Posted on 04/21/2005 7:52:33 AM PDT by Salvation
New Pope A Strong Critic of War |
![]() The election of Benedict XVI as pope brings hope for the continuation of peacemaking as central to the papacy. Just as John Paul II cried out again and again to the world, War never again! the new pope has taken the name of the one who first made that cry, Benedict XV, commonly known as the peace pope.
The name is no coincidence. In fact, Cardinal Justin Rigali, Archbishop of Philadelphia said Tuesday that the new pope told the cardinals he was selecting Benedict because "he is desirous to continue the efforts of Benedict XV on behalf of peace ... throughout the world." As a Cardinal, the new pope was a staunch critic of the U.S. led invasion of Iraq. On one occasion before the war, he was asked whether it would be just. "Certainly not," he said, and explained that the situation led him to conclude that "the damage would be greater than the values one hopes to save." All I can do is invite you to read the Catechism, and the conclusion seems obvious to me The conclusion is one he gave many times: "the concept of preventive war does not appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church." Even after the war, Ratzinger did not cease criticism of U.S. violence and imperialism: "it was right to resist the war and its threats of destruction...It should never be the responsibility of just one nation to make decisions for the world." Yet perhaps the most important insight of Ratzinger came during a press conference on May 2, 2003. After suggesting that perhaps it would be necessary to revise the Catechism section on just war (perhaps because it had been used by George Weigel and others to endorse a war the Church opposed), Ratzinger offered a deep insight that included but went beyond the issue of war Iraq: "There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a 'just war'." Along with his actual criticism of war, we take heart in the theological principle behind such criticism. While many Catholics, most notably Weigel, have advocated deference to the heads of state in determining issues such as war and peace, the new pope has consistently taught that the Church cannot simply retreat into the private sphere. He is skeptical of the view that politics can be done without reference to the Gospel. Appeals to neutral language that does not refer to religionpopular as they are among many neo-conservative Catholicsforget some of the hard sayings of Jesus that dont seem quite rational enough for public discourse. Sayings like Love your enemies and turn the other cheek and put away the sword, these are dismissed as impractical at best, sectarian at worst. Not by our new pope He signals an invigorated contiuance of the Church speaking the truth to power. In a talk on "Church, Ecumenism, and Politics," he insisted that "The Church must make claims and demands on public law....Where the Church itself becomes the state freedom becomes lost. But also when the Church is done away with as a public and publicly relevant authority, then too freedom is extinguished, because there the state once again claims completely for itself the jurisdiction of morality." He follows his namesake in refusing to let the Gospel become irrelevant to politics. Elected directly after the outbreak of WWI, Benedict XV sent a representative to each country to press for peace. On August 1, 1917, he delivered the Plea for Peace, which demanded a cessation of hostilities, a reduction of armaments, a guaranteed freedom of the seas, and international arbitration. Interstingly, on August 15, 1917, the Vatican sent a note to James Cardinal Gibbons, leader of the Church in the U.S. The request was that Gibbons and the U.S. Church "exert influence" with President Wison to endorse the papal peace plan to end the war. Cardinal Gibbons never contacted Wilson. (Nor does he seem to have lobbied on behalf of Benedict XV's call for a boycott on any nation that had obligatory militarey conscription.) On August 27, President Wilson formally rejected Benedict's plan. But Gibbons and the U.S. Catholic archbishops were not about to reject Wilson's war plans. They had promised the president "truest patriotic fervor and zeal" as well as manpower: "our people, as ever, will rise as one man to serve the nation" and exhorted young men to "be Americans always." Cardinal Gibbons had even written when war was declared that "the duty of a citizen" is "absolute and unreserved obedience to his country's call." Such unreserved obedience was not endorsed by Benedict XV, nor is it by Benedict XVI. This was perhaps what upset U.S. neoconservatives most, that John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger did not show more deference to the state. Perhaps because of their own experience with violent regimes, they seemed to grasp the biblical axiom from the Acts of the Apostles: "we must obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29) Such a decision to not obey men nearly cost the young Jospeh Ratzinger his life. In 1945 he made the decision to desert his post in the German army. When he was spotted and stopped by SS troops, he could have been shot on the spot. They did not, using his wound (his arm was in a sling) as an excuse. Yet in his memoir, Milestones, Ratzinger gives the deeper reason for his escape from death. Those soldiers, he wrote, "had enough of war and did not want to become murderers," Our world, Pope Benedict XVI knows well, has had enough of war. We join the chorus of hopes that his ministry as pope will help put an end to war and hasten along God's kingdom of peace.
No to "Preventive War" New Pope Risked Death by Deserting in WWII Cardinal Ratzinger Says Unilateral Attack on Iraq Not Justified |
But it makes sense that he might oppose war since he lived through the end of World War II.
Emphasis was already in the article!
Ping!
President Bush values the advice of the Pope. However, it will not be determinative in his decision-making.
Thanks for posting it. Your Catholic ping list is really great.
I agree. Neither was Bush swayed by John Paul II.
Yay to something that finally acknowledges that a 'conservative Catholic' is not the same thing as a 'conservative Republican'!
Unless you're anti-war and have more than 4 kids then I don't see how anyone can easily line up behind the Pope.
I am continually amazed that these folks never take account of the "new weapons" that make possible the destruction of only the combatant groups. What do these folks think JDAMs, and Small Diameter Bombs, and laser guided munitions, etc. are all about? They're the very opposite of "weapons of mass destruction", and they have been the focus of weapons development for decades. Modern methods of war are LESS destructive than anything the world has previously seen.
