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

Quote:

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.

[Ben Kenobi]

Kudos for posting the Catholic criterion for a Just War. Taught me something I've wanted to know more about.

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.

Lazerus:

I don't agree with the means used to achieve the end of freeing the Iraqi people. 'Liberation' too easily becomes justification for conquests.

Secondly, what ratio would you regard as adequate?

[GePap]

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.

The UNSC was never all powerful and I never claimed so: but it was the only body trying to bring peace, and by weakening it without a substitute the US weakens the ability and will of the international community to act.

If the Invasion of iraq was all about "liberating it" then no legal pretext was ever needed: the fact that one had to be cooked up shows that simply calling for "liberation" would have gotten people nowhere. The fact that this admin. made liberation its main theme only at the point war was inevitable, and not fully then, shows that for them it was a ploy as much as the weapons of mass destruction argument.

The world has no system of "liberation", organizations like the UN are not set up to do so. perhaps that is a failure, but it is a failure based on a simple fact: no single political entity, no state, has any higher claim to morality than any other. We denounce Human rights violations elsewhere, but who decided those were rights humans have? The Bible, the Q'uran, the Torah? No, those rights were laid out by a series of international conventions and rullings, ending with the UN delcaration of Human rights. It is in this collective action that things are legitimized, since single players don;t have the legitimacy to make moral judgements of this kind. We have a cadre in power that thinks the US has that moral force, but facts show otherwise. Not only facts of our past behavior, but even current and future behavior. How many of the states in the "coolition" were not democracies? It is stunning to think that we can claim to be acting in order to "liberate" somewhere with the democratizing wishes of dictatorships elsewhere.


Many states int he past have been "libarated", but it was alway after aggression on the part of the dictator brought destrcution upon themselves. This might not be the best system, to await aggression to bring liberation, but that is the only time in which single states can claim the moral stature to "liberate". Pre-emptive or preventive "liberation" by a self-styled club simply has no moral weight of its own. By weakening and undermining international organizations, no matter how flawed, this admin, an its supporters undermine international norms without being able to porduce any other norm with even a similiar level of legitimacy. Now, this is what many of those that sought this war wnated, but their are dirven by false notions of what their power is, and how people will react to it. They think they can inspire good through fear..they are wrong. You can get people to act as you want through fear, but you taint was what built like that, and you foster hate as well.

[Ned]

Good post, GePap.

Now, what about Kosovo?

[Ned]

Originally posted by obiwan18


Kudos for posting the Catholic criterion for a Just War. Taught me something I've wanted to know more about.



Lazerus:

I don't agree with the means used to achieve the end of freeing the Iraqi people. 'Liberation' too easily becomes justification for conquests.

Secondly, what ratio would you regard as adequate?

Obiwan, Liberation was always a primary goal of the United States. However, the legal pretext for the coalition was Saddam's twice invading his neighbors, his use of chemical weapons in those wars and on his own citizens, and his unwillingness to cooperate with the United Nations in disarmament.

UNSC 1441 had found Saddam in material breach. He was given one last chance to cooperate. He partially cooperated, which created the fog of uncertainty. France and its allies would not endorse a second resolution designed to test Saddam's willingness to cooperate fully. This forced us to either give up on genuine cooperation from Saddam or to act. We chose to act.

The central problem we have now as a result of this adventure is the role of the UN in international law. GePap and others accuse the US of undermining international law by enforcing the UN resolutions. However,

Law is meaningless without enforcement.

If the UN will not enforce its resolutions, it undermines international law itself.

Even the Pope must be able to understand this.

[yago]

Q Cubed, the Pope is the leader of a two thousand year old Church. He represents over a billion Catholics. He is uniquely positioned to be a force for good in this world. To have a man in this position who is focused on critizing the United States while real evil stalks this world is an abomination.

That's funny. Maybe the pope has learnt from past mistakes and isn't siding with everything not good just because it's powerfull.

It think it's rather an abonimation not to critize the United States, while it's evil stalks the world.



(Hey, don't blame me, I just raped your words)

[Ned]

Originally posted by yago


That's funny. Maybe the pope has learnt from past mistakes and isn't siding with everything not good just because it's powerfull.

It think it's rather an abonimation not to critize the United States, while it's evil stalks the world.



(Hey, don't blame me, I just raped your words)

I also think the Pope was more intent at stopping the US than in liberating Iraq. This anti-US thinking drives a lot of the positions in large parts of the world. The pope appears to be infected with the disease as well. In this view, Saddam was a hero for standing up to Uncle Sam the bully.

As I have said before, though, we Americans do not want to conquer the world or to gain territory for ourselves. We want a better, more civilized world. We are convinced that democracy and the respect for human rights are the only vehicles for making the world a better place. Our adversaries often say that we actually are against democracy, citing examples of this dictator or that and then saying that we "supported" the dictator. Some of this probably is true because the dictator who is our friend is better than the dictator who is our enemy. Thus we "support" Musharraf in Pakistan because he is allied with us against OBL. However, we did not bring Musharraf into power and are doing nothing to maintain him in power. We simply have good relations with him and are not trying to thrown him out of power.

America may not be perfect. But we certainly have high ideals as a people and we demand that our leaders act accordingly. This is why the vast majority of Americans approved of Kosovo and Iraq. We ended a brutal regime in each case and at least brought the people of Kosovo and Iraq the opportunity to live in a democracy.

[Q Classic]

whoa, ned, wait... the pope never liked saddam, nor did he ever feel that iraq was a good nation.
scroll up and read one of the official statements posted about the vatican's viewpoint on iraq.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
Good post, GePap.

Now, what about Kosovo?

As I have stated before, the US sought the support of international organizations with some modicum of legitimacy: when attempts in the UN seemed certain to be blocked, the US sought a NATO madate.

There is another significant difference: form the start the US and allies made clear that their aim in Kosovo was humanitarian: no other claims were made but to stop ethnic cleansing. This coolition also did not seek to remove the government in pwoer but to use power to curb its behavior in one place: was it a violation of sovereignty? Yes, but not on the scale of regime change, something that without some significant act of aggression (and perhaps not even then) most international orgs have the right to do.

The US did not claim to be invading Iraq in the UN to change the regime (it couldn't) but instead made its case based on WMD arguments. You state laws need enforcement: I agree, but enforcement by whom? Kosovo was radical: Human rights as the sole reason given to intervene militarily in an internal matter (not a civil war sceenrio like Bosnia). IN Iraq the US used much more conservative claims of Iraq breaking UN resolutions: of course, if no WMD's are found in Iraq, then the fact will be that the US mislead the council and that Iraq was not violating the UN resolutions dealing with banned weapons to the extent the US and UK used to justify the continuation of sanctions in the 1990's and war in 2003 (in essence, the French will be proven right) .

In 1999 the US claimed that ongoing violations of HUman rights in the form of ethnic cleasing (possibly a crime against humanity) warranted the action of an international force (NATO, even if the US did the heavy lifting) to intervene in the jurisdiction of another sovereign state.

IN 2003 the US claimed that a state's violations of UNSC resoltuions so endangered the world that with OR WITHOUT the support of any international org (none backed the US effort) a posse of states could depose and change the legal (if dictatorial and repressive) regime of another state.

Those are not even similar claims.

[chequita guevara]

Iraqi Christians aren't Catholic. They're most likely Nestorians like most of the Christians of the East.

[Q Classic]

there are a few iraqi catholics, however.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
whoa, ned, wait... the pope never liked saddam, nor did he ever feel that iraq was a good nation.
scroll up and read one of the official statements posted about the vatican's viewpoint on iraq.

Yes I read where he said to Saddam that he must comply with UN resolutions on both WMD and human rights.

The jury is still out on the WMD issue.

On the latter, there is no question that he continued to violate the human rights of his own people. But he covered this up, fairly well, by intimidating the likes of CNN and by bribing the likes of al Jazeera. I, for one, did not know of his gross violations of human rights until Bush's UN GA speech. I remember, at the time, thinking why am I hearing about this now for the first time?

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Iraqi Christians aren't Catholic. They're most likely Nestorians like most of the Christians of the East.

I believe the Pope is concerned for all Christians. The primary differences between Christian sects concerns whether they recognize the Pope as the Supreme Pontiff, the Pontifex Maximus, which of course, is a Roman title confered by the Emperor Valentian III.

The other differences could be accomodated by an ecumenical council embracing all sects. However, one will never be convened so long as the Pope requires as a going-in proposition that he be acknowledged as the supreme leader.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Try dating one, Dr. Strangelove.

Seriously, this Pope is the one responsible for the Second Vatican Council.

Without him, we would still be 'apostate.'

So he gets a big thumbs up from me.

Yeah, but he seems to have been backsliding the past few years. Last week he admonished Catholics who have attended services at non-Catholic churches, calling such actions "grave error". Oh, BTW, in the same message he reiteraterd the age-old condemnation of gays and lesbians.
Maybe as he has gotten older and weaker he's knuckling under to pressure from the Vatican apartchicks. It's a shame. I used to really like him.

How could he have been responsible for the second Vatican council? Wasn't that in 1960? Wouldn't he have been a relatively low ranking bishop at that time?

[Heresson]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Iraqi Christians aren't Catholic. They're most likely Nestorians like most of the Christians of the East.

But remember that large part of Nestorians signed an union with Roman-catholic church. I think it was in 1841 but I'm too lazy to look it up, so do that yourself.

[Heresson]

The whole thread is either a troll, or a sign that mr Ned can't understand that in views of some, there are some things that can NEVER be done. Me myself, I agree that getting rid of Saddam in any way is a better thing than letting him stay; but I'm not angry at pope that He doesn't share my view.
Why? War is abad thing, no matter against what. Pope can not support ANY war, no matter what kind of. Is it that hard to understand that?