Catholic bishops opposed the Iraq war in a major but guarded statement. , [My emphasis] They affirmed the fact-dependent nature of the just war criteria and the deference owed to the government's evaluation. The bishops said
"We offer not definitive conclusions, but our serious concerns and questions. People of good will may differ on how to apply just war norms especially when the facts are not altogether clear. [My emphasis] Based on the facts that are known to us, we find it difficult to justify the war against Iraq, lacking clear and adequate evidence of an imminent attack of a grave nature."
But then the bishops conceded: "There are no easy answers. Ultimately, our elected leaders are responsible for decisions about national security." [My emphasis]
Similarly, the Catechism notes that the "evaluation" of the conditions for a just war "belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good." [My emphasis]
A preventive war is not intrinsically wrong, but it is more difficult to justify. It is debatable whether the administration has disclosed convincing evidence that Iraq aids, or is about to aid, the terror network or that Iraq is an imminent threat to the United States. But, as the bishops implicitly acknowledge, the public does not have a right to disclosure of facts where that would be contrary to national security. The governmental decisions here are entitled to the benefit of the doubt [My emphasis] up to a point of incredibility that does not appear to have been reached in this case. One factor is that we no longer have an adjudicated liar in the White House. [Hah!!]
In any event, all of this shows the wisdom of the framers of the Constitution in putting the decision on declaring war in the hands of Congress rather than in one man. The President has a war power, to enable him, as James Madison said, "to repel sudden attacks." [My emphasis] Congress, unwisely but probably validly, has authorized the President to decide whether to make war on Iraq. So war or peace will be decided by one man.
I think Prof Rice's evenhanded and thoughtful words exhaust the topic.
9
posted on
03/30/2003 9:09:53 AM PST
by
ishmac
To: ishmac
Thank you very much, ishmac.
Of all the world leadership figures, I feel most reverence and respect for John Paul II and what he has to say.
These past weeks, I've misread what he says, being lazy in thought, and too easily influenced by what the 'news' says he says.
I thought I disagreed with him on this war issue. I find now that I have agreed all along.
He charts a wise course through troubled seas.
Thanks again, for helping to lift my own fog of war.
10
posted on
03/30/2003 9:23:09 AM PST
by
jwfiv
To: jwfiv
Of all the world leadership figures, I feel most reverence and respect for John Paul II and what he has to say.Me, too. Seeing him in Toronto last summer is something I will never forget. Called to mind Stalin's quip, "How many divisions does the Pope have?" Quite a few, I decided, after looking around the park in Toronto.
It also reminded me of some graffiti I saw in college, which went
God is dead. -- Nietsche
Nietsche is dead. -- God
All the various socialisms have run their course, and the office of the pope has outlasted them all.
11
posted on
03/30/2003 9:46:21 AM PST
by
ishmac
To: ishmac
I saw the Pope when he came to Phoenix, in '86 or so.
One of the most moving photos ever was the one of him in Ali Adja's cell, conveying forgiveness, and having a little heart to heart, with the man who shot him.
12
posted on
03/30/2003 9:52:28 AM PST
by
jwfiv
To: BartMan1
Can you think of any pinhead academics you'd like to mention this to?
13
posted on
03/30/2003 1:28:12 PM PST
by
IncPen
(Get 'em, boys!)
To: LadyDoc
BTTT
To: jwfiv
hgi, JW!
Apology accepted! :^)
Now I have to apologize to you for jumping on you like I did.
15
posted on
03/30/2003 4:30:25 PM PST
by
Pippin
( God bless George W. Bush and God bless America)
To: LadyDoc; sinkspur; wheathead
This changes everything.
16
posted on
03/30/2003 4:41:15 PM PST
by
struwwelpeter
(davai za tekh kto s nami byl togda)
To: LadyDoc
I heard that the Pope hasn't declared this a just war. How often has the Pope done such a thing?
17
posted on
03/30/2003 4:44:29 PM PST
by
GraniteStateConservative
(Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.)
To: LadyDoc
**press bias...**
What the Pope has been saying has repeatedly been misconstrued by the lamestream media/press.
18
posted on
03/30/2003 4:51:19 PM PST
by
Salvation
(†With God all things are possible.†)
To: Pippin
Oh, your apology is not necessary, but I accept anyway...you didn't jump on me, but only asked me to look more closely at what I said. You did me a favor, so I will say thank you...)
In all this run up to the war, the only argument against it I have given any credence to was what I thought was the Pope's...because I respect him so much, and believe he's wholly devoted to God, as much as any human can be.
So, you prompted me to think twice, and then this article appears, along with a chance to exchange posts with a Freeper who further clarified the issue. All in all, a beneficial experience, and I feel really good about it.
I didn't like to be in opposition to John Paul...and feel stronger in my own outlook, after considering more closely his.
I always love your rants...it's cool when you stand up a little bit riled...)
Thanks again to the warrior-Hobbit...))))
19
posted on
03/30/2003 4:56:40 PM PST
by
jwfiv
To: jwfiv
You're welcome! :^)
20
posted on
03/30/2003 4:59:53 PM PST
by
Pippin
( God bless George W. Bush and God bless America)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-33 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson