What does the Pope think about the war? Is there any Infaliable teaching he has on it? What does our Church believe and stand for it? As weird as it is, I have never discovered this?

-- Jason (Enchantedfire5@yahoo.com), November 04, 2004

Answers

Response to What's the Popes and the Churchs veiws on the Iraqi war?

The Pope was opposed othe war, but ther wa sno infallable teahcing on it...

-- ZAROVW (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 04, 2004.

Response to What's the Popes and the Churchs veiws on the Iraqi war?

I spent a month searching the Vatican website (in spanish, italian and english) for a clear statement from the Pope spelling out exactly what he thought about the "war" and it's moral status for Catholics.

I could not find anything. We know he is against "war" in general - but he has praised the Polish soldiers who died fighting German troops in Italy during WW2. (Obviously, they weren't fighting a defensive war to save their homeland in 1944 as it was a thousand miles away and had already fallen 5 years previously).

He has praised the Italian troops in Iraq for showing solidarity with the Iraqi people.

I think the situation is this: the Pope couldn't claim that the war was unjust given Catholic Just War doctrine and historical precedents, but neither could he make any statement that could be interpreted by the terrorists as a Papal blessing (which they'd use in claiming it was a crusade).

So he restricted himself to working for a peaceful settlement of the conflict, short diplomatic statements of hope for peace and terse statements hoping for a quick stop of combat and quick start of rebuilding.

This was the same tact he took with respect to the successful US/NATO blitz in Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban and root out Al Qaeda. Subsequently the Holy See has accepted the highest officials of BOTH newly liberated nations to the Vatican and both leaders have met with the Pope - thus, suggesting that the Church recognizes them as legitimate political leaders who are in power solely thanks to the US led invasions.

Oh right, no clear statement praising the USA. Absolutely. That's how diplomats avoid trouble. I have never argued anything else in the last 2 years... I'm glad the Pope has been discrete about all this