The Pope has condemned the Iraq war

[Punchy]

Before the war began, Pope John II strongly condemned an attack on Iraq as a crime against peace:


Pope condemns any war on Iraq
Monday, January 13, 2003 Posted: 8:47 AM EST (1347 GMT)
VATICAN CITY -- Pope John Paul has condemned a possible war in Iraq, saying it could still be avoided and that it would be a defeat for humanity.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/01/13/sproject.irq.pope/index.html

Vatican Strongly Opposes Iraq War
Wednesday, March 12, 2003
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80875,00.html


The Vatican's anti-war position has not changed with the new Pontiff:

Pope sees 'nothing positive' in Iraq
Death penalty, war protested at Easter Mass
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2007/04/09/pope_sees_nothing_positive_in_iraq/

Bush, pope discuss war
Benedict fears for Christians in Iraq
William Douglas, McClatchy Newspapers
http://www.newsobserver.com/689/story/598294.html


When I think of American Catholics who claim to be pro-life but support this unjustified, unprovoked Iraq war, the phrase "cafeteria Catholic" immediately comes to mind.

Study: War blamed for 655,000 Iraqi deaths
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/

Peace.

 

[in2Nas]

So am I "cafeteria Catholic" for serving over there 2 times?

 

[QuantaCura]

Chaldean Catholics have really suffered because of that war. Pope Benedict spoke with President Bush about this recently.

That being said, at the end of the day, the state leaders are responsible for making the final decision concerning the just-ness of a war--it's in their sphere of authority, not the Pope's--and God will judge them accordingly. Of course, the state should listen to the voice of the Church as well. The spheres are distinct, but never absolutely separated.

Given the results, it does vindicate the Holy Father's opinion that the elements of a just war were not met.

 

[Punchy]

So am I "cafeteria Catholic" for serving over there 2 times?

Under the Geneva Convention, you have a right to refuse illegal orders. And as a Catholic, you have the responsibility to refuse partaking in evil. Do you honestly trust President Bush over the Pope?

 

[in2Nas]

Under the Geneva Convention, you have a right to refuse illegal orders. And as a Catholic, you have the responsibility to refuse partaking in evil. Do you honestly trust President Bush over the Pope?

I quit.

I'm officially taking a break from OBOB.

 

[Punchy]

That being said, at the end of the day, the state leaders are responsible for making the final decision concerning the just-ness of a war--it's in their sphere of authority, not the Pope's--and God will judge them accordingly.

And yet state leaders can be reprimanded for supporting legal abortion, even denied communion? One cannot have it both ways. Life must be affirmed consistently, as John Paul demanded.

 

[nyj]

Under the Geneva Convention, you have a right to refuse illegal orders.

Would the Geneva Convention have come to the US and served as his legal defense during his court martial?

 

[QuantaCura]

So am I "cafeteria Catholic" for serving over there 2 times?

No. You've got to judge whether or not the action is moral or not--as I said above, the pope should inform your decision, but the state has the authoroty and responsibility to make the final decision, and in your capacity as a solder, you are an agent of the state. I think Pope Leo XIII explains the balance well (he is discussing Christian soldiers fighting for pagan armies in ancient times, but it can apply today too, I think):

"During the same period the force of Christian principles was observed in like manner in the army. For it was a mark of a Christian soldier to combine the greatest fortitude with the greatest attention to military discipline, and to add to nobility of mind immovable fidelity towards his prince. But, if anything dishonorable was required of him, as, for instance, to break the laws of God, or to turn his sword against innocent disciples of Christ, then, indeed, he refused to execute the orders, yet in such wise that he would rather retire from the army and die for his religion than oppose the public authority by means of sedition and tumult."

 

[Punchy]

Would the Geneva Convention have come to the US and served as his legal defense during his court martial?

The early Christians were fed to the lions for their faith, how awful in comparison is a court martial?

One must not forget that the Army Field Manual states that a soldier has the right and responsibility to deny illegal orders. One's loyalty to the state should not and cannot supersede one's loyalty to the Kingdom nor to the law.

Peace.

