This is a thread directed to faithful catholics. It means to be a final summary of what I have been writing here. I will not defend "secular" arguments here, only religious.

Many American Catholics here are saying that they want to understand why the pope opposes the war, why he gives such importance to the UN and so on.

Although I understand that, having two different loyalties that at some times may conflict, such American Catholics may feel confused, I would like to restate that all faithful non-American Catholics who regularly come to this forum, such as Kiwi, Gordon and me have the same difficulty in understanding why American Catholics cannot understand what is to us essentially a no-brainer. The pope’s reasons are so obvious to us that it is incredibly difficult to us to conceive that anybody could not understand them, especially faithful catholics who love and respect the pope.

It is clear to me that a cultural gap exists here, even if we share both the Catholic Faith and the more general Western heritage. For reasons outside the scope of this message, different historical, cultural, upbringing contexts are separating us in this very grave hour.

Despite the obvious honesty and intelligence of most people involved, we have become simply incapable of meaningful communication about this issue. So, I came to realize that this continuous discussion is inefficient. It consumes time and emotional and spiritual energy, which perhaps we could be using better praying.

Therefore, I will not continue to argue for the pope’s position, from a "secular", political point of view, here, though I would like to remind that:

(1) The pope is a most holy man, a brilliant intellectual, a skilled and experienced politician (just remember his instrumental role in the downfall of communism); he is not naïve and he does have access to much more information than some people here are trying to make people believe he has; he is knowledgeable about many cultures, understands Judaism and Islam better than anyone of us; he is certainly the person with the most far-reaching understanding of the World Scene in all the world today.

(2) The pope loves the USA and is no anti-American; the pope is not subject to anti-American propaganda.

(3) The pope is the Vicar of Christ, the Successor of Saint Peter, the Head of our Church and the recipient of the Divine Assistance from the Holy Ghost;

(4) Vatican officials, when in official assignments, speak in the name of the pope; when a Cardinal such as Jean Louis Tauran or an Archbishop such as Renato Martino open their mouth in interviews, audiences etc., they are speaking in the name of the pope, and not giving their personal opinions, the same way as when you hear Donald Rumsfeld or Colin Powell in a press conference, they are speaking in the name of US Government and, ultimately, in the name of the President. When such officials (both Bush’s and the pope’s, or of any other institution for that matter) want to give their personal opinions, they explicitly say so, as is the usual practice in all Governments, Church included.

(5) The pope is NOT, as some are trying to say, speaking as a private individual giving a personal opinion, when he states his opposition to this war. This can be easily seen by (a) the wording he is using to speak about the war (anyone who knows a little about the Church Magisterium knows how the wording is important to establish which level of authority a pope is bestowing to his words in any given moment); (b) The fact that the pope never said he was giving his personal, private individual, opinion; when a pope airs a personal opinion in the context of a formal, official setting (such as a public audience), he expressly says so; he does so even in more informal settings, to make clear that his Apostolic Authority is not being bestowed on what he is saying, as was the case in many passages of the book “Crossing the Threshold of Hope”, in his recent poem release or when he aired his opinion about the interpretation of the third Secret of Fatima. He is clearly speaking “As Pope”. All world leaders acknowledged that, it is strange that catholics, especially theologically learned ones, may think otherwise. When the pope speaks, even Bush sees him as speaking for the Church; all world leaders know that; all journalists know that; all bishops know that; it is most striking that some catholics may defend the position that he is giving a personal opinion.(c) The obvious priority he gave this problem in the last months. He clearly sees himself exercising the Authority and taking on the responsibility of the Supreme Pontiff. Those catholics who see otherwise do so at their own peril.

(6) By speaking against this war “As Pope”, he is effectively exercising his Ordinary Magisterium; I have topped a huge thread, which is part of Chris Butler’s Legacy to this forum. It is an immensely comprehensive collection of Magisterial Texts addressing specifically the issue of the Ordinary Magisterium. I recommend its full reading, but I will not be posting quotes here to avoid unnecessary duplication. In this thread you all may see for yourselves how it would be difficult to claim that the pope’s opposition to this war is just his personal opinion.

