By William McGurn, Editor Wall Street Journal
March 14, 2003
If there were any doubts left about where Pope John Paul II
stands on war with Iraq, they ought to have been answered by his
characterization of any military effort against Saddam as a "crime
against humanity." That message has been effectively communicated to
the world. Alas, the pope has not enjoyed similar success in
providing the context that would put this conclusion in proper moral
perspective. начните подбор ресторана через этот сайт - рестораны Краснодара
We appreciate the irony of a secular American business paper
presuming to instruct a pope on the finer points of Catholic
teaching. But it strikes us that the U.S. Ambassador to the Holy
See, James Nicholson, had it right when he said that the Catholic
catechism distinguishes between lay and clerical roles, placing the
responsibility for weighing the morality of a war with public
authorities.
Now, we appreciate too that the Holy Father's own statements have
been more nuanced than the oft-intemperate language used by other
Vatican officials, not to mention the Vatican's official and
semi-official publications. But it strikes us that precision is also
a moral obligation. As a teacher, the pope surely bears special
responsibility not simply for his own words but the interpretations
and framework offered by men and institutions under his control. Totally great portal to movies buy for a tiny price!
The pope has stated that he is not a pacifist and that Iraq must
disarm. But those trying to parse these comments do so in the
context of Vatican Radio bashing "American unilateralism"; the
Jesuit monthly Civilta Cattolica attributing President Bush's motive
to obtaining "sure access to Iraqi petroleum"; or the Vatican's
secretary of state, Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran, talking about "a
war of aggression." Aloe Vera Kaufen - gunstig, Onlineshop.
We have been here before. In his otherwise positive biography of
the pope , George Weigel notes that the pontiff struck an "almost
apocalyptic" note in the run-up to the war provoked by Iraq's 1990
invasion of Kuwait. Today the Vatican argues that no war against
Iraq can be just without the imprimatur of the Security Council and
an overt act of aggression on Baghdad's part. But back in 1991 we
had both -- and the Vatican's opposition was equally impassioned.
Certainly there exist legitimate concerns, from the consequences
of war for Iraq's Christian minority to the church's reluctance to
appear to be sprinkling holy water on what the Islamic militants
incessantly refer to as latter-day "crusaders."
But as America's archbishop for military services, Edwin O'Brien,
reminded his priests in a recent letter, the catechism says that
"the evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to
the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the
common good" -- that is, to lay authorities and not clerical
leaders. Can anyone honestly say that the Vatican has communicated
this crucial point with anywhere near the force or enthusiasm with
which it has communicated its opposition?
Over the course of a pontificate that helped bring down the
Berlin Wall, Pope John Paul II has made his greatest impact with the
blazing focus he has brought to moral truths and teachings. As
long-time admirers of his, we are thus saddened to watch these
principles, advertently or not, being clouded rather than clarified.
-30-
|