 

[Voegelin]

Pope condemns any war on Iraq
Monday, January 13, 2003 Posted: 8:47 AM EST (1347 GMT)
VATICAN CITY -- Pope John Paul has condemned a possible war in Iraq, saying it could still be avoided and that it would be a defeat for humanity.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/01/13/sproject.irq.pope/index.html

Sandro Magister, writing in Chiesa, put a different light than CNN on the Pope's position

John Paul II did oppose the war in Iraq with all his power, but he never condemned it as immoral. He never defined it as a “crime against humanity,” as his foreign minister Jean-Louis Tauran once did, with an expression that would impose a radical either-or on every Christian conscience . . .

. . . during those first months of 2003, with the imminent war in Iraq, the dominant approach at the Vatican was of the realist kind. The preservation of the “status quo” in that area was held to be the surest antidote against the dreaded “clash of civilizations,” from which the Church had to dissociate itself as forcefully as possible . . .

So during the months of the war in Iraq, various and sometimes opposing approaches operated at the highest levels of the Church, under the insignia of pope Wojtlya. But these different approaches were essentially reconciled beginning in the autumn of 2003. The turning point was the terrorist bloodbath in Nassiriya on November 12. And the new orientation was marked by cardinal Ruini’s homily at the Mass for the nineteen Italians who were killed:

“To love even our enemies: this is the great treasure that we must not permit to be stolen from our consciences and our hearts, not even on the part of the terrorist assassins. We will not run away from them, but will face them with all the courage, energy, and determination of which we are capable. But we will not hate them; on the contrary, we will not grow weary of exerting ourselves to make them understand that all of our effort, including our military effort, is aimed at safeguarding and promoting a humane coexistence in which there is room and dignity for every people, culture, and religion.”

From that point onward, beginning with that memorable “we will not run away,” the Holy See consistently defined, not as an “occupation,” but as a “mission of peace,” the presence of Western troops in Iraq in defense of the nascent democracy.

This same realist line, which had forcefully opposed the war at the Vatican, now defended its results and demanded that the soldiers remain in Iraq as long as necessary, to safeguard the formation of a new order, free and peaceful, which, as precarious as it might be, is seen as much more acceptable than leaving this crucial country to its own devices . . .

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=43322&eng=y

 

[nyj]

One must not forget that the Army Field Manual states that a soldier has the right and responsibility to deny illegal orders.

Yah, like killing civilians or enemy combatants who have surrendered. Not refusing deployment.

in2nas, stay around. Don't let one individual shooting off their mouth spoil it for you here.

 

[Punchy]

Yah, like killing civilians or enemy combatants who have surrendered. Not refusing deployment.

Under the Constitution of the United States, international treaties are binding, and, therefore, the war is illegal as an unprovoked act of aggression. Even Richard Pearle, a chief architect of the war, admitted that the war is illegal:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html

Furthermore, the Constitution states that only Congress can declare war, not the President as Commander-in-Chief. Ron Paul, the most conservative member of Congress, has stressed from the beginning that this war is illegal:

Violating the Constitution With an Illegal War
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul57.html

The Viet Nam war ended because of how many soldiers refused to fight. The same can happen now. And as a Catholic, one would have the moral duty to do so.

Peace.

 

[Voegelin]

Furthermore, the Constitution states that only Congress can declare war, not the President as Commander-in-Chief.

So? The President didn't declare war.

The Executive can use military force without a declaration of war. Congress is able to authorize the executive to use military force without a declaration of war. The Congressional War Powers Act under which Bush operates limits him more than any President before the Act was passed in 1973 (the Act is clearly unconstitutional but has never and will probably never be tested).

Presidents have used military force in dozens of cases going back to Undeclared Naval War with France (1798–1800). Jefferson waged an undeclared war. America fought Mexico numerous times in the 19th century aside. from the declared Mexican American War. We fought in Korea in 1871. Wilson ordered troops into Mexico and sent an occupation force to northern Russia. When Truman asked Republicans and Democrats in Congress for a declaration of war over Korea, leaders of both parties told him he didn't need it.

 

[Fish and Bread]

I've been opposed to the war from the very beginning (Though I support the soldiers fighting it and wish for their safety and operational success). Additionally, I do think it is worthwhile to point out that, contrary to what is sometimes popularly believed, the Vatican and the last two Popes have also consistently opposed this war in concept.