(7) War is clearly a moral issue; so, when the pope declares the immorality or unlawfulness of it, he is exercising his Ordinary Magisterium on matters of faith and morals; as Chris Butler has repeated here for years, and as is clear by the Magisterial texts on the other thread, Ordinary Magisterium requires the faithful “to adhere to it with religious assent” (CCC 892).

(8) THEREFORE, no Catholic may licitly dissent from the pope’s teaching as expressed in the Ordinary Magisterium. Don’t expect the language of the Ordinary Magisterium to be pompous or solemn. This wording is used only when the Extraordinary Magisterium is being exercised (in Canonizations and Proclamation of Dogmas). Everything the pope says in an official setting, except what he EXPLICITLY sign out as personal opinion or doubtful position, is to be considered Ordinary Magisterium if it is something concerning Faith and Morals.

(9) The pope, declaring the immorality of this war (because war is a moral matter), is exercising his Ordinary Magisterium, and ERGO, no catholic may support this war in opposition to the pope without incurring in DISSENT.

(10) In the CCC 2309, nowhere is to be found that the expression “those who are responsible for the common good” refers to a single country’s civil government. Its interpretation may point to a civil government, the UN or even the pope himself.

(11) The pope is the Supreme Authority to judge, in the Earth, the morality of specific acts. The Pope has the prerogative to exercise it and he sees fit, in which he is assisted by the Holy Ghost. To say otherwise is to be in direct contradiction to the Magisterium, as in the Pius XII Encyclical Ad Apostolorum Principis. (see other thread)

(12) Nowhere is to be found that the Church, in the Pope's Supreme Authority, surrenders it authority to judge the morality of a war to civil governments. Although the Church MAY delegate this right to civil governments (the principle of subsidiarity), She IS NOT OBLIGED to do so, and may take that responsibility whenever the Pope sees fit. This can be clearly derived from the above-mentioned Encyclical.

(13) Notwithstanding the appropriateness of trying to understand rationally Church Teaching, as expressed in Fides et Ratio, all faithful catholics are obliged to assent to Church Teaching even when they, for whatever reason, cannot understand a particular doctrine.

(14) THEREFORE, for a faithful catholic, the fact that he does not understand the reasons why the pope opposes this war (although these reasons are understood by many – or even most – catholics outside US) DOES NOT EXEMPT HIM FROM ASSENTING TO THE POPE. The suffering of non-understanding may be offered to God as a worthy sacrifice. St. Escrivá said that “Faith is the humility of the intellect”.

Having said all that, I want to say that I am sad that Chris Butler is not more in this forum. He would be able to explain these things much better than me. However, I hope this may help some confused brothers. It is very important to see that this is not a matter to be taken lightly. Dissent is a very serious sin against the First Commandment, and may evolve to Heresy and Apostasy. Today I dissent about this war; tomorrow I'll be dissenting about Death Penalty; the third day, I am dissenting about contraception; in little time, I'll be out of the Church.

Finally, I would like to say that it came to me that, if the pope, with all his brilliance, wisdom and holiness, is not succeeding in convince some catholics of his stance, it would be at the same time naïve and arrogant of me to think that I could have better results than him. I hope my frustration teaches me something. So, this is more a time for Faith (in God, in his Church and in his Vicar) than one for perfect rational understanding.

God Bless you all, and all may forgive me for my deficiencies, sins, heated posts, personal attacks or any other attitude that may have offended anybody (including John Gecik, to whom, I admit, I was many times most uncharitable).

Let us pray for the quick end of this war with the less loss possible.

Let us pray that God gives us His Light and foster our Union around our beloved Pope.

God Bless you all.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 20, 2003

Answers

top

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 20, 2003.

I was born a mexican. I understand you, Atila. I also understand that the Pope tries to avoid war. He did it when Chile and Argentina tried to go to war.

Unfortunately the Pope was silent when Catholic Croatia and Catholic Slovenia tried to break away from Yugoslavia knowing that many Serbs lived on the Croatian side. He was silent and many here I know were silent when I, a Roman Catholic was protesting the bombing of the Serbs just because they were Orthodox.

Most were silent when I used to write to Clinton to topple the Taliban. American Muslims were silent about the taliban atrocities.

This time I was also on the side of Bush to attack Iraq, even though there are many Catholic Iraqis. I even have Iraqi friends. But Saddam is too much of a tyrant for me to support him.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), March 20, 2003.

