Pope John Paul II, Assisi and Religious Liberty debated

Catholic-Legate.com ^ | June 7, 2003 | John Pacheco vs. Bob Sungenis

[Theosis]

Finally, the Pope and the Vatican act as if Saddam had a sovereign right to rule over 24 million people.

Oh Sinkspur, I'm disputing the war, either pro or con. I was just sharing what the SSPX wrote in their official FAQ, since I was curious to see whether ultima would be as harsh in his response to the SSPX as he was in his critique of the Holy Father -- especially since the SSPX's opposition is much harsher in my opinion.

[Theosis]

Woops... I mean't to quote the following: "Read #17. It's a perfect justification for Iraqi Freedom."

[Theosis]

Ugh... it's a little late in the evening, so let me try again. I'm not disputing whether or not the war was just. Rather, I was simply noting how ultima ratio initiates a diatribe against the Holy Father for opposing the war, when the Holy Father's opposition was quite mild when compared to that of Bishop Williamson and Fr. Peter Scott. Yet ultima ratio appears to minimize the opposition of these two individuals. I had to post Fr. Scott's comments to get a response from ultima, and even then he doesn't mention Scott or the SSPX by name, he maintains in passing this was merely their political opinion, and he aims his barbs at the Holy Father more than once in his response to Fr. Scott's comments. In short, there is a double standard in place. Attack the Holy Father, but go into defensive mode when it concerns the SSPX holding an even stronger position on the same issue. Why is that?

[ultima ratio]

Oh, yeah, "quite mild." Like inviting Saddam's henchman into the Vatican to schmooze, thus undermining Bush's efforts to get Saddam to quit peacefully, or attacking the U.S in Vatican journals, claiming we covet Iraqi oil. "Quite mild", my foot.

But in any case, my opposition to the Pope was not based on his policies towards Iraq--which is why I couldn't care less what the SSPX or the Remnant or anybody else has to say about the issue. My opposition to the New Church is based on faith issues, not Iraq policy.

[Theosis]

Oh, yeah, "quite mild." Like inviting Saddam's henchman into the Vatican to schmooze, thus undermining Bush's efforts to get Saddam to quit peacefully, or attacking the U.S in Vatican journals, claiming we covet Iraqi oil. "Quite mild", my foot.

Is this an invitation do a line-by-line comparison between the Holy Father's statements in opposition to the war and those of the SSPX? If so, let's take a good look at Bishop Williamson's comments, shalt we?

"We come to the third CONDITION for a just war," Williamson writes, "namely that it must be waged with an upright INTENTION. Alas, everybody knows that the United States and Great Britain in particular are far from disinterested where Iraq's oil is concerned, from the Bush family and Vice-President Cheney downwards. Oil in the Caspian basin - a large part of our reason for invading Afghanistan - is apparently proving neither so plentiful nor so easy of access as was at first thought, so it is back to the Persian Gulf for our needs, where Iraq's underground supply is second only to Saudi Arabia's. After decades and decades of US and GB intervention in the Persian Gulf, let us just say that the uprightness of their intentions in the project of this latest attack in the area is somewhat less than clear."

This should be read in the context of his entire letter, which I would encourage anyone to do who thinks that the SSPX was more mild in their opposition to the war than the Holy See.

[St.Chuck]

One of the most disagreeable aspects of your posts is the utter disdain for truth and perspective.

It is true we haven't yet found WMD, but the entire world community believed they then existed.

It would be more accurate to say that the entire world community suspected that Saddam might be developing WDM's, and that is why the U.N. sanctioned the resumption of weapons inspections. Failing to discover demonstrable proof of WDM's, nearly all the "world community" urged an increase in inspections; only a handful of first world nations joined the U.S. in believing strongly enough in the phantom WDM's to join the U.S. in it's invasion.

The inference, moreover, used by this priest and even more openly by the Vatican itself--that it was OIL that the U.S. coveted, ignores the entire history of the United States.

I have to question this statement as well. I don't recall the Vatican mentioning oil. The Vatican's concern was definitely about principles and geopolitical realities. You might want to look into that claim.

Finally, the Pope and the Vatican act as if Saddam had a sovereign right to rule over 24 million people.

No more so than the U.S. who negotiated a treaty with his government after the Gulf War and had diplomatic relations. Another misrepresentation.

It's interesting that you backpedal from the SSPX when you find them embarrassing to you. Frankly, I'm glad to see that they are are upholding traditional just war theory.

[St.Chuck]

Yes, and if you pin him down--which is, admittedly, hard to do

Impossible to do...when you try to get him to develop any of his points or verify any of his accusations you will be ignored. I don't think he has the capability to expand beyond his talking points.

[ultima ratio]

There had been weapons inspections for twelve years. Saddam had never cooperated. He was not cooperating even after Bush laid down the gauntlet and issued his threats in his famous UN speech challenging the Security Council to put some teeth in its resolutions. The Security Council then signed on to an American demand that Iraq must cooperate or else.

Did Saddam finally cooperate? No. Did that matter to France or Germany or Russia--all of whom had lucrative ties to Iraq and to Saddam personally and had a vested interest--oil and big bucks--in his continued stay in power? No. Even the UN was making billions skimming off the top of its oil-for-food program. Nobody wanted the fun to end--except a handful of nations siding with us, and, of course, the suffering Iraqi people. That's the real truth, not the leftwing version which is off somewhere in a parallel universe where the birdies tweet and Saddam is considered a latterday hero for standing up to the mean-old imperialist U.S.A. thirsty for Iraqi oil.