However, having said that, I do feel the war is legal under our system of law. The congress voted to authorize it, and the President is conducting it. International law may not be technically opposed to it either, since an argument can be made that we had a cease fire in effect from the end of the Gulf War.

I also think it is perfectly fine for someone to fight in this war if their conscience does not forbid it. The men and women of our armed forces, if anything, may be the victims in all this to some degree. I doubt this is what they signed up for. And many of them are heroes. Obviously I exempt those who have abused prisoners or engaged in torture from that positive assessment. But overall the average solider I think is a good person doing the best he or she can.

 

[QuantaCura]

And yet state leaders can be reprimanded for supporting legal abortion, even denied communion? One cannot have it both ways. Life must be affirmed consistently, as John Paul demanded.

Abortion and war can't be put on the same plane. Abortion is never justified, but wars can be sometimes--although Pope Pius XII did say this:

63. No one could hail this development with greater joy than he who has long upheld the principle that the idea of war as an apt and proportionate means of solving international conflicts is now out of date.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12XMAS.HTM

 

[Domenico]

So? The President didn't declare war.

The Executive can use military force without a declaration of war. Congress is able to authorize the executive to use military force without a declaration of war. The Congressional War Powers Act under which Bush operates limits him more than any President before the Act was passed in 1973 (the Act is clearly unconstitutional but has never and will probably never be tested).

Presidents have used military force in dozens of cases going back to Undeclared Naval War with France (1798–1800). Jefferson waged an undeclared war. America fought Mexico numerous times in the 19th century aside. from the declared Mexican American War. We fought in Korea in 1871. Wilson ordered troops into Mexico and sent an occupation force to northern Russia. When Truman asked Republicans and Democrats in Congress for a declaration of war over Korea, leaders of both parties told him he didn't need it.

Wow, you managed to skillfully not mention Vietnam. That one was a war the U.S. couldnt win either. Iraq is beginning to look very similar.

 

[français]

Wow, this is truly amazing..

Notice how so many people are justifying the war in iraq, when it is CLEARLY against the Church's will. Yet someone says just ONE THING about abortion and they all go in uproar saying "You can't be Catholic and pro choice!!" Yet then they come here and brush this off. How sad. lol

Anyways, thanks to the OP(original poster) for making this post that shows what the church thinks! I am glad that people recognize that the Church is against the war!

 

[Da_Funkey_Gibbon]

So am I "cafeteria Catholic" for serving over there 2 times?

No - the pope condemned the initial invasion, but I think it's worth pointing out that no pontiff has condemned the work of the Coalition forces in there now, which is essentially a peacekeeping operation to protect the Iraqi people.

The initial invasion and the operations being conducted now are two very different conflicts, and I think that distinction is worth keeping in mind.

 

[Voegelin]

Wow, you managed to skillfully not mention Vietnam. That one was a war the U.S. couldnt win either. Iraq is beginning to look very similar.

Nothing skillful about it. I could have filled pages on undeclared wars and employment of the military by the executive. Had to stop somewhere. Could have included JFK's covert war in Tibet. Could have included Nam. Could have included Reagan's covert war against the USSR and Bush Sr.'s invasion of Panama. Could have included Clinton's 4 major and one minor air campaigns against Iraq, Clinton's war in the Balkans and Clinton's invasion of Haiti. My only point was to show that those who use the arguement "only Congress can declare war" to oppose the war in Iraq aren't making a valid argument. Which, to me at least, undermines a person's entire position. If one doesn't know the history, doesn't know the powers of the executive and congressional branches, how can one make a valid critique of the exercise of those powers? Vietnam is beside the point. It is something people toss out for the emotional appeal it has for baby boomers. History is never the same. Iraq is not Vietnam. Might turn out worse. Might turn out OK. But it is not "just like" Vietnam.

Rather drifting off topic though, aren't we? I posted the article from Chiesa which I believe gives, at the time it was written, the Vatican position on the war. It is not what CNN reported the Vatican position to be (which is no surprise, is it?).

 

[Servus Iesu]

Ron Paul leads Republican candidates in military campaign donations.