Atils - very well done!!

-- jean bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), March 21, 2003.

top class Atila.

-- Bobby Davro (Bob.Davro@bigsky.com), March 21, 2003.

Well said Atila, God Bless.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), March 21, 2003.

Well said Atila, and thank you for including my name in that post.

I have been more or less avoiding most of the discussion related to Iraq, as it seems impossible to convince some American Catholics that this war is unjust.

That fact that the American government repeatedly is trying to tie Saddam with terrorism, knowing full well that is a lie, is incredibly sad. I mean, what can this mean for our world, when a nation as powerful as the US lies so much!

The war is unjust, but at least the Iraq people will be liberated from Saddam, and the brutal food sanctions the West have imposed on Iraq since the first gulf war. Another thing the Vatican has been against all along, and yet supported by so many Catholics also.

Hopefully the Iraqi army just folds, and allows the Americans to take them over, as they do not have a hope in hell of winning, and that will limit deaths all around.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 21, 2003.

Atila,

I agree with most of your points and must admit you are improving in you ability to make a logical argument.

The one point on which you do err though is stating The pope is the Supreme Authority to judge, in the Earth, the morality of specific acts.

That has never been and never will be the case. Let me explain to you how it works. (I'm pasting my last post in the UN thread to save time):

Yes, the Magisterium is a beacon of light in the muck and confusion (and moral relativism) of our time. And we need to be thankful that we can know with certainty the objective principles on which to form our conscience. But the Church will not be able (nor is it intended to) take the place of individuals, with the help of a well-formed conscience), appling the objective norms to particular situations. It is the gift of conscience (guided by the Holy Spirit) which comes in to play in the subjective realm, NOT the gift of infallability of the Magisterium.

This is irrefutable Catholic teaching. If you want me to do the research to prove this, I may take you up on it (if I can find the time). But this is one thing that I do recall with certitude from my 8+ years of philosphical/theological studies in Rome and here in the US.

In summary/review: The Holy Spirit works through the Church to provide us with the proper material to conform our consciences to the objective truth. The Holy Spirit then works through the consciences of individuals (via gift of Prudence) to properly apply the objective norms to particular (subjective) and concrete situations. The gift of Prudence, not infallability, is what is at work in the subjective realm.

On the other hand, it could be that God has chosen to give our Holy Father some special insight/vision on this particular matter. That would explain many things to me with regard to his words and actions. But that doesn't change that which requires submission of intellect and will is the principles regarding just war and morality in general, but not how these should be applied in a particular situation.

But the pope, or even individual bishops, could make a stance on a specific act that should certainly be avoided by the faithful under their care since the act is certainly a moral evil. This is a bit differnt. To do this, the bishop or pope would need to be sure that in no way could the act be justifed. This is not the case here (wrt to the Holy Father and all but one bishop, who has been condemned by some of his fellow bishops for an imprudent act). And one cannot say it is binding for all Catholics to agree that there is no way to justify military action on Iraq.

Yes, the Holy Father has a lot of wisdom and personal knowledge about world events and knows more than most (certainly me) about many matters that enter into this discussion. When I state the Holy Father may not know as much as some of the government leaders, I am speaking of things such as particular intelligence info and/or secret plans/weapons they may be privy to which enter into the equation in determining if the priciples of just war apply to this particular situation or not.

I already gave an example, but let me elaborate on this again. What if Pres. Bush, PM Tony Blair and their militaries had intelligence info that indicated (enough to give moral certainty) SH has or will soon have WMDs with the primary intent of using them against the US, UK or other "innocent" (i.e. not unjust aggressor) and that the coalition forces had a secret strategy and/or secret weapons that could completely defeat the Iraqi army without the loss of any life or property, and that this was going to be used only to disarm Iraq from banned weapons and to liberate the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. So unless the Vactian was absolutely, positively sure that such a plan or weapon was not available (which does NOT fall under the charism given to the Church on teaching matters of faith and morals), or that the action of disarming Iraq and/or overthrowing SH was an immoral act within itself, the pope could not with certainty (and certainly not with infallibility on the first point) declare the future action of the coalition forces was per se immoral.

