The Pope has condemned the Iraq war

Punchy · Jul 21, 2007

The Viet Nam war ended because of how many soldiers refused to fight. And this wasn't just draftees but enlistees who understood that the war was a cruel joke.

Fantine · Jul 21, 2007

Our soldiers are now in a reconstruction and peacekeeping mission. They should be proud of their service, and we should be proud and supportive of them.

But Iraq's Army and Police need to step up and assume more responsibility. And Malaki and the Iraqi government need to learn that there is a difference between winning a plurality and 'winner takes all.'

They will not assume responsibility or learn to compromise until we push the issue.....and the only way we can push the issue is by taking a step back.

Some commentators, for example, have suggested we leave lots of troops in Kuwait and Turkey, ready to return or defend the borders if necessary.

Aprill · Jul 21, 2007

Fantine said:
Our soldiers are now in a reconstruction and peacekeeping mission. They should be proud of their service, and we should be proud and supportive of them.

But Iraq's Army and Police need to step up and assume more responsibility. And Malaki and the Iraqi government need to learn that there is a difference between winning a plurality and 'winner takes all.'

They will not assume responsibility or learn to compromise until we push the issue.....and the only way we can push the issue is by taking a step back.

Some commentators, for example, have suggested we leave lots of troops in Kuwait and Turkey, ready to return or defend the borders if necessary.

Agreed. This is why congress is trying(I use that word sparingly) to change the course of action.

FullyMT · Jul 21, 2007

Punchy said:
The Viet Nam war ended because of how many soldiers refused to fight. And this wasn't just draftees but enlistees who understood that the war was a cruel joke.

The Veitnam War ended because the media was portraying the attrocities that were taking place, the outrage US citizens had for the unfairness in the draft and the way the Vietnamese were treated by US soldiers (whether or not the soldiers were wrong in what they did, I'm not going to debate here).
The soldiers fought. The battle was taking place here in the US.

Punchy · Jul 21, 2007

FullyMT said:
The soldiers fought. The battle was taking place here in the US.

The desertion rate was much higher during the Vietnam era. The Army saw a high of 33,094 deserters in 1971 — 3.4% of the Army force. But there was a draft and the active-duty force was 2.7 million.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-03-07-deserters_x.htm?POE=click-refer

GI resistance during the Vietnam War was so prevalent that the government itself had to admit the ground forces had become "unreliable." The military was said to be "disintegrating." This is well documented in articles like "The Collapse of the Armed Forces," by Col. Robert D. Heinl, Jr. in the Armed Forces Journal 6/7/1971. The Vietnam War resistance had at least 144 underground GI newspapers and 14 "GI dissent" organizations. There were GI coffee houses around many of the major bases. Religious people were providing sanctuary to resisters. There was an organized underground railroad to get youth and GIs to safe-houses and to Canada so they wouldn't be sent or returned to Vietnam. In-country there was a broad range of resistance including desertions, mutinies, out-and-out fraggings (killing of officers), combat refusals, entire companies fasting in protest of the war (including officers), search and evade missions to just "gumming up" the works. This, along with the primary factor of how the NLF fought the war, contributed to the eventual defeat of the U.S. by Vietnam.
http://www.vvawai.org/sw/sw48/thenandnow.html

It's good to be informed.

Peace.

Punchy · Jul 21, 2007

Fantine said:
Our soldiers are now in a reconstruction and peacekeeping mission.

2007 Iraq National Security Estimate
http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20070202_release.pdf

When Pope Benedict states that "nothing positive" is happening in Iraq, perhaps that's because he's informed.

Peace.

Aprill · Jul 21, 2007

Punchy said:
2007 Iraq National Security Estimate
http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20070202_release.pdf

When Pope Benedict states that "nothing positive" is happening in Iraq, perhaps that's because he's informed.

Peace.

Can someone close this thread or something?

Nothing postive is coming from it and its turning into a battle of information.

