 AFP Photo |
Posted on 03/04/2003 11:42:42 AM PST by RCW2001
|
||
Pope John Paul II stepped up his crusade against a looming war in Iraq, urging the world's Christians to stage a fast for peace on the same day as his envoy is to meet US President George W. Bush.
The pope said the day of fasting on Wednesday would remind people of the long years of suffering endured by Iraqi citizens as a result of the international embargo against the country.
The fast will coincide with a meeting Wednesday between Bush and the pope's special envoy, Cardinal Pio Laghi, who the pope has entrusted with a special plea to restrain the US leader from waging war against Iraq.
The fast is the latest in a series of efforts to avert a war by the pope, who has emerged as one of the most prominent opponents against a US-led conflict with Iraq.
In recent weeks, he has received leaders ranging from Iraq Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz to British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the US' key ally on Iraq, and Tuesday held talks with Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.
The pontiff said the day of fasting Wednesday should "provide greater understanding of the difficulties and sufferings or our brothers confronted by hunger, misery and war."
The appeal has also been passed on by World Council of Churches in Geneva and the Synod of the Church of England.
An informal opinion poll carried out on a private Italian television channel also found that 55.7 percent of viewers said they were willing to follow the appeal to fast.
Laghi's meeting with Bush Wednesday comes amid insistences from Washington that the pope's anti-war pronouncements will not be able to sway the United States from its hardline stance on Iraq.
Jim Nicholson, US envoy to the Holy See, on Tuesday confirmed that the pope's appeal through Laghi would not influence American thinking.
"Cardinal Laghi's mission may be useful, but Iraq must disarm," he said on the private Italian television channel "La 7."
"If Saddam Hussein were to leave his country, that would be a perfect solution," Nicholson added.
Meanwhile, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, a firm supporter of the US stance on Iraq, became the latest of the world's leaders Tuesday to hold talks on the crisis with the pope.
Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls said that the meeting "allowed an exchange of views on the current international situation, with special emphasis on the crisis in Iraq."
The pope had already held talks Thursday with Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, another key supporter of the US position on Iraq and holder of a crucial seat on the UN Security Council.
Officials at the Vatican have said the 82 year-old-pope has thrown all his energy into efforts to stop the war, despite the crippling effects of his Parkinson's disease.
"He has been more alert in the last few days, as though he wanted to give us more strength," Laghi said.
The pope has adopted a vocal stance of principled opposition against a military conflict with Iraq, saying the future of humanity can never be ensured by the logic of war.
"Marred by long-standing and seemingly relentless conflicts, the world stands on the brink of yet another war," the pope wrote last month in a pessimistic message to newly-enthroned Anglican leader Rowan Williams.
Separately, the Vatican Tuesday denied that the pope had planned to make a personal address to the United Nations Security Council if his envoy failed to deter Bush from going to war.
"There are no plans for the Holy Father to visit the United Nations," a spokesman told journalists.
The Pope is indeed a world leader. He is the sovereign ruler of his own state. It has its own coins, stamps, gov't and post office.
SD
So you are not going to fast on Ash Wednesday?
Where was the call for fasting in support of the suffering endured by the little altar boys and some girls too when they were being abused and attacked?
From the Boston Globe article:
The bishops pledged themselves to a day of prayer, fasting, and reparation on Aug. 14,
There was no such thing.
Yes, there was. Informed Catholics know this.
SD
The Vatican is not interested in peace in Iraq--it is interested in assuring that its efforts to control Jerusalem is not thwarted by an Israeli success in removing the Palestinian Authority during the turmoil and confusion of the upcoming war. I am certain one item for discussion during the legate's meeting will be in eliciting Bush's view of changes within Israel induced by DS II.
The Israelis have good reason to distrust Vatican motives, but that would require a separate post of its own.
should read, "long years of suffering endured by Iraqi subjects as a result of Saddam Hussein,(and his enablers)."
Don't ask me why I am even replying to your post. But all I have to say is thank God your not part of the Priesthood.
This is another post I don't know why I am responding too. But again you surely do not understand the difference between Islam, and what the extremists are using as their tool to steal a religion. My recommend is that you stop listening to talk radio and get a book called "The Children of Abraham" written by Dr. Khalid Duran who by the way received a Fatwa by a Jordian Cleric for writing this book. It is a very candid introduction to Islam.