The US Bishops have also made this clear stating that "people of good will can differ" on this matter. Here's a quote from Bishop Gregory (the pres of the US Conf. of Bishops):

While we have warned of the potential moral dangers of embarking on this war, we have also been clear that there are no easy answers. War has serious consequences, so could the failure to act. People of good will may and do disagree on how to interpret just war teaching and how to apply just war norms to the controverted facts of this case. We understand and respect the difficult moral choices that must be made by our President and others who bear the responsibility of making these grave decisions involving our nation's and the world's security (Catechism #2309).

(BTW - note how Bishop Gregory interprets CCC 2309 - the way it's always been interpreted. I do agree that it could also include the UN and the Holy Father, but primarily it is directed toward leaders of countries.)

Bottom line: you're making some good points, but this does not fall either under infallibility nor something mandatory for all Catholic to give submission of will. It could be that the Holy Father has some special revelation from God to have particular insights on this matter, in which case, we'd all be better off taking his advice - which I certainly am going to do wrt praying for an quick and happy (as possible) end to this conflict.

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 22, 2003.

The one point on which you do err though is stating The pope is the Supreme Authority to judge, in the Earth, the morality of specific acts.

I can't believe this.

Unbelievable. People wrongly say I don't submit to the Pope when I won't accept theological speculations which are not doctrines and in fact in clear contradiction of doctrine, no matter where they came from.

But when it comes to the true submission to the Roman Pontiff, nobody wants to do it.

You better believe it, Atila is dead on, dead center, 100%, completely, totally, absolutely, undeniably, soooooooo...

...Right!!!

You owe your allegiance to the Pontiff in this matter.

Pope John Paul II is most definitely the Supreme Authority to judge, in the Earth, the morality of specific acts.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 22, 2003.

No rhetoric, please. Where are the facts? Show me anywhere in any Church teaching where it states The pope is the Supreme Authority to judge, in the Earth, the morality of specific acts. You're not going to find it.

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 22, 2003.

"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 22, 2003.

Hollis, I will break my self-imposed rule to stop posting here.

I am quite aware that I will not change your mind.

But I think I owe out readers some further explanation here, given your answer.

By the way, I have had my share of theological training in an official setting myself too. As a former numerary Opus Dei member, I was trained in a “remote Campus” of the University of Navarra, as all Opus Dei members are. Lay numerary members receive the same formation as priests. In fact, OD priests are selected among lay numerary members already formed. They don’t go to a seminary. They go to Holy Cross (nowadays) at Rome for doctoral work before ordination. They complete their theological training with a couple of “exclusively for priests” disciplines, such as “cases of conscience”. So, I may say that I have had almost the same philosophical/theological training as an OD’s priest. It was a long time ago, and I don’t claim to remember all nuts and bolts, but I definitely am not ignorant about theological matters. I say this because (I may be wrong) your line about your 8+ years of theological studies seemed to me a bit like an “argument of authority” that you used to bestow legitimacy to your case. I apologize in advance if this was not your intention.

I will not address everything you said, I have no time and I really intend to spend as little time here as I can. I debated a lot with myself if I should come here again. I decided to come, though I don’t know it was the right decision.

Your interpretation of “how Magisterium works” is correct but misplaced, I’m afraid.

Prudence based on a well formed conscience is of course the guide of individual’s actions.

This is so because the Church (the Pope) cannot possibly judge all individual’s single acts. The Church, being realistic, delegates these decisions to individuals.

Should Atila work less (and earn less) and spend more time with his family? The Pope cannot possibly take that decision for me.

But suppose I have the opportunity to put my case before the Pope. The Pope says to me: “under the circumstances known to me by what you tell me, and unless you give me more information that could show things to be otherwise, I, AS POPE, say to you that the morally correct decision is…” I am pretty sure that this is binding (and it would be not even Ordinary Magisterium, since it was a private interview).

“Ah!”, you’ll say, “but you admit that the pope decided based on known circumstances”. Yes, but if I didn’t give the pope all the circumstances, that fault is mine, not the pope’s. And that’s exactly what’s missing in Bush’s case. Are there circumstances that are so secret that Bush could not tell the pope? I asked for examples, nobody gave me one. Certainly your example does not fit this category. I cannot see why your “extremely intelligent weapon” that “could completely defeat the Iraqi army without the loss of any life or property” would be such a secret (let alone the difficulty Bush would have to prove this; so far, the available evidence is that “intelligent weapons do dumb thinks”, as somebody said; the burden of proof here is clearly on Bush’s side). Anyway, it is such an extreme dose of wishful thinking (a weapon like that) that I think your example can hardly leave the realm of dreams.