LOL I think Bush would have been more persuaded by an advocate of the saving power of free-trade.
I'm content to let the pope guard Vatican city with his prettily dressed swiss guards with hauberks and pikes. Great for pageantry.
But, when it comes to the United States, I'm content to let the president make decisions about war after 3000 of our citizens have been murdered. I'm content with the president using real forces that shed real blood and use real weapons.
"The damage" of doing nothing, dear former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, is that more of our citizens would have been murdered.
Once it became clear that this negative assessment from JOhn PAul II and Ratzinger and others did not convince Bush and Blair and that the war was going forward, John Paul II (in an address to military chaplains, the US bishops, and I assume, Ratzinger, shifted their rhetoric to try to encourage the best possible outcome to what they thought had been an imprudent decision. That's not quite the absolute opposition that the posted article claims.
In some of the above quotes, Ratzinger echoes the US Bishops' "modern weapons make war virtually never justified line." He may indeed share this viewpoint. Weigel has argued that it is misguided on technical grounds and the Bush Doctrine also shifts the focus from the old-style all-out war (including the nuclear threat) to the new rogue-state, terrorist actions, asymmetrical war etc. in which the "horrific new weapons" argument begins to be less significant.
To what degree Ratzinger (and John Paul) and the Curia had absorbed all the implications of the Bush Doctrine, turning its back on the old Arabist/Realist "let's hire our own thugs to police the Mideast so that the other sides thugs don't dominate," I don't know. The Catholic Peace Fellowship article doesn't have a clue about all of that. It's possible the new pope doesn't either, but I"d be surprised if he's entirely ignorant of it. In short, as this relatively new situation and set of arguments gets chewed over in the Curia (if it does, which I hope it will), and if the Bush Doctrine actually does lead to a real, positive change in the Middle East (it's too soon to be sure, but we can hope and pray that it does), that might lead to a more nuanced position by Benedict XVI.
But nuanced this article is not. I wouldn't take it too seriously. It's a propaganda piece trying to stake out a position of moral high ground in the coming debates. It uses Benedict XVI as a tool in the battles these guys are fighting, rather than really engages the big issues of just war in a world of asymmetrical, non-state, terrorism.
And why should he have been? The Pope runs the Vatican and the Catholic Church, not the United States.
oh so now the Freepers start to turn on the New Pope
fascinating
I could say more but I won't
If we had fought by WWI methods, they would have been annihilated with artillery barrages.
If we had fought by WWII methods, they would have been annihilated with aerial bombardment.
If we had fought by Korean War methods, they would have been annhilated by a horde of tanks.
Modern war is far more discriminate, and far more proportional thanmany folks realise. Modern war is emphatically NOT nuking the enemy off the face of the earth. We could do that, if we wanted to. We don't.
All real honest religious leaders opposed wars, and will continue to oppose wars. Only very few so called "born again" Christians type leaders supported the Iraq war in a fashion that resembles "MILITANT ISLAM", which uses its religion as an excuse for violence against others. I don't consider the "Born Again" type to be real Christian. Real Christianity opposes violence, and killing. Having said so; regular people who are full of sins, and who are leading our nation, can be expected to use violence against aggressors, or people who are plotting to harm us. That is in essence the separation of Church and State. If the church is going to lead, at least real Christian churches will never wage wars. Now, I expect sinners, who lead military killing of other people, will have to reflect on their actions and beg the lord for forgiveness.
Unless you're anti-war and have more than 4 kids then I don't see how anyone can easily line up behind the Pope.
There are many who teach this is the only Christian stance. I know Christians in Asia try very hard to conform to this and so do many minority Chrustians in the United States. But unfortunately I think the second part is not biblical - most Bible fundamentalists agree with this (anti-all wars is not what God says).
1) War may be necessary, but it is never Good
2) Resort to war should come only after at least considering all resonable alternatives
3) All is NOT fair in war.
I believe this is what Pope John Paul II was reminding President Bush ... and Pres. Bush heeded the reminder. Saddam remained intractable, the the rest is history.
I think he's plenty smart enough to know that while it appears there are twenty possible opening moves in a game of chess, there are only six or so that don't lead quickly to disaster. Unfortunately, many of his flock are not.
I agree. We all must remember as REGULAR human beings, when some body offends us, we typically lash out with obscenity or with physical force. That is human nature. Christianity teaches us to control HUMAN NATURE, if some body slap you on one cheek, turn to him the other cheek. It is possible to reconcile our human animal instinct and sinning behaviors with our goal of being Christ like forgiving meek people. As a secular leader of a country, I must react to violent action with violence. On the other hand, when I am sitting and praying to god for forgiveness, I must confess to god my sin for ORDERING VIOLENCE AS A REACTION TO THE VIOLENCE OF MY ENEMY.
Interesting ... you seem to view any resort to lethal force (LF) as inherently a matter of Mortal Sin. If this is so, then not only may we NEVER actually resort to LF, we may never even prepare to emply LF. Following this logic, for a Christian to enlist in a military orginisation (LF is their business), join a police force (LF is also their business), or even arm himself for self defense (in practice, effective self defense means LF) would also be a matter of Mortal Sin.
This is inconsistent with the Old Testament (Israel was both armed and warlike), the New Testament (John the Baptist told soldiers to be content with their pay; Jesus allowed his Apostles to carry swords), and with 2000 years of the teaching and practice of the Church. I, therefore, reject the absolute pacifist beliefs you seem to hold.
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.