Something That Struck Me Today When I Was

[Iacobus]

I was reading the articles on God Spy dot com today. And one of them hit on a HUGE point in my mind about the war in Iraq and the lead up. It was hinted at if not said 100% that it was JP2 and the Vaticans view that war in Iraq was going to be immoral and unjust if it occured. It was also stated that regime change alone was NOT a valid reason for war.

The USCCB and other branchs of the magisterium also expressed concrens over war. It was conculded that war for regime change and a war of pre-emption was immoral and could not be just.

However, many Catholic contiuned to support the war during the build up and the invasion. In doing so, and resting assured that the war was just on the claims of the White House and Pentagon may have been foolish. When did we turn over the moral and ethical descion making for the Holy See and the Body of Christ to our elected leaders.

But what gets me in that in supporting the war in defince of the Church's teachings they rejected the teaching authority of the Church, and in doing so fully rejected the Church and Christ.

Than, this is the part that brothers me most, some go and get upset at about someone else rejecting the Church after they themselves have rejected her.

If we allow our goverment, a kingdom of THIS world, decide what is moral and not thereby stripping the Church of her power and rejecting Christ, what precendent have we set?

And if we reject the Church's teaching authority and the Church herself how can you rightly and justly express a moral outrage at another person doing the same by different means?

And by rejecting the teachings of the Church on some issues are we not than cafatira Catholics who are picking and choosing what doctrines and powers we want the Church to have?

[crusader1234]

Exactly. Well done Iacobus. I also enjoyed this article, probably because here on Phatmass people are so supportive of Bush. I think the war war immoral from a religious and political (they are practically the same thing) standpoint. It is hypocritical to condemn abortion and support the war. Although abortion is a larger issue, the war is still a huge issue nonetheless. JP2 is by far the coolest Pope...

[Hananiah]

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Jun 10 2004, 01:36 AM'] I was reading the articles on God Spy dot com today. And one of them hit on a HUGE point in my mind about the war in Iraq and the lead up. It was hinted at if not said 100% that it was JP2 and the Vaticans view that war in Iraq was going to be immoral and unjust if it occured. It was also stated that regime change alone was NOT a valid reason for war. [/quote]
Regime change alone wouldn't be a valid reason for war. However the Bush admin charged that Hussein possesed weapons of mass destruction and posed an immediate threat to our national security. Catholics who sincerely believed him would not have been acting contrary to the Church's just war doctrine by supporting the Iraq invasion. Catholics who continue to support the war now that it has been established that the WMDs didn't exist are in a different class.

[crusader1234]

It scares me that Bush thinks he can just barge in on any country like that...

[Mickey's_Girl]

Since I'm not Catholic, I can't speak to the issue of "cafeteria Catholics" or directly engage your question. I am, however, interested in the idea of "just war".

As I read it the other day in the catechism (feel free to get more detailed than I do, here), it seemed to say that war is only just if it is defensive and the last resort. Generally I would agree with that (not even being Catholic!) because war is awful and should not be entered into lightly.

Recently, however, there were some political theorists discussing the question of whether the definition of "just war" must be changed (in this era of terrorism, which involves para-state groups who engage in guerrilla warfare, rather than one nation going against another in an organized way) to reflect the differences between a terrorist threat and a "regular" war.

Now, the case for this new train of thought has not been conclusively made, and the Pope being the extremely well-read, thoughtful, and intellectual man that he is, he's probably considering this concept, and we might hear something about it soon (or, forgive my ignorance, perhaps he's already spoken about it). I think it's reasonable to at least *consider* possible changes/additions to just war theory, given the nature of a terrorist threat.

This is not to say that I consider the military activities in Iraq to be justified. I think that, had the threat been what we were originally told (nuclear materials, chemical/biological weapons, etc.) one [b]might[/b] have made a case for "new just war" theory to apply here. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like that was so (and I do not speculate one way or another on possible motives or knowledge of parties involved).

Please don't think I mean this as criticism of the Church's teaching on war; I don't. I am sure that the Church will consider the issue of terrorism and eventually have her say on it, as she does with all other issues of importance.

MG

[Iacobus]

[quote name='Hananiah' date='Jun 10 2004, 02:50 AM'] Regime change alone wouldn't be a valid reason for war. However the Bush admin charged that Hussein possesed weapons of mass destruction and posed an immediate threat to our national security. Catholics who sincerely believed him would not have been acting contrary to the Church's just war doctrine by supporting the Iraq invasion. Catholics who continue to support the war now that it has been established that the WMDs didn't exist are in a different class. [/quote]
I agree with you about the two classes things, yes.

But the thing that caught me (I am a skpetic by nature) was that the US thought there were WMDs but the UN weapon inspectors disagreed. Blixs and Bearaday (I know that is spelled wrong) said there were no weapons before we invaded. So leaving it up to the goverment to be true, when the Church was calling it unjust, would have been shifting the moral decison form the Pope to the Pres. Thereby making the popes views null and void.

[crusader1234]

Well done Iacobus. And good points for you too Mickeys Girl.

I think that the war on Iraq, personally, was totally unjustafiable. We had no proof, the UN said there werent any, but out of pure speculation, we went to war? Now all of a sudden the 'regime change' is the focus? Yeah... sure.

Weapons of Mass destruction were the reason for going. Bush made Chretien out to be spineless, and alienated a lot of people. He was wrong, and I think he owes a lot of the world (Including The Pope) an apology.

[Mickey's_Girl]

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Jun 10 2004, 01:56 AM'] But the thing that caught me (I am a skpetic by nature) was that the US thought there were WMDs but the UN weapon inspectors disagreed. Blixs and Bearaday (I know that is spelled wrong) said there were no weapons before we invaded. So leaving it up to the goverment to be true, when the Church was calling it unjust, would have been shifting the moral decison form the Pope to the Pres. Thereby making the popes views null and void. [/quote]
But taking your examples, what makes Blix and (the other guy) necessarily [b]more [/b]credible than the president, as far as "knowing" whether WMDs were present or not? Given the current scandal over UN officials' embezzlement/kickbacks in the Iraqi Oil-For-Food program, I don't think it's intellectually honest to say that UN officials are, by their very nature of not being Americans (even George W. Bush, if you dislike him), more believable on a given issue.

Here's the other thing (and again, I'm not not dissing the Pope OR just war theory, here): any US President is going to have access to intelligence that the Pope simply doesn't. So there will be times when a pres. could make a decision that, from the outside, looks wrong (for instance, say he knows there's a direct threat that is kept secret from the public) but isn't.

Of course, we now know that US and other countries' intelligence was faulty. But at the time, it seemed credible.

I mean, the Pope can have opinions about individual world affairs that may or may not be correct, you know? I don't mean teaching authority; I mean opinions.

(not that he's not a very wise man...'cause I know he is. He's so cool!)

MG

[voiciblanche]

Yeah. We went way off with this war. We have NO support. It's one thing when a couple countries here and there disagree with you. That is inevitable. But the UN to disagree with you as a whole and to have no support whatsoever? That should be a message that you're doing something wrong. If NO ONE else can see your point of view, you better rethink your point of view! There's a problem there!

Note about trusting the Magesterium -

Jacob and I were talking about this earlier, and he said he's talked to Catholics who support the war. He then tells them, "But the Pope condemns it!" To which these people respond, "I'm not denying his authority, I'm just thinking for myself."

I don't know about you guys, but I love JPII! I think he is one of the most amazing people that has EVER LIVED. I would rather have him think for me than think for myself - any day.

[crusader1234]

[quote]any US President is going to have access to intelligence that the Pope simply doesn't[/quote]

Well, thats not true. The Pope is privy to probably a lot more information that no president will ever know. Remember, the US is only so big, there are what... 2 billion Catholics?

Also, the Pope is probably one of the smartest and most level headed thinkers in the world right now, so I trust his opinion above all else. Look at Bush, look at the Pope... listen to them speak. It is only a matter of seconds before you can tell which one knows a thing or two.

[quote]Of course, we now know that US and other countries' intelligence was faulty. But at the time, it seemed credible.[/quote]

Keeping in mind, of course, that you are subjected to totally biased media that is filled with Government propaganda as well as the best interests of the private sector. You can't always trust what you see on TV... unless of course you get the CBC.

[Iacobus]

[quote name='Mickey's_Girl' date='Jun 10 2004, 03:08 AM'] But taking your examples, what makes Blix and (the other guy) necessarily [b]more [/b]credible than the president, as far as "knowing" whether WMDs were present or not? Given the current scandal over UN officials' embezzlement/kickbacks in the Iraqi Oil-For-Food program, I don't think it's intellectually honest to say that UN officials are, by their very nature of not being Americans (even George W. Bush, if you dislike him), more believable on a given issue.

Here's the other thing (and again, I'm not not dissing the Pope OR just war theory, here): any US President is going to have access to intelligence that the Pope simply doesn't. So there will be times when a pres. could make a decision that, from the outside, looks wrong (for instance, say he knows there's a direct threat that is kept secret from the public) but isn't.

Of course, we now know that US and other countries' intelligence was faulty. But at the time, it seemed credible.

I mean, the Pope can have opinions about individual world affairs that may or may not be correct, you know? I don't mean teaching authority; I mean opinions.

(not that he's not a very wise man...'cause I know he is. He's so cool!)

MG [/quote]
I reason I have for trusting them more that say the CIA or some an American group is that they have a job regradless of if they find weapons or not. They are more outside of the pressure that can be applied by the goverment. Moreover, they have no real motive for wanting the US to go to war or to not go to war. And the Oil for Food program was not under the UN Weapons Inspection area. That is like knowing the ex-gov of IL was courrpt thereby assuming all IL govt is corrupt. It is a fallacy.

Yes about the intel. This only problem with that is the US went before the UN trying to get the force clause of Res 1441 enacted. If you send the Sec. of State to the UN, you mean buniness, and are going to play your VERY best cards.