Actually I expect that maybe you should search your roots. You sound more socialist in your writings than the Pope.
The same question can be asked of the President?
Um...you know it's Ash Wednesday, right? Ash Wednesday is a day of fasting and abstinence for all Catholics.
I have been leaning to the side of removing Saddam by force ASAP, but I gotta tell you, all the foaming-at-the-mouth bellicosity, combined with a big helping of anti-Catholic slander, in these threads is turning me off. I'm beginning to have some second thoughts. I still think Saddam has to go, but it is ridiculous to question the motives of the Pope, who is absolutely correct when he says that war must be the very last option.
Really, the debate is about whether or not there are realistically any other options left at this point.
We as a country made just as many mistakes in our history too. Ask the British how they did in their crusades in the Middle East? Not all Muslims are evil while some Americans are not the greatest either. Remember a guy called Bill Clinton?
The Catholic Difference By George Weigel
When do we reach the just-war tradition's 'last resort?' That military force must be the "last resort" in resolving a conflict is one of the classic criteria that make up the "war-decision" law within the just-war tradition. The "Catechism of the Catholic Church" defines "last resort" like this: "all other means of putting an end to (the damage done by aggression) must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective." In his Jan. 13 address to the diplomats accredited to the Vatican, the Holy Father said that the resort to armed force should be the "very last option" taken in dealing with aggression.
How, then, do we know when we're at "last resort?" The question is neither idle nor abstract. For, in principle, one could always imagine yet another diplomatic initiative, another summit conference, another round of negotiations, in dealing with many threats to peace. Sometimes, as in the case of classic cross-border aggression, events irrefutably demonstrate that armed force is, indeed, the last possible resort; when Germany invaded Poland on Sept. 1, 1939, no Pole in his or her right mind imagined that another round of negotiations would be of any use.
But in many other cases, it's not always clear when diplomacy has ceased to be a morally realistic and politically reasonable option. Which suggests that if "last resort" is to have real meaning for statesmen, just-war theorists can't think of "last resort" mathematically, as the terminus of a potentially infinite sequence of possibilities. The world doesn't work that way. A piece of contemporary history may help us get a better intellectual and moral grip on "last resort."
In early June 1981, the Osiraq nuclear reactor, which French technicians were building for Iraq, was only weeks from becoming operational. On the night of June 6-7, 1981, Israeli fighter-bombers destroyed the reactor. The raid was carried out with consummate skill; the pilots took great risks to minimize civilian casualties; Iraq's nuclear program was derailed.
At the time, the "international community," including the United States, loudly condemned Israel's action. A few years later, things looked different. Iraq was engaged in a protracted and bloody war with Iran, a war in which Iraq regularly used chemical weapons and attacked Tehran and other Iranian cities with ballistic missiles. Had the Osiraq reactor been completed and a supply of fissile material made available to Iraqi scientists and weapons engineers, Saddam Hussein would have had a nuclear weapon ‹ and would likely have used it. Israel's air raid turned out to be an effective form of nuclear non-proliferation. The moral and political rationale Israel's leaders gave for acting when they did is also worth pondering. In circumstances like this, the Israelis argued, "last resort" cannot mean waiting until after the Iraqis have a nuclear weapon, and then trying to prevent their using it when they're about to do so. Failure under those circumstances is too awful to risk.
Therefore, the Israelis argued, when one is dealing with a man like Saddam Hussein, a regime like Iraq's (in which there is no internal constraint on the dictator's will), nuclear weapons (or other weapons of mass destruction) and ballistic missiles (or possible use of the weapons by terrorists), "last resort" is reached at the point where there is no option left but to forcibly deny the aggressor the possibility of obtaining the weapons before he gets them.
That is what Israel did on June 6-7, 1981. And it seems probable that, over the past 22 years, the world has been spared a nuclear "resolution" of the Iran-Iraq war ‹ Tehran vaporized ‹ and a nuclear war in the Middle East because of what Israel did.
Who makes the call on when the point of last resort has been reached? Who decides that there is no option left but to use proportionate and discriminate armed force to prevent an aggressor from obtaining weapons of mass destruction? The catechism is clear on these questions: "The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good."
Responsible statesmen make the call. The duty of religious leaders and theologians is to teach and clarify the principle at stake. Thinking about Osiraq helps in that necessary work of clarification.
George Weigel is a senior fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C.
God is! He was made a man wasn't he?
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.