The Pope and CNN

[Q Classic]

it's evident that there's much hatred for the catholic church. do a google search and you'll find a plethora of sites. i can't argue with them; closed minded nitwits, the lot of them.

i'm fine with ned disagreeing with the pope. however, his vehement attacks against him, i feel deserve to be answered by tracts that detail the pope's viewpoint, so at least he can have a clearer basis of why the pope doesn't agree with ned's pro-us anti-saddam bit.

i give up. i really do. there's no point to arguing anything here, because all the peope i end up arguing with seem to be too stubborn to even actually take into account anything anyone else says that may contradict them.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

I think I just found the point that's bugging Ned -- but he doesn't know it yet. According to the US Catholic Bishops website , there are 7 criteria for just war, all of which must be met:

First, whether lethal force may be used is governed by the following criteria:

- Just Cause: force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic rights of whole populations;

- Comparative Justice: while there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to override the presumption against the use of force the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other;

- Legitimate Authority: only duly constituted public authorities may use deadly force or wage war;

- Right Intention: force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose;

- Probability of Success: arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;

- Proportionality: the overall destruction expected from the use of force must be outweighed by the good to be achieved;

- Last Resort: force may be used only after all peaceful alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted.
These criteria (jus ad bellum), taken as a whole, must be satisfied in order to override the strong presumption against the use of force.

So which weren't met? Well, I suspect "last resort" wasn't (especially since this was supposedly about getting Saddam to get rid of his WMD, and now it looks like he did), but more than anything else this war failed to satisfy the "legitimate authority" criterion. The US was not, in the Vatican's view, one of the "duly constituted public authorities" who can wage war in this case; if this truly was a war to enforce a UN resolution, then the public authority in question should be obvious. That's the Pope's objection, and it's legit. So the real problem here is that the Pope has failed to concede that the Bush administration is morally entitled to do anything they want. Bully for him.

As I said in an earlier post, the modern Church tends to be very, very consistent on these matters, as befits an institution run by doctrine and concerned with moral clarity. If Bush's stance about the poor, oppressed people of Iraq had any moral force behind it, we'd be headed into Zimbabwe next, and we sure as hell wouldn't be bending over backward to play nice with China. But governments (and, yes, the Medieval and Renaissance Chuch) have ever been run on the notion that the ends justify the means, which is the notion Ned is advocating here. The modern Church has a more elevated vision than that, at least on this one isssue.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Almost forgot about this gem:

Originally posted by Ned


Actually, I was not against this pope at all before his current stand against liberation of Iraq. I thought he might have been the best pope in history. Now he stands side by side with St. Peter in displaying his courage under fire. "Are you a disciple of Christ?" No. Three times Peter denied it.

Ned, you do realize, don't you, that in this analogy, if John Paul II = Peter, then the Bush Administration = Christ? Even the Bushies wouldn't go that far.

However, your analogy is quite apt. JPII can be equated with Peter -- the post-Resurrection Peter, the one who went straight to the center of his world's only superpower and said, "You know what? You guys are big and strong and rich and can do whatever you like...but you're still wrong."

[Ned]

Rufus, It was my impression that the Pope was against the war even if the UN authorized it.

But, assume, just for the sake of argument, that the pope's fundamental objection was that a coalition of 50 nations cannot act legally to suppress violations of international law. He has to wrestle with not one, but two recent examples: Kosovo and Iraq. It is apparent that he has to adjust his thinking to realize that the UN SC cannot act if any permanent members are willing to impose a veto. He has to look closely at the reasons for the veto before deciding whether it was just for the coalition to proceed without SC sanction.

France said it wanted two things in any new resolution: time and no ultimatum. Time for what? That was never made clear. No ultimatum? Would Saddam actually do anything without one?

The Pope's position on a " just war" does not factor in the politics of the UN SC. Such politics will apparently doom virtually all SC action to suppress all but the most outrageous violations of international law, such as Saddam's conquest of Kuwait to cancel his war debt.