So the “act based on your well-formed conscience” applies ONLY WHEN THE POPE SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR ACTION. This is not the case now. The Pope passed judgment about this concrete situation. To claim otherwise is similar to those “catholics” who claim that the pope should not speak about contraception because to decide in these matters is the responsibility of individual catholics prudently acting based on their well formed conscience (CFFC always uses this line of reasoning). I don’t think you are claiming that a well-formed conscience is infallible?

You also said “The Holy Spirit then works through the consciences of individuals (via gift of Prudence) to properly apply the objective norms to particular (subjective) and concrete situations.”

Here you are confusing “subjective” with “particular”. These are no way the same thing. Indeed, this confusion is exactly the root of moral relativism. A particular situation is OBJECTIVELY morally good or evil. A person may be SUBJECTIVELY exempt of sin by ignorance/lack of consent, but the act is still immoral. The Church is saying that this war, at the present circumstances, is OBJECTIVELY unlawful and immoral, though the pope is not obviously judging the possible sinfulness of Bush and Blair.

“But that doesn't change that which requires submission of intellect and will is the principles regarding just war and morality in general, but not how these should be applied in a particular situation.”

This is inconsistent with Church History and indeed in clear contradiction with Pius XII words (see other thread). You are treading dangerous theological paths.

“"32. 'The power of the Church is in no sense limited to so- called 'strictly religious matters'; but the whole matter of the natural law, its institution, interpretation AND APPLICATION, in so far as the moral aspect is concerned, are within its power. (…) 34. (…) ‘ALL ACTIONS OF A CHRISTIAN MAN [i.e. not only general principles] so far as they are morally either good or bad--that is, so far as they agree with or are contrary to the natural and divine law—FALL UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE CHURCH [St. Pius X]. (…) 35. (…) They protest that these refer to political affairs because of a hidden meaning by the author, as if these prescriptions took their origin from some secret conspiracy against their own nation”

I am sure I could find many other Magisterial texts concerning the same thing if I had time to search. Indeed, many such texts appear in Butler's thread.

The Church routinely is “applying the objective norms to particular situations”, as is the case when the pope asks the EU to add Religion to its Constitution, when he speaks about the Palestinian situation, when he articulates the opposition to abortion on UN conferences or when he asks US Governors to indult Death Penalty convicts. He has many times asked indult for individual convicts. I think you could supply many other such examples.

Anyway, when you say “and one cannot say it is binding for all Catholics to agree that there is no way to justify military action on Iraq” you are (purposefully?) twisting the Vatican’s (and mine) stance to suit your argument. Never has the Vatican said, “There is no way to justify military action on Iraq”. The Vatican set specific conditions for this war to be just, including (1) UN approval and (2) exhausting all diplomatic possibilities. The first is clearly missing and, about the second, even you agreed that the “chronogram” plan would work. And if it actually turned out that it didn’t work after all, war would be justified AT THE END OF A FEASIBLE DEADLINE. Then I am sure the Vatican would lift the ban on this war, and I’d follow, of course. These are OBJECTIVE CRITERIA that, having been ignored, made this war OBJECTIVELY unjust. No place for subjectivity here.

As for the USCCB not going to the end, I could hardly expect them to buy a new internal war with Bush (asking catholic soldiers to refuse to fight, for example), especially given bishops’ sensitive situation inside US nowadays.

“(BTW - note how Bishop Gregory interprets CCC 2309 - the way it's always been interpreted. I do agree that it could also include the UN and the Holy Father, but primarily it is directed toward leaders of countries.) “

It IS “PRIMARILY directed toward leaders of countries”, not EXCLUSIVELY; and at any rate, this holds UNTIL THE POPE TAKES OVER, which is what he is doing. Basic subsidiarity.

If you are so sure about the necessity of this war, why not wait for diplomatic means get really exhausted? Are you not so sure that Saddam would not disarm? Well, if this is true, war would be waged, it would be just and the UN system would not have been jeopardized (nor the Pope’s authority challenged).

