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: 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: LadyDoc
Later read bump
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: LadyDoc
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.If the Pope is the "supreme authority" of the Catholic Church, why does he allow these beyond-the-pale statements of lesser--but close and intimate--authorities to stand unchallenged?
The Vatican (not merely the Pope, whom I believe to be an eminently decent man) is speaking with a forked tongue.
To: LadyDoc
Do people really care what he says or didn't say? Doesn't seem like he has much influence.
30 posted on
03/31/2003 8:14:26 PM PST by
PFKEY
To: LadyDoc
Thank you!
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson