Email this information to a friend

(Analysis by CWN Editor Phil Lawler)

Despite a barrage of media reports to the contrary, Pope John Paul II has not issued a moral condemnation of US military action against Iraq.

There can be no doubt that the Pope has staked out his opposition to the use of force against Iraq. For weeks before the war began, he issued a steady stream of pleas and prayers for a diplomatic solution. Vatican diplomats worked energetically to explore non-military options. When the fighting began last week, he indicated his "deep pain" that war had begun.

Yes, certainly the Pope has made it clear that he would have preferred negotiations rather than a military confrontation. But has he condemned the war? No.

According to one Associated Press report, which has been cited frequently in the American press: "John Paul has said there is no legal or moral justification for military action."

There's just one problem with that AP report. It is wrong.

If he said that there is "no legal or moral justification" for this war, the Pope would be saying that this war is unjust. And if the war is unjust, then Christians cannot participate in or support it. The Pope has said no such thing.

In the weeks leading up to the war, the Holy See has insisted on two points: First, Iraq should disarm. Second, that disarmament should be achieved without the use of military force, through the authority of the United Nations. Notice that this public stance did not "tilt" toward Iraq; on the contrary, the Vatican has always agreed with the proposition that Saddam Hussein must be disarmed.

When the war did break out, the Vatican issued a formal statement that said, in part:

On the one hand, it is to be regretted that the Iraqi government did not accept the resolutions of the United Nations and the appeal of the Pope himself, as both asked that the country disarm. On the other hand, it is to be deplored that the path of negotiations, according to international law, for a peaceful solution of the Iraqi drama has been interrupted.

Notice that once again, the finger pointed first toward Baghdad, blaming the Iraqi regime for its failure to disarm. Only then did the Vatican lament that a peaceful solution had not been achieved.

Just a few days earlier, Pope John Paul had issued his own appeal, directing his remarks first to Baghdad and then, indirectly, toward Washington:

The political leaders of Baghdad certainly have the urgent duty to collaborate fully with the international community to eliminate every reason for armed intervention. To them I direct my urgent appeal: the fate of your fellow-citizens should always have priority. But I would also like to remind the member countries of the United Nations, and especially those who make up the Security Council, that the use of force represents the last recourse, after having exhausted every other peaceful solution, in keeping with the well-known principles of the U.N. Charter.

That is why, in the face of the tremendous consequences that an international military operation would have for the population of Iraq and for the balance of the Middle East region, already sorely tried, and for the extremisms that could stem from it, I say to all: There is still time to negotiate; there is still room for peace, it is never too late to come to an understanding and to continue discussions.

When US President George W. Bush announced that he was prepared to issue attack orders, the Vatican responded with an interesting statement:

Whoever decides that all peaceful means that international law has put at our disposition have been exhausted assumes a serious responsibility before God, his conscience and history.

Does that statement convey a moral condemnation? Not at all! The Vatican indicates that when a President (or any world leader) makes the decision to go to war, he takes on "a serious responsibility." President Bush acknowledged as much himself, in that same speech.

No one can doubt that the Pope would have preferred to see President Bush make a different choice. But the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that political leaders have the ultimate responsibility for judging whether the conditions for a "just war" have been fulfilled. In accordance with that teaching, the Pope has avoided any direct statement on the morality of the war.

If American "hawks" are unhappy with the Pope's public statements, they can take some comfort from the fact that European pacifists are also unhappy. As the Italian newspaper L'Espresso recently pointed out, a group of Catholic pacifists recently wrote an open letter to the Holy Father, pleading for "a simple and unequivocal" denunciation of the war. As L'Espresso also pointed out, those pacifists remain unsatisfied; they have never seen the clear papal statement that they want.

Since the war began, Pope John Paul has issued two public statements, each touching on the subject only obliquely.

In a meeting with a group of American Lutherans, the Pope said that "in a world filled with danger and insecurity," Christians "must stand together in proclaiming the values of the Kingdom of God." He said this solidarity was particularly important in light of "the events of recent days." Can anyone disagree with that statement?

Similarly, during his public audience on Sunday, March 23, the Pope said: "When war, like the one underway in Iraq, threatens the future of humanity, it is even more important to proclaim, in a strong and decisive voice, that peace is the only way to build a more just and unified society." He added that "violence and arms can never resolve men's problems." Can anyone reasonably interpret that statement as a denunciation of US policy?

Pope John Paul has frequently raised questions about US strategy toward Iraq-- as have many other world leaders. But to say that the Pope has "condemned" or "denounced" the war is to go well beyond the facts.

© Copyright 2003 Domus Enterprises. All rights reserved.

Home | Email this information to a friend | Questions?