You write, "It would be more accurate to say that the entire world community suspected that Saddam might be developing WDM's, and that is why the U.N. sanctioned the resumption of weapons inspections."

That is not, in fact, accurate. Most first world nations had the exact same intelligence we did and none argued that these WMD did not exist but were only being developed. Even President Clinton frequently alluded to Iraq's WMD. Now the issue is convenient as a means for the left to sully a bit of the brightness in the victory that rightfully belongs to the US and Britain. But back then, before the war, no one had doubts about Saddam's weapons, not France, not Germany, not Russia, not the Democratic Party. Are we supposed to believe Bush and Blair lied to the world about Saddam's arsenal in order to justify an invasion that would prove no such arsenal existed in the first place and that they themselves were a bunch of liars? Give me a break.

In any case, the fact that inspectors were pleading for more time meant nothing if Saddam would not cooperate. And he would not--even demanding Iraqi monitors must accompany all interrogations of scientists, a demand he never backed off from. So why stretch out such a farce for months more--as if our troops were toys which could be kept bobbing on open seas indefinitely? Bush correctly saw more time as the ploy by which to turn back the use of force. He wasn't buying, said, "After twelve years, time's up," and moved into action.

As for the Vatican statement on oil--I don't usually ascribe to the editorial views of NCR, but I have found their reporting to be accurate. Here is what they had to say during the turmoil preceding the war: "The Vatican also kept up its rhetorical drumbeat, with unusually strong comments suggesting that armed force without United Nations authorization would be illegal, and that the United States may be acting on the basis of its desire to control Iraq’s oil resources." These claims were repeated in the Jesuit journal Etudes. Even after we indirectly commissioned Michael Novak to go to Rome to make our just-war case to the Pope, the Vatican was hostile.

And yes, we entered into negotiations with Saddam--but Bush is not his father. He is deeply serious about his faith and a moral man who took the moral dimension of the Iraq crisis very seriously. In my heart of hearts I believe his primary reason for going to war was to free the Iraqi people, though he gave three distinct reasons over and over: to eliminate the threat of WMD, to destroy the Al Qaeda support in Iraq, and to free the Iraqi people.

Finally, why on earth should you think I'm "backpedalling" from the SSPX as if I believed it were an infallible font of all wisdom, even in matters secular? I consider its views on Iraq wrong and irrelevant. The Society serves one great purpose and it does this well--it has held onto Catholic tradition and the true faith, despite every pressure and even persecution. But these priests are hardly experts on world affairs. The Pope's stand, on the other hand, was something else--it directly interfered with the pressure we were exerting on Iraq against Saddam and gave a frisson of moral legitimacy to the hate-America marches that were burgeoning all over Europe. Had the Pope won the day, Saddam's henchmen would still be pushing people they didn't like feet-first into giant shredders. Thank God for Bush!

[Ippolita]

The Pope did not oppose war in Kosovo; he did not because his interest in geopolitics is very personal: he recognized (catholic) Croatia over-night , plunging (orthodox) Yugoslavia into civil war; and then went on to do all that he could to get rid of the Serbs by defending the Albanian muslim minority. A most unfortuanate example of how His Holiness plays both sides of the fence according to his interests.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Did a suspected development of WMD's kill all those Kurds and Iraqi's in the 1980's???? He already had developed them.

[St.Chuck]

I didn't want to change the topic of discussion, just point out inaccuracies in your post, which you proceeded to multiply in your response to mine.

It is heartening, however, to see you acknowlege that the pope does excercise considerable moral authority, and that the SSPX is, in comparison, ignored, even by it's adherents.

[St.Chuck]

What's more, how could the priests, that you consistently defend as being holy, devout, unimpeachable witnesses to the faith get just-war theory wrong? How could Fr. Scott, who describes the N.O. mass as inherently evil, and opposes everything the Vatican does, find himself in agreement with the pope on this issue? Are they anti-American or pro-European as you explain as the pope's reasons for opposing U.S. aims?

[Snuffington]

Saddam did not rule by divine right--though that is how the Vatican behaved in dealing with him--he ruled by terror.

Excellent observation.

[ultima ratio]

How could Fr. Scott find himself in agreement with the Pope on Iraq? Easy--he didn't have Catholic Tradition to guide him from error. The claims of SSPX regarding the Mass and dogmas of the Church are based primarily on Magisterial teachings throughout the Church's history--on Trent, for instance--and only secondarily on their own theological arguments.

[ultima ratio]

"It is heartening, however, to see you acknowlege that the pope does excercise considerable moral authority, and that the SSPX is, in comparison, ignored, even by it's adherents."

Of course he exercises moral authority--he is the pope. When have I ever intimated otherwise? This is why when he is wrong, cruel unfairness results. Others may be ignored if they are wrong and no harm is done. When the Pope gets it wrong--and he gets a lot wrong--there are worldwide consequences. Your attempt to equate my attitude toward the Society--which I respect for its adherence to Catholic Tradition--and the papacy, is ridiculous. Theosis did the same thing, thinking that I exercise a double standard regarding the Iraq issue. But the SSPX has not got the same responsibility and its opinions on non-Church matters are of little consequence. Only the Pope matters.