I broke my own rule and I am not sure I should. Anyway, I’ll try to silence and let you have the last word.

Thanks Kiwi, Gordon, Bobby, Jean and Emerald.

And Hollis, you said: “I agree with most of your points and must admit you are improving in you ability to make a logical argument. “

Thanks for your subtleness in patronizing me. :-)

Gordon: “Hopefully the Iraqi army just folds, and allows the Americans to take them over, as they do not have a hope in hell of winning, and that will limit deaths all around.” I am praying for that too.

I will take this opportunity to send Carolyn and the Moderator my best wishes and my prayers.

God Bless.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 22, 2003.

Hollis:

“No rhetoric, please. Where are the facts? Show me anywhere in any Church teaching where it states The pope is the Supreme Authority to judge, in the Earth, the morality of specific acts. You're not going to find it.”

In fact, Hollis, you yourself posted the Pius XII / Pius X text here (quoted above), from the message Chris Butler sent you, which specifically says that. Read it again.

Pay attention to these words: “ALL ACTIONS OF A CHRISTIAN MAN (…) FALL UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE CHURCH”. I cannot see how this could exclude specific acts. “All actions” are, well, All actions, specific actions, aren’t they?

God Bless.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 22, 2003.

Speaking of Pius XII, he condemned Nazism, its persecution of Jews, its invasion of Poland, France etc (an unjust war).

He was clearly “applying the objective norms to particular situations”.

Was it not binding?

Was it his “personal opinion”?

Was it not a “particular situation”?

Can I claim that a Catholic could licitly disagree from the pope in this case? Can I claim that it was Hitler’s responsibility to decide, and that the pope should not speak out?

Is this not exactly what we have been saying to anti-Catholics bigots who claim he was “silent”, that is, are we not saying that he DID speak, thus “applying the objective norms to particular situations”?

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 22, 2003.

Once again, you miss my point. I specifically stated that the pope (or bishops) can state their opinion on particular acts and can make statements that are morally binding upon the faithful under their care to prohibit or require specific acts. I'm talking about infallability. Infallability applies to moral principles, not to specific acts.

If the pope were to come out and make the statement like Bishop Botean did, it would be morally binding to all Catholics. The way it has been presented up to this point, it is not binding. He's stating that Iraq should abide by the UN resolutions and disarm and that the US should not go to war without UN approval. As someone else has recently pointed out, the requirement for UN approval is a geo- political statement. There is no absolute moral requirement to go through the UN before going to war. And a faithful Catholic could disagree with this statement of the Holy Father.

But I do believe that the Holy Father has had some special revelation on this matter (but not as part of infallability). My nephew gets supernatural revelations (apparently) from Our Lord on occasion. On the Feast of St. Joseph, the Lord appeared to him and warned that the world is in for tough times as a result of the current war. I honestly believe the Holy Father has also received a similar message and was doing all within his powers to prevent this war from starting. On a pure political level, I have to admit, I have struggled with understanding the pope's stance on the UN, but I have never stated that any Catholic (including myself) should disargee with him wrt his statment on his disagreeing with the use of military action against Iraq. My point though was that there was no ground to condemn those who state that the norms of just war may be met in this particular situation since it does not fall under what is infallible (since it's a subjective application of a objective norms) and he has not made any morally binding statement requiring action or inaction of the faithful wrt this matter. And I still stand by this.

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 22, 2003.

Atila,

BTW, I know well about Opus Dei and Holy Cross in Rome - that's where I did my theology.

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 22, 2003.

Atila,

George Bush has no moral obligation to go to the Holy Father and present to him all the facts in this matter and to have the pope tell him how he is to act as Pres. of the US.

We agree about 98% on this issue, but I still think you are missing out how God has chosen to work through the Church and with individuals, and the difference between binding and infallible.

Emerald: to be subject to the pope is different than the pope being the Supreme Authority on specific acts. [Neither does the statement that all actions of man are under the jurisdiction of the Church equal to the pope being the Supreme Authority to judge all specific acts.]

But let me concede one thing here. I can agree with Atila's statement under some (e.g. the pope being presented all the facts of an act and stating "under these circumstances this act is moral or immoral") but not all (like the one we are discussing where he may not have with certainty all the facts that are needed in determining the morality of an act). (Yes, I presented some very unlikely possibilities in my example, but they are within the realm of possibility and other scenarios - like relative certainty of full surrender of Iraqi troops if war were to begin - could be presented that are even more probable.)