[crusader1234]

[quote]I don't know about you guys, but I love JPII! I think he is one of the most amazing people that has EVER LIVED. I would rather have him think for me than think for myself - any day.[/quote]

Amber I really liked this. John Paul II is definately one of the greatest Pope's, greatest PEOPLE ever. I would put my life in his hands, and more importantly, i DO put my soul in his hands. I follow as best I can the guidance he sets for us.

If we ignore him and his guidance, we are putting ourselves on a disaster course headed for something that aint that pretty.

[qfnol31]

Well, I shall make a few comments about this after being cleverly persuaded to do so. J/K.

I do want to start off by saying that when he met with the Pope last Friday, Bush was told that the war in Iraq is not a just war and some other things (I'm not sure what all, I only caught pieces of it). However, for the President to keep on doing what he is doing isn't necessarily wrong either. First of all, he is not Catholic. Though I wish everyone was, they're not. In this way, he is not obligated to obey the Pope in the way that Catholics are. My Philosophy professor told us, I believe quoting Augustine or Aquinas (I can't remember which), anyways, if the President feels morally called to go into Iraq, then it would be a worse sin for him not to. He has pretty strong religious convictions it seems, and he also seems to stick to them. This is something in his favor.

Now on to the Pope. It is hard to be split between country and Pope. By the way, the approval rate of the war in Iraq was really high, probably the highest in many, many years. The President may have reasons behind what he has done that we don't know. Who knows what all he gets in his reports. I'm willing to bet that there is probably some information that he has that the Pope doesn't have a clue about. Now this does not necessarily make the war over there just, but it does leave us open to discuss a little big. This is where it gets difficult.

Also, Bush is first the servant of the people, so would it be more wrong for him to not go to war, or to not follow the people he serves? He may have felt there was a real danger there, which makes it his duty to protect us (according to the Constitution). I do want to say right now that the approval rate is much lower (below half if memory serves). However, the President went in there and it would be unjust for them not to set up a just government, or finish what we've started over there. Interestingly the Pope didn't say "make sure you have good reason," but rather "you don't have good reason." This raises a few interesting questions. Why didn't he leave room for information is top on my list.

One of the things that people must also remember, as has been stated before is the weapons of mass destruction. That could be a good reason for a just war, [i]if[/i] there's a good chance of them being used. We don't know if this is the case or not. This would justify a preemptive strike.

Now I'm going to say something very contraversial. The Vatican, though the Pope says that it has some good benefits, is normally against democracy. Here is a good example of when this can get us in trouble. In other governments, the duties become more black and white. Even Plato calls democracy the second lowest form of government (tyranny is the lowest). This is all very interesting discussion material if you'd want to go on it. My point with this part is that the Pope may have other things in mind in this case.

Another thing the Pope must do is promote peace in all situations. Granted lasting peace needs justice, in my opinion anyway. Therefore for him to tell us that this war is just without reason would be wrong, and out of place for the Pope.

Now for my opinion. I think that the war was on impulse and done because we got caught up in making the world a safer place for democracy. With that in mind, the Pope has some good ideas. If that's all we're trying to do, then that's not a very legitimate reason. First of all, that isn't necessarily a good thing. Democracy may not be the best form of government, contrary to popular belief. The Pope is worried about getting people to Heaven, the President has another goal, which seems to be making the world a better place. Though that's worthy, it's only temporal, and some places may not be ready for, nor looking for democracy. Knowing the Vatican's stance on democracy (which I believe is true), it makes sense that the Pope would oppose it. I think we should have waited a while before going over there...But now we're there and I think it'd be worse if we just left. I'm not going to, nor should anyone stop supporting the troops insofar as they're giving their lives, many without much of a choice.

Before I leave this, I do wish to call to mind the different opinions of the Pope and USCCB. The USCCB, though may not be in total favor, did say something along the lines of it's okay to support the war. This came out around the time that war was actually declared. I thinkthat this is an interesting phenomenon, and just wanted to say that because of it, an American can support the war and not be against the Magesterium. Though I hold the Pope to have the final say in things, I do also acknowledge the authority of Bishops. This is a hard situation because you must choose who's right...Prayer is what I suggest.

[voiciblanche]

I agree, Rich.

[crusader1234]

[quote]if the President feels morally called to go into Iraq, then it would be a worse sin for him not to. He has pretty strong religious convictions it seems, and he also seems to stick to them. This is something in his favor.
[/quote]

(always good to begin yor speech by refuting some points i always say)....

I find this argument very weak, in that... a lot of non catholics are serious about a lot of anti catholic things. First of all, we have the pro-choice movement. Would it be morally wrong for them to not march for pro-choice causes? A lot of people have some ill-conceived ideas of what is right and are very adamant about these ideas, and its not right for them to be acting on them.

Secondly, the Pope didnt say 'dont stop' so much as he said 'CLEAN UP THIS MESS!' aside from he said it in a very diplomatic way (gotta love the Pope).