War in the Gulf. What the Pope Really Said

War in the Gulf. What the Pope Really Said “We know well that peace is not possible at any price. But we all know how great is this responsibility....” – John Paul II. The true story of a condemnation that never took place ............(s.m.) ROMA - There’s war in Iraq. A war strongly opposed up to the last minute by the Catholic Church. Opposed but never condemned, judging by what was said by its supreme authority, the pope.

The media have not been clear about this lack of condemnation. They have almost always reported John Paul II’s words as if they declared an absolute anathema on this war, if not indeed on all wars.

But there isn’t a trace of this condemnation in any of the frequent, relentless speeches in which the pope has called for peace in Iraq.

To verify this, see John Paul II’s original texts on the theme, carried at the bottom of the page. Ending with the March 19 general audience, the texts stretch back to Jan. 1, the day the Church traditionally dedicates to world peace.

In all of his speeches, the pope preaches peace, presenting it as an absolute imperative and the inescapable horizon of every decision that governments and individuals make. Yet he never goes so far as to define war in Iraq as “a crime against peace,” as have, for example, two of his aides, Archbishops Jean-Louis Tauran and Renato Martino.

The pope’s words stand out for the intense religious sense that marks them. Rare and very measured are the passages that he has dedicated to concrete ways for constructing peace in the Gulf. And they have the form of a “discourse on method,” not of a precept.

Regarding method, one example is the admonition John Paul II gave to the world’s ambassadors Jan. 13:

“War cannot be decided upon, even when it is a matter of ensuring the common good, except as the very last option and in accordance with very strict conditions.”

And the warning he issued during the March 16 Angelus meditation is also an appeal to make decisions responsibly:

“We know well that peace is not possible at any price. But we all know how great is this responsibility.”

In these, as in other passages, the pope never excludes war in Iraq from the arc of practicable and just decisions.

But he entrusts that judgment to the consciences and intelligence of each person. The pope shows himself unyielding only on the final horizon of peace, not on the ways for arriving there. And the peace he preaches is essentially that “which comes from God.”

This is confirmed in the discontent that the papal position has produced among Catholic pacifists.

A good number of them in Italy have written an open letter to John Paul II, saying:

“Your Holiness, we ask of you a simple and univocal affirmation that does not leave loopholes for parentheticals and hairsplitting.”

This is a sign that, in these pacifists’ judgment, the pope’s “no” to war is not radical – without “ifs” and “buts” – as they would like it to be.

Among the letter’s signatories are the prior of the Camaldolese Benedictine Abbey of Fonte Avellana, Alessandro Barban; the president of “Beati i costruttori di pace” (“Blessed Are the Peacemakers”), Father Albino Bizzotto; the vice-director of “Famiglia Cristiana,” Angelo Bertani; missionary Father Alex Zanotelli; non-violence activists Enrico Peyretti and Massimo Toschi; and well-known priests, nuns, and theologians.

The text of the letter is on the Internet with the list of its signers. Here’s the link:

And here follows a faithful anthology of John Paul II’s comments on the war in the Gulf, with links to the entire speeches:

May St. Joseph, universal patron of the church, watch over the entire ecclesial community and, man of peace that he was, obtain for all humanity, especially for the peoples threatened in these hours by war, the precious gift of harmony and peace.

I wish to renew an urgent appeal to intensify the commitment to prayer and penance, to invoke from Christ the gift of his peace. There is no peace without conversion of heart.

The next few days will be decisive for the outcome of the Iraqi crisis. Let us pray, then, that the Lord inspire in all sides of the dispute courage and farsightedness.

The political leaders of Baghdad certainly have the urgent duty to collaborate fully with the international community to eliminate every reason for armed intervention. To them I direct my urgent appeal: the fate of your fellow-citizens should always have priority.

But I would also like to remind the member countries of the United Nations, and especially those who make up the Security Council, that the use of force represents the last recourse, after having exhausted every other peaceful solution, in keeping with the well-known principles of the U.N. Charter.

That is why, in the face of the tremendous consequences that an international military operation would have for the population of Iraq and for the balance of the Middle East region, already sorely tried, and for the extremisms that could stem from it, I say to all: There is still time to negotiate; there is still room for peace, it is never too late to come to an understanding and to continue discussions.

To reflect on one's duties, to engage in energetic negotiations does not mean to be humiliated, but to work with responsibility for peace […].

I belong to that generation that lived through World War II and, thanks be to God, survived it. I have the duty to say to all young people, to those who are younger than I, who have not had this experience: “No more war,” as Paul VI said during his first visit to the United Nations. We must do everything possible. We know well that peace is not possible at any price. But we all know how great is this responsibility. Therefore, prayer and penance.

As today’s Gospel (Mk 1:12-15) suggests, during the forty days of Lent believers are called to follow Christ into the “desert,” in order to confront and defeat with Him the spirit of evil. This is an interior battle, upon which the concrete organization of one’s life depends. It is, in fact, from the heart of man that his intentions and actions are unleashed (c.f. Mk 7:21), and therefore it is only by purifying his conscience that he prepares the way for justice and peace, on both a personal and a social level.

In the current international context, it is clearly more urgent that man purify his conscience and convert his heart to true peace. In that regard, the image of Christ unmasking and defeating the lies of Satan with the power of the truth contained in the Word of God is more eloquent than ever. The voice of God resounds in the depths of each person – but so do the allurements of the evil one. The latter seeks to deceive man, seducing him with prospects of illusory goods, in order to lead him away from the true good, which consists in fulfilling the divine will. But humble and trusting prayer, reinforced by fasting, permits him to overcome even the most difficult trials, and imparts the courage necessary to combat evil with good. Thus Lent becomes a profitable time of spiritual training.

This year, we will undertake the penitential journey toward Easter with a stronger commitment to prayer and fasting for peace, which is endangered by growing threats of war. Already last Sunday I had the chance to announce this initiative, which is meant to involve the faithful in fervent prayer to Christ, the Prince of Peace. Peace, in fact, is a gift of God that must be invoked with humble and insistent trust. Without giving up in the face of difficulties, we must seek out and follow every possible way of avoiding war, which always results in sorrow and grave consequences for all.

For months, the international community has been living in great apprehension of the danger of war, which could unsettle the entire Middle East and aggravate the tensions that unfortunately are already present at the beginning of the third millennium. The believers of all religions must proclaim that we can never be happy if we are in conflict with one another; the future of humanity can never be assured by terrorism and the logic of war.

We Christians, in particular, are called to be the guardians of peace, in the places where we live and work. We are asked, that is, to keep watch, that our consciences may not give in to the temptations of egoism, deceit, and violence.

I therefore invite all Catholics to dedicate with particular intensity March 5, Ash Wednesday, to prayer and fasting for peace, especially in the Middle East.

At this time of worldwide concern, we all feel the need to present ourselves to the Lord to implore the great gift of peace. As I set forth in the Apostolic Letter ‘Rosarium Virginis Mariae,’ “The grave challenges confronting the world at the start of this new Millennium lead us to think that only an intervention from on high...can give reason to hope for a brighter future” (No. 40). Many prayer initiatives are springing up these days, in various parts of the world. While I give these my wholehearted support, I invite all to take up the rosary to invoke the intercession of the Most Holy Virgin.

"No to war! War is not always inevitable. It is always a defeat for humanity. International law, honest dialogue, solidarity between States, the noble exercise of diplomacy: these are methods worthy of individuals and nations in resolving their differences. I say this as I think of those who still place their trust in nuclear weapons and of the all-too-numerous conflicts which continue to hold hostage our brothers and sisters in humanity. At Christmas, Bethlehem reminded us of the unresolved crisis in the Middle East, where two peoples, Israeli and Palestinian, are called to live side-by-side, equally free and sovereign, in mutual respect. Without needing to repeat what I said to you last year on this occasion, I will simply add today, faced with the constant degeneration of the crisis in the Middle East, that the solution will never be imposed by recourse to terrorism or armed conflict, as if military victories could be the solution. And what are we to say of the threat of a war which could strike the people of Iraq, the land of the Prophets, a people already sorely tried by more than twelve years of embargo? War is never just another means that one can choose to employ for settling differences between nations. As the Charter of the United Nations Organization and international law itself remind us, war cannot be decided upon, even when it is a matter of ensuring the common good, except as the very last option and in accordance with very strict conditions, without ignoring the consequences for the civilian population both during and after the military operations.

How can I not express again the hope that leaders will do everything possible to find peaceful solutions for the many tensions in the world, in particular in the Middle East, avoiding further suffering for those already sorely tried populations? May human solidarity and law prevail!

The Message for the World Day for Peace this year recalls the encyclical ‘Pacem in Terris,’ at the fortieth anniversary of its publication […]. When it was written, threatening clouds were gathering on the horizon of the world, and the nightmare of nuclear war weighed upon humanity. My venerable predecessor […] pointed forcefully to “truth, justice, love, and freedom” as the “four pillars” upon which to build a lasting peace. His teaching is still relevant […]. In the face of the current conflicts and the threatening tensions of this moment, I again invite all to pray that “peaceful means” of resolution may be sought, means inspired by the “desire for fair and constructive agreement,” in harmony with the principles of international law.

“L'Osservatore Romano” and “Avvenire”: The Two Discordant Voices of the Church of Rome
The Pope’s 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 See’s 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, that’s 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 Pope’s 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 minister’s 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 Osservatore’s 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 paper’s editor carried the title: “No Peace without Justice.”

In the reply, editor Dino Boffo, after describing the horrors of Saddam Hussein’s 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 Church’s 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 Vatican’s realist position is the speech given in New York on February 19, before the UN Security Council, by the Holy See’s 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 Vatican’s 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.”

__________

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.

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.