So let's agree:

- The Roman Pontiff is the Supreme Authority within the Church.

- He does have authority to make judgements on particular acts which are binding.

-He can also forbid or require specific acts which would be binding to all the faithful.

- In the particular matter of the war in Iraq, some scenarios are (were) possible that the Holy Father may not have been aware of which were necessary to determine the morality of the act.

- The Holy Father did not forbid the faithful to participate in the military action to take force against Iraq.

- As the US Bishops clearly stated (although, by themselves they certainly are not infallible) on the matter of this war being just or not, people of good will can differ on the application of the norms here.

So full and complete submission of intellect and will by all the faithful is NOT required in the pope's plea to not take military action against Iraq until (a group of immoral thugs looking out for their own interests - you don't have to agree with this part - called) the UN authorizes it.

But it probably would have been wise for Pres. Bush and Tony Blair to heed the pleas of the Holy Father on this matter.

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 22, 2003.

That's great! Sound Theology!

Anyway, our similar formation is not making us interpret things in the same way.

I am not a professional Theologian, so I may be wrong.

I stand by my reasoning, though.

I'll not go on with this discussion. May God protect both you and me from any error that could be sinful.

When the dust comes down, I will like to change ideas with you about that time you spent in Holy Cross. Did you meet any Brazilian Opus Dei member there? It may be someone I know!

God Bless!

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 22, 2003.

We posted at the same time. It should go like this:

You said: “BTW, I know well about Opus Dei and Holy Cross in Rome - that's where I did my theology. “

That's great! Sound Theology!

Anyway, our similar formation is not making us interpret things in the same way.

I am not a professional Theologian, so I may be wrong.

I stand by my reasoning, though.

I'll not go on with this discussion. May God protect both you and me from any error that could be sinful.

When the dust comes down, I will like to change ideas with you about that time you spent in Holy Cross. Did you meet any Brazilian Opus Dei member there? It may be someone I know!

God Bless!

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 22, 2003.

Atilia,

We really don't differ that much in our theological perspective if you read closely.

I, too, am not a professional theologian, not even a good amatuer theologian. My postings had as their primary intent to help me better form my conscience on this matter by getting information and arguments from those on this forum who seem to know well the teachings of the Church and are able to eloquently make the argumentation to back up their stance.

But I ended up in a long, multi-thread conversation with you and Kiwi. The only thing I disagree with you is your apparent misunderstanding (or my misreading of what you understand) on the role of the pope and the individual conscience as well as your blanket condemnation of anyone who would disagree with the Holy Father's statements on the UN and taking military action against Iraq.

My final conclusion was that I wished we would not have taken miltary action since I believe the Holy Father, as a mystic and holy man - not as the pope - has some inside revelation which shows this action taken now to be dangerous for the world.

May God bless you too and prevent you from any error that may be sinful.

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 24, 2003.

... and me too (from anything that is sinful).

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 24, 2003.

Atila,

Feel free to write me via email. My address is valid.

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 24, 2003.

In response to Hollis’ view that submission to the Pope’s judgment on the U.S. invasion of Iraq, “…does not fall either under infallibility nor something mandatory for all Catholics to give submission of will:”

U.S. officials claim the invasion of Iraq is both a preventive war and a just war. The claim that the U.S. invasion of Iraq constitutes a just war is contradicted by recent judgments expressed by the Pope and by Vatican officials. Archbishop Renato Martino, speaking in his capacity as president of the Vatican office of Justice and Peace, has said that a preventive war can not be a just war-- that a preventive war is specifically excluded “from the definition of” a just war. Cardinal Pio Laghi has visited President Bush and personally suggested to him just before the invasion began, that there remained other measures which the U.S. could try in an attempt to resolve problems with Iraq (measures which, according to the Just War doctrine, had to have been taken before the U.S. could justly have resorted to war). Pope John Paul II, speaking in anticipation of the U.S. invasion, warned that, “War is always a defeat for humanity,” and on March 23 as the invasion began, declared that, “When war, like the one 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.”

