New Pope A Strong Critic of War

CatholicPeaceFellowship.org ^ | 04-21-05 | CatholicPeaceFellowship.org

[Salvation]

Must do some more reading here before forming my own opinion.

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!

[Salvation]

Ping!

[sinkspur]

President Bush values the advice of the Pope. However, it will not be determinative in his decision-making.

[ValenB4]

Thanks for posting it. Your Catholic ping list is really great.

[Salvation]

I agree. Neither was Bush swayed by John Paul II.

[johnmilken]

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.

[ArrogantBustard]

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'."

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.

[ex-snook]

I agree. Neither was Bush swayed by John Paul II."

LOL I think Bush would have been more persuaded by an advocate of the saving power of free-trade.

[xzins]

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."

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.

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

The source is the Catholic Peace Fellowship. I am in contact with liberal Catholics whose current talking points consist of trying to hammer traditional Catholics with the claim that unless one opposed the Iraq war, one is unfaithful to the Magisterium. This article quotes Ratzinger selectively and is very much agenda-driven. I don't doubt Ratzinger did oppose the war, but so did I--on prudential grounds: I knew that given the opposition Chirac, SChroeder, Annan and the anti-Bush Left in the US and Europe, etc., incredible pressure would come after the initial military success to cut and run. If that happend, the end-situation could have been worse than before the war was lauched. I hoped and prayed that that would not happen, but the possibility, even likelihood, that it would meant that two crucial just war criteria (likelihood of success, proportionality--that the cure not be worse than the disease) were in doubt.

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.

[rdb3]

I agree. Neither was Bush swayed by John Paul II.

And why should he have been? The Pope runs the Vatican and the Catholic Church, not the United States.

[littlelilac]

oh so now the Freepers start to turn on the New Pope

fascinating

I could say more but I won't

[ArrogantBustard]

I think a great many people who aren't directly involved with the military have a gross misperception of what "modern war" is all about: Locating the enemy, targeting him precisely, and destroying him without damaging the house full of kids next door. Notice that Baghdad sitll exists. Even Fallujah still exists.

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.

[conservlib]

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.

[NZerFromHK]

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).

[ArrogantBustard]

I think it is important for Christians in general, and Christian leaders in particular, to remind the society at large that:

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.

[conservlib]

I agree with you 100%. Holy men, who follow Christ will never use or recommend violence. Human beings who are under the control of our "animal instinct" will react to violence with violence. That is reality. Of course human beings who are seeking reconciliation with God, and forgiveness of their sins must reflect on their violent actions, and repent begging the lord to forgive such behavior. Leaders, who ordered wars, and who never repented or asked the lord for forgiveness, will go to hell.

[papertyger]

Of course the Holy Father's assessment is absolutely correct... provided our enunciated reasoning was the only reasoning.

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.

[conservlib]

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.

[ArrogantBustard]

Of course human beings who are seeking reconciliation with God, and forgiveness of their sins must reflect on their violent actions, and repent begging the lord to forgive such behavior. Leaders, who ordered wars, and who never repented or asked the lord for forgiveness, will go to hell.

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.