Punchy · Jul 21, 2007

Aprill said:
Can someone close this thread or something?

Closing this thread will not change the fact that the Vatican has condemned this war from the beginning.

Aprill · Jul 21, 2007

Punchy said:
Closing this thread will not change the fact that the Vatican has condemned this war from the beginning.

No it won't. It won't change the situation either.

Doesn't mean we have to argue with facts over it. Just means we need to pray for everyone involved

Dream · Jul 21, 2007

The point being made here is a very valid point.

The Vatican has been against the war from the beginning. Is this infallible? No. Is this dogma? No. But the Vatican is the best earthly authority to listen to with regards to morality. (Unless somebody can come up with something better?)

The absurdity comes in when Catholics point to other non-infallible matters the Vatican has taken a stance on as proof that their point of view is correct, while at the same time silently dismissing the Vatican's stance on Iraq as uninformed or simply a matter of opinion.

BBAS 64 · Jul 21, 2007

WordofGod said:
Me Too! Thank you for your service to your country and to us.

Good Day, in2Nas

Me three !!

In Him,

Bill

IgnatiusOfAntioch · Jul 21, 2007

Pray for our brave soldiers, especially those have made the ultimate sacrifice, that the Iraqis may have free of tyranny.

This should be no problem of conscience for anyone and it will avoid giving encouragement to the butchers who are chopping off the heads of innocent people and blowing up mosques and Churches and marketplaces full of innocents.

Click the picture to read.

YourBrotherInChrist · Jul 21, 2007

Don5925 said:
When was the last time a pope supported a war in a public fashion. Maybe one of our resident historians can give a hard date.

In 1993, the USCCB, quoting Pope John Paul II, came out in support of military intervention to prevent genocide. See:

http://www.nccbuscc.org/sdwp/harvest.shtml

Look at section E.4. on Humanitarian Intervention.

Fantine · Jul 22, 2007

Punchy said:
2007 Iraq National Security Estimate
http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20070202_release.pdf

When Pope Benedict states that "nothing positive" is happening in Iraq, perhaps that's because he's informed.

Peace.

Thanks for that report.

I remember after the election how it was publicized that the U.S. was surprised and disappointed that a Shiite one (instead of their preferred candidate.) Considering that Iraq is primarily Shiite (although 90% of Islam is Sunni) it was no surprise.

And it is true that the biggest stronghold of Shiiteism is Iran with its Ayotollahs and oppressed women in chadors.

It seems as if anyone with an ounce of sense could have foreseen what 'democracy' could bring to Iraq.

No wonder why 1 million Iraqi refugees have fled the country already.

But yes, what we are trying to do now is keep the peace, but we are not working hard enough diplomatically to force the Shiite government to be a true coalition of [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]tes, Kurds, and Sunnis.

And until that happens there will be trouble in Iraq.

Giver · Jul 22, 2007

Jesus told us: (Matthew 5:39) You have learnt how it was said: Eye for eye and tooth for tooth. But I say this to you: offer the wicked man no resistance.

Now the Catholic Church says there are just wars. The Catholic Church says the war we are in now is not a just war. Any man or woman who is Catholic and fights in this war is disobeying God and their Church.

isshinwhat · Jul 22, 2007

Now the Catholic Church says there are just wars. The Catholic Church says the war we are in now is not a just war. Any man or woman who is Catholic and fights in this war is disobeying God and their Church.

As has already been shown, then Cardinal Ratzinger has said that a faithful Catholic may disagree with the Pope with respect to the war in Iraq and still remain in good standing.

As for the statement by Christ, there is a difference between vengence and defense of others, and the God who commanded the Israelites to go to war is the God who Christ is and came to show to us, and all His statements must be read in that light. "Benedictus Dominus fortis meus qui docet manus meas ad proelium digitos meos ad bellum: Blessed be the Lord my God, who teacheth my hands to fight, and my fingers to war" (Psalm 143:1).

God Bless,

Neal

Giver · Jul 22, 2007

Jesus told us to love our enemies. He said: (Matthew 5:39) You have learnt how it was said: Eye for eye and tooth for tooth. But I say this to you: offer the wicked man no resistance.

This had nothing to do with revenge. A Christian is not allowed to hurt anyone for any reason. We are to obey Jesus, before anyone or any government. If the government tells us to do something that is against Gods Word we are to disobey the government.

Romans 13:3 · Jul 22, 2007

Giver said:
Jesus told us to love our enemies. He said: (Matthew 5:39) You have learnt how it was said: Eye for eye and tooth for tooth. But I say this to you: offer the wicked man no resistance.

This had nothing to do with revenge. A Christian is not allowed to hurt anyone for any reason. We are to obey Jesus, before anyone or any government. If the government tells us to do something that is against Gods Word we are to disobey the government.

I'm not sure He meant to stand up in field of fire and be mowed down while extending a hearty handshake of brotherhood.

The Catholic faith and a martial tradition are intertwined. From Constantine to the modern day, Christians have taken up arms to fight for their beliefs and the defense of weak. Sure, there have atrocities in the name of God, but that is not the norm.

I truly respect the pacifist point of view. You sir, may have severed us in Korea of some other place, that developed your belief. If that is the case, then I also thank you for your service. It is great thing that our country allows people to embrace pacifist ideology. Let us never forget the men and women of arms that allow that to be.

Respectfully,

Don

isshinwhat · Jul 22, 2007

Did not the same God inspire the Psalms as well as the Gospel of St. Matthew?

Jesus told us to love our enemies. He said: (Matthew 5:39) “You have learnt how it was said: ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.’ But I say this to you: offer the wicked man no resistance.”

This had nothing to do with revenge. A Christian is not allowed to hurt anyone for any reason. We are to obey Jesus, before anyone or any government. If the government tells us to do something that is against God’s Word we are to disobey the government.

The passage from the Old Testament which provides the necessary background with which to interpret Christ's statement has everything to do with limiting revenge for a wrong done. Once again, defense of others and seeking revenge are two different animals. I can allow someone to take my life, but I am duty bound to protect the lives of those who have been placed under my care.

Exodous 21 states, "If men quarrel, and one strike a woman with child, and she miscarry indeed, but live herself: he shall be answerable for so much damage as the woman's husband shall require, and as arbiters shall award. But if her death ensue thereupon, he shall render life for life. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

From the Summa Theologica:

Article 1. Whether it is always sinful to wage war?

Objection 1. It would seem that it is always sinful to wage war. Because punishment is not inflicted except for sin. Now those who wage war are threatened by Our Lord with punishment, according to Mt. 26:52: "All that take the sword shall perish with the sword." Therefore all wars are unlawful.

Objection 2. Further, whatever is contrary to a Divine precept is a sin. But war is contrary to a Divine precept, for it is written (Matthew 5:39): "But I say to you not to resist evil"; and (Romans 12:19): "Not revenging yourselves, my dearly beloved, but give place unto wrath." Therefore war is always sinful.

Objection 3. Further, nothing, except sin, is contrary to an act of virtue.
But war is contrary to peace. Therefore war is always a sin.

Objection 4. Further, the exercise of a lawful thing is itself lawful, as is evident in scientific exercises. But warlike exercises which take place in tournaments are forbidden by the Church, since those who are slain in these trials are deprived of ecclesiastical burial. Therefore it seems that war is a sin in itself.
On the contrary, Augustine says in a sermon on the son of the centurion [Ep. ad Marcel. cxxxviii]: "If the Christian Religion forbade war altogether, those who sought salutary advice in the Gospel would rather have been counselled to cast aside their arms, and to give up soldiering altogether. On the contrary, they were told: 'Do violence to no man . . . and be content with your pay' [Luke 3:14. If he commanded them to be content with their pay, he did not forbid soldiering."

I answer that, In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary. First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged. For it is not the business of a private individual to declare war, because he can seek for redress of his rights from the tribunal of his superior. Moreover it is not the business of a private individual to summon together the people, which has to be done in wartime. And as the care of the common weal is committed to those who are in authority, it is their business to watch over the common weal of the city, kingdom or province subject to them. And just as it is lawful for them to have recourse to the sword in defending that common weal against internal disturbances, when they punish evil-doers, according to the words of the Apostle (Romans 13:4): "He beareth not the sword in vain: for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil"; so too, it is their business to have recourse to the sword of war in defending the common weal against external enemies. Hence it is said to those who are in authority (Psalm 81:4): "Rescue the poor: and deliver the needy out of the hand of the sinner"; and for this reason Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 75): "The natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority."

Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault. Wherefore Augustine says (QQ. in Hept., qu. x, super Jos.): "A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly."
Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil. Hence Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. [The words quoted are to be found not in St. Augustine's works, but Can. Apud. Caus. xxiii, qu. 1): "True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandizement, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good." For it may happen that the war is declared by the legitimate authority, and for a just cause, and yet be rendered unlawful through a wicked intention. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 74): "The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war."

Reply to Objection 1. As Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 70): "To take the sword is to arm oneself in order to take the life of anyone, without the command or permission of superior or lawful authority." On the other hand, to have recourse to the sword (as a private person) by the authority of the sovereign or judge, or (as a public person) through zeal for justice, and by the authority, so to speak, of God, is not to "take the sword," but to use it as commissioned by another, wherefore it does not deserve punishment. And yet even those who make sinful use of the sword are not always slain with the sword, yet they always perish with their own sword, because, unless they repent, they are punished eternally for their sinful use of the sword.

Reply to Objection 2. Such like precepts, as Augustine observes (De Serm. Dom. in Monte i, 19), should always be borne in readiness of mind, so that we be ready to obey them, and, if necessary, to refrain from resistance or self-defense. Nevertheless it is necessary sometimes for a man to act otherwise for the common good, or for the good of those with whom he is fighting. Hence Augustine says (Ep. ad Marcellin. cxxxviii): "Those whom we have to punish with a kindly severity, it is necessary to handle in many ways against their will. For when we are stripping a man of the lawlessness of sin, it is good for him to be vanquished, since nothing is more hopeless than the happiness of sinners, whence arises a guilty impunity, and an evil will, like an internal enemy."

Reply to Objection 3. Those who wage war justly aim at peace, and so they are not opposed to peace, except to the evil peace, which Our Lord "came not to send upon earth" (Matthew 10:34). Hence Augustine says (Ep. ad Bonif. clxxxix): "We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace. Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may vanquish those whom you war against, and bring them to the prosperity of peace."

Reply to Objection 4. Manly exercises in warlike feats of arms are not all forbidden, but those which are inordinate and perilous, and end in slaying or plundering. On olden times warlike exercises presented no such danger, and hence they were called "exercises of arms" or "bloodless wars," as Jerome states in an epistle [Reference incorrect: cf. Veget., De Re Milit. i].

kepha31 · Jul 23, 2007

click here>>Benedict XVI Pleads for End of War<<click here

Says Earth Could Resemble a Paradise

LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy, JULY 22, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI made a plea for a rejection of the arms race and the attempt to solve problems with war, which he called a "useless bloodbath."

The Pope has condemned the Iraq war

Punchy

Guest

Dona Quixote

The paths are many, the truth is ONE.

Veni Sancte Spiritus

Punchy

Guest

Punchy

Guest

The paths are many, the truth is ONE.

Punchy

Guest

The paths are many, the truth is ONE.

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Contributor

Attachments

Regular Member

Dona Quixote

Well-Known Member

Pro Deo et Patria

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Pro Deo et Patria

Regular Member

Similar threads