[Imran Siddiqui]

but more than anything else this war failed to satisfy the "legitimate authority" criterion

I disagree. The government of a state is a legitimate authority, under the listing. If it was not, there wouldn't have been a '91 Gulf War, which I'm sure most Catholic clergy would have considered a 'just war'.

[Shi Huangdi]

"f it was not, there wouldn't have been a '91 Gulf War, which I'm sure most Catholic clergy would have considered a 'just war'."

The Church opposed War in 1991.

Of course, and this coming from a Catholic, the Church also supported fascism, monarchy, and inquisitions. You can do better to the listen to the RCC for opinions on political issues.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

but more than anything else this war failed to satisfy the "legitimate authority" criterion

I disagree. The government of a state is a legitimate authority, under the listing. If it was not, there wouldn't have been a '91 Gulf War, which I'm sure most Catholic clergy would have considered a 'just war'.

Imran, although Bush said he would act if he had no partners at all, I doubt it. Since WWII, having a coalition of willing states to act together has been a hallmark of US policy on the use of force. The very willingness of a large number of states to band together to suppress violations of international law gives credance to the legitimacy of the action.

In another thread, Serb made the statement that Russia would not be justified in invading the Baltic States because they were doing things to provoke mother Russia. The central problem with Serb's position is that Russia would be acting alone and in its self interest. This is the antithesis of the US position on legitimacy.

The apparent position of the pope goes one step farther, though. The pope seems to believe that only UN authorized action is legitimate.

But then we consider the Kuwait war. The pope was against that one too, even though it was sanctioned by the UNSC.

So what are we to think? The pope is against all war - even just wars? This cannot be. Which means that we have to look closer at his real concerns.

The reason he is against these wars must the reason I first gave - concern for reprisals against Christians by Muslims.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ned
Rufus, It was my impression that the Pope was against the war even if the UN authorized it.

Thata was not my impression; I don't believe the Pope pronounced on that, but I could be mistaken.

But, assume, just for the sake of argument, that the pope's fundamental objection was that a coalition of 50 nations cannot act legally to suppress violations of international law. He has to wrestle with not one, but two recent examples: Kosovo and Iraq. It is apparent that he has to adjust his thinking to realize that the UN SC cannot act if any permanent members are willing to impose a veto. He has to look closely at the reasons for the veto before deciding whether it was just for the coalition to proceed without SC sanction.

Not really. The UN is the authority, even when it acts badly. An analogy: many of us disagree with the outcome of the OJ Simpson trial; we feel that at nearly every step, the legitimate authority -- the LA legal system -- failed. But that doesn't justify a "coalition" of LA cops going out and lynching OJ on thir own. The rule of law only works if both the laws and the enforcement mechnisms are clear. What Bush did was tantamount to vigilantism.

France said it wanted two things in any new resolution: time and no ultimatum. Time for what? That was never made clear. No ultimatum? Would Saddam actually do anything without one?

"Time for what" was made very clear: they wanted time for more inspections, because they believed that the preliminary indications were that Saddam had destroyed his WMD, and that further inspections would prove this to be so. Say it loud, say it proud: it looks like France was right.

The Pope's position on a " just war" does not factor in the politics of the UN SC. Such politics will apparently doom virtually all SC action to suppress all but the most outrageous violations of international law, such as Saddam's conquest of Kuwait to cancel his war debt.

That first sentence gets to the heart of it: yes, yes, yes -- the concept of just war does not take real-world politics into account. Catholic morality is not situational or relativistic; it is universal and absolute. While I may disagree with the specifics of that morality (I do, and thus no longer practice Catholicism), it nevertheless seems to me that "universal and absolute" is what a system of morality must strive to be. That's a powerful argument for keeping religion and politics separate, but it's not an argument that discredits the Pope, who is not a politician and not trying to be one. If anything, it discredits Bush, Blair, and their sickening public flaunting of their "faith."

[Imran Siddiqui]

The rule of law only works if both the laws and the enforcement mechnisms are clear. What Bush did was tantamount to vigilantism.

Only if you think that international law is really 'law' (ie, can be enforced by authorities). The international system is anarchy. There are no enforcement mechanisms. There is no one to interpret the law. Maybe Bush was doing vigilantism, but then so was Kosovo and Bosnia and Gulf War I and WW2.

[Shi Huangdi]

"The reason he is against these wars must the reason I first gave - concern for reprisals against Christians by Muslims."

Well he did say a concern of his was that war would breed hostility between Christianity and Islam.

[Lazerus]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Lazerus:



So we should kill people in order to help the ones remaining?


I'm glad to hear the Pope stand up to Bush and the rest.

Its not like we deliberately tried to kill the civilians, saddam did. Plenty of the exiles in asylum said they'd sacrifice their own life to free iraq and give their children a peaceful country to live in. I think the ratio killed to the ones that will be helped will be worth it in the end. The end doesn't always justify the means, but there are times when it will comfort those affected.

I think some people just always like siding with the under-dog no matter what. Im not exactly pro-american, half of the time i cant stand their 'centre of the world and we saved you in world war 1+2' attitude.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Lazerus


Its not like we deliberately tried to kill the civilians, saddam did. Plenty of the exiles in asylum said they'd sacrifice their own life to free iraq and give their children a peaceful country to live in. I think the ratio killed to the ones that will be helped will be worth it in the end. The end doesn't always justify the means, but there are times when it will comfort those affected.

I think some people just always like siding with the under-dog no matter what. Im not exactly pro-american, half of the time i cant stand their 'centre of the world and we saved you in world war 1+2' attitude.

Laz, If I were not an American, I probably would have the same attitude. Americans are also by nature in favor of the underdog.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
and why am i, a lousy catholic who hasn't gone to confession in years, defending my church? isn't there any other catholic around?

Some trolls are just too ridiculous to warrant the effort.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned


Laz, If I were not an American, I probably would have the same attitude. Americans are also by nature in favor of the underdog.

So you hoped that the Iraqi's would win a few battles? What greater underdog could you get, vs. the US military Juggernaught?

As Rufus stated, why are the people of Iraq the only ones who need saving? Is there somehting special about them? In terms of ending human suffering, going into Central Africa would save more lives than anything we have done in Iraq, heck, in just 5 years more people have died there than during the 30 years of Saddam, even if you take all the high estimates, and yet. I see no crusade of the righteous saying a damn about it: hell, finally the US banned the import of blood diamonds from the Congo, though don;t expect them to ban the import of any other "blood" minerals.

One of the needed justifications for just war is to weight ikely consequences. Well, even on this board we have gotten a bunch of people saying this means the end of the power of the Sec. Council. Well, since none of these people are willing to give us a replacement, if this is true it would be a terrible blow to many UN efforts for peace in Africa. If a weakened UNSC would in the future mean more years of suffering in the Congo or elsewhere that claimed 100,000"s of lives, then the War in Iraq created more human sufferering and pain than it ended.

As I said earlier, it is the unintended consequences that in the end, matter most, more then even the sanctimonius (but highly suspect) moralism of the supposed intentions that brought about the action.

[Ned]

GePap, why is Africa suffering at all is the UN Security Council is all-powerful?

The answer, I think, is that it seems generally unwilling to involve itself in the internal affairs of nations.

As we have debated here at length about the merits of uprooting Saddam Hussein's brutal regime, the legal pretext for the invasion was violation of UN resolutions. We don't have such a legal pretext across Africa, do we?

If we do, however, have UN resolutions directing certain countries to observe basic respect for human rights and descist from certain actions, and those resolutions are not adhered to, I would be in favor of enforcement action. I would not, however, be in favor of sanctions that only punish the very people we are trying to help.