Some have rejected the pope’s judgment against the invasion, on grounds that when he made it, he was not speaking infallibly. The not- speaking-infallibly argument however does not defeat the claim that all Catholics are required to accept the Vatican’s judgment that the invasion is unjust. Archbishop Martino and Cardinal Laghi are certainly not speaking infallibly, and it maybe that Pope John Paul is not speaking infallibly either when he condemns the invasion. When he condemns the rape of Iraq by a U.S.-driven “Coalition of the Willing,” (comprised of Britain on the one hand and the U.S. on the other), the Pope is not proclaiming “a doctrine pertaining to faith and morals”(See Vatican Council II, Vol. 1, p.380), ” and so arguably is not speaking infallibly. But infallible pronouncements are not the only pronouncements that the Catholic must accept. At Vol.1, p.379, Vatican Council II declares that , … loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and that one sincerely adhere to decisions made by him conformably with his manifest mind and intention…

At present, the U.S. is waging two wars, a war on unborn babies and a war on the people of Iraq. A Catholic can support neither. When the Pope declares that the war “in Iraq...threatens the future of humanity,” it is evident he has decided that the U.S. invasion of Iraq is unjust. Accordingly, all Catholics are required to treat that invasion as unjust. A Catholic may not, under pain of serious sin, support it in any way. Instead, he is required “to proclaim” with the Pope, “in a strong and decisive voice, that peace” and not war (especially “preventive” war), “is the only way to build a more just and unified society.”

Mike (mckeesign@aol.com)

-- (mckeesign@aol.com), March 29, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, Mike M.

I agree with Hollis. Mike, you are missing a crucial distinction in language, and your error is leading you to a wrong conclusion. This has been happening all over the forum, and it really needs to stop.

You correctly quoted Vatican II as stating: "… loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra ..."

Absolutely! I am one of several people who have tried hard, for years, to spread this fact to people who fail to submit to the pope's "ordinary" teachings.

But note the crucial two words: "authentic teaching." We must submit to the pope's "authentic teaching." The pope only expressed a non-binding, "prudential judgment" on the situation involving Iraq. He did not give us an "authentic teaching," but an opinion that we are to respect (without necessarily agreeing with it).

If the pope had wished to give us an "authentic teaching" to which we would have to submit, he would have stated (many weeks ago) words to this effect:
"It is patently clear that the military conflict being contemplated against Iraq would be immoral, and Catholics may not participate in it without committing grave sin, for the following reasons ... [etc., where the pope would explain how the conflict could not possibly meet 'just law' criteria, etc.]."

Right now, I don't have time to go into the subject of "preventive" war, etc., that you mentioned has been raised by certain bishops. I hope to get back to this thread later for that purpose.

God bless you. John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 31, 2003.

I'm leaving the church over this matter. I cannot submit my morals or my soul to this bowing to European sniping at my nation. I will bide my time until a Pope that isn't as interested in appeasing Chirac and Shroeder as he is doing the right thing, or answering God directly as to why I did not attend Mass, whichever comes first.

You do not need the UN to fight the Good Fight. The Pope is wrong. Period.

And if it means I cannot be a Catholic for saying it, so be it.

-- Frank G (gigerfr@bellsouth.net), May 05, 2003.

Frank G, if your attitude has always been, "I will be a Catholic, as long as the Church is 'politically correct,'" then you have never really been a Catholic at all.

As a real Catholic, I don't want you to start coming back to Mass when there is a new pope and if you like his "politics." Instead stay away until you realize (1) that Jesus founded the Church, (2) that he requires you to belong to it (regardless of any disagreements you may have on matters of prudential judgment), (3) that the Church is the only place where all the doctrines are without error, and (4) that the Church has all seven valid sacraments instituted by Jesus.

And if you are leaving the Church now, then leave the forum now too. This is a CATHOLIC forum, and we real Catholics have no time to waste on whining renegades.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 06, 2003.

Of course.

It wasn't with an easy heart that I came to this decision.

Thank you for you insightful look into my soul and being able to devine the level of my devotion up until very recently.

Truly, you are blessed among men to have such gifts, and I am glad that such Christlike men as yourself are here to pass such judgements.

You are correct, though, in one thing - my participation in this forum has ended, and I sincerely wish all of you Godspeed in your endeavors.

-- Frank G (gigerfr@bellsouth.net), May 07, 2003.