Catholics and the Pope’s Stance on War with Iraq

Dear Mr. Fitzpatrick,

You have rightly pointed out that there are valid arguments both for and against going to war with Iraq. In such a case, would it not be wise to give the deciding weight to the opinions of the apostles’ successors?

I honestly believe the issue of war with Iraq is one of the first opportunities conservatives have to accept the advice of our Church’s leadership when, as laymen, they may disagree with it. To my chagrin, most conservative Catholics seem to be reacting in the same way many liberals have reacted to the opinion of Church leaders over the years—by categorizing their advice as not part of the content of the faith and, therefore, as dismissible.

I want to encourage you, and all faithful Catholics, to once again consider the fact that the Pope, in union with most of his fellow bishops, has strongly indicated that going to war with Iraq now would be wrong. Their views have to change the dynamic of how we approach the issue. In the case of any doubt, we should heed their thoughts rather than our own.

Sincerely,

Patrick Bucy

****

Please note that all email submitted to Catholic Exchange or its authors (regarding articles published at CE) become the property of Catholic Exchange and may be published in this space. Published letters may be edited for length and clarity. Names and cities of letter writers may also be published. Email addresses of viewers will not normally be published.

Editor’s Note: Below are several letters Catholic Exchange received in response to Catholic Politics, an article by Jim Fitzpatrick, whose reply follows the letters. The response provided here is intended for any viewer who has questions about whether a Catholic may support going to war with Iraq.

Dear Mr. Fitzpatrick:

I read your article about Catholic politics. I agree with your line of thinking, but I am curious to know why you did not mention something rather important.

We all know that the Pope is against war with Iraq. He has been quite vocal about the “unjust war” position. If the Pope speaks for the Church, and if to question papal authority on matters is blasphemous, why is it OK to support going to war with Iraq against the wishes of the Pope? Is this a matter for us to weigh as individuals? Can we disagree with the Pope on such a major issue and remain faithful Catholics? (What would the Pope have to do in order to make the unjust war position official Church policy—an encyclical or something similar? To clarify what I’m asking, what would make the Pope’s position—that war with Iraq is unjust—the OFFICIAL Catholic position and one all Catholics would have to assent to, such as is the case with abortion and contraception etc.?)

Looking forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

C. Medici

****

Mr. Fitzpatrick,

John Paul II speaks for Roman Catholics on this issue, qua Catholic. The natural law (see the Catechism and the Catholic Encyclopedia) is the source of just war doctrine, which indicates the *only* conditions under which war can be waged. It is this just war doctrine that sets the limits and defines the terms that must be used to determine whether it is okay to go to war. If the U.S. has already decided to go to war, then it must satisfy those conditions—not its own interpretation of those conditions, but the Pope’s!

The conditions of just war require an act of aggression or imminent threat of aggression, and even then there must be NO other form of redress. The United States has admitted another form of redress, the UN Security Council (designed by the U.S. for this purpose), which has enacted a structure (Resolution 1441) for dealing with what the United States CLAIMS to be imminent threat. The only entity authorized to interpret and act upon 1441 is the United Nations. This is an irrefutable fact, one that is therefore not subject to authoritative determination.

If the U.S. is dissatisfied with the United Nations’ method of dealing with the question, then the U.S. is entitled to PUBLICALLY DEMONSTRATE the IMMINENT AGRESSION it believes adequate for a declaration of war (according to Article 51 of the UN Charter). This it has not done, and 1441 is not a cause for U.S. action. Assertions of bad faith on the part of the Iraqi’s or the UN are also insufficient grounds for allowing the U.S. to enact 1441 UNILATERALLY. The U.S. must, then, PUBLICLY DEMONSTRATE the IMMINENT AGRESSION it believes adequate for a declaration of war. The U.S. has no right to attack on the basis of the Gulf War. The injury (invasion of Kuwait) has been remedied, a penalty has been applied (reparations, sanctions) and the U.S. accepted the UN’s role in the brokering of the truce. This is the doctrine, and these are the facts—look them up in the Catholic Encyclopedia and Catechism if you disagree.

Furthermore, the introduction of bad faith raises the need to address whether the U.S. is acting in good faith—whether the U.S. actually wants peace—which the Catechism says it must if it is to arrive at a REASONABLE LAST RESORT OF WAR. Public statements (written papers and otherwise) by many U.S. leaders on this issue bring this into doubt. Many members of Bush’s administration have written that they want war in order to remove Saddam and to bring democracy to the Middle East. This is not a legitimate cause for war. Period. If U.S. leaders believe it is, then it is very good that the UN, Europeans and the Pope prevent them. . . .

Sincerely,

Albert Gunn

****

Dear Catholic Exchange:

I wish the Vatican would restrict itself to teaching just war principles and respect the charism of national statesmen to form prudential judgments concerning specific cases. I am embarrassed to see the Holy Father aligned with Vichy France and the Euro-secularist/socialists, opposing the liberation of 43 million miserable Iraqis and the cauterization of a major focus of deadly infection on our planet.

The U.S. (and the West, generally) is under continuing attack from radical Islamism, (essentially Wahhabi Islam) under the loose leadership of Al Qaida. On a worldwide basis, the movement continually cultivates fresh, fanatical, even suicidal, attackers under the guise of religion and trains and equips them effectively to kill us. Our task is to devise and erect a defense against that threat.

Homeland security measures are at best a second line of defense. Clearly, the primary tasks are to: 1) find and eliminate all active militants, their resources, and supporters; and 2) eliminate all indoctrination and training personnel—the madrassas, the imams and the agitators.

Now, one resource for terrorists is Iraq: refugees report terrorist training continuing there, WMD’s are mass-produced there, Saddam rewards Palestinian suicide bombers’ families, etc., etc. It is but one of many global foci of infection that must be sanitized. (Not incidentally, it is also a prison for 43 million enslaved Iraqis who deserve freedom.)

In the best case, war will be short, damage will be minimal, and Iraqis will love us and embrace democratic government. (Not impossible: ask Iraqi refugees in the U.S. The media ignore them.) If they do, adjacent dictatorships may fall of their own weight, as people begin to taste their own liberation. (If the situation is evil, is destabilizing it always harmful?)

Iraq, once taken, can become a centralized base for possible further operations, as required elsewhere in the region, by diplomacy or by force. (Remember, our task is to clean out every single focus of infection on the planet.)

We need to speak clearly to majority Islam: “Our war is not with you. Distinguish yourselves from the terrorists and drive them out from among you; join us in suppressing them, and live in peace with us; otherwise do not blame us for the injuries you suffer in the confusion you cause or allow.”

Wahhabi Islam and Al Quaida are at war with us, and we have bled enough. This is not aggression; it is a systematic elimination of our enemies, wherever they are. Among other places, they are in Iraq, but not for long.

The Holy Father’s well-meant statements will cause the deaths of more Americans if they are attacked with chemical and biological agents in the hot summer months. He should respect the charism of national leaders to form the correct prudential judgments, which he appears unable to form himself.

God bless,

Joseph I. Farley

Mr. Fitzpatrick’s Response

Dear Readers:

The letters critical of my column argue that the Church’s conditions for a just war must be met before a Catholic can support an attack on Iraq. I agree. We cannot ignore the Church’s teachings on a just war. We must apply them. The question is whether a Catholic is free to conclude that Saddam Hussein’s regime poses an imminent threat to the United States and that all nonviolent means to eliminate that threat have been exhausted, and that, therefore, an American attack on Iraq is warranted by the terms of the Church’s just war theory. I do not presume to speak for the Pope, but I would bet dollars to donuts that John Paul II would not prohibit an American Catholic from coming to that conclusion, even if the majority of his advisers on international matters weigh the evidence differently.

Sincerely,

Jim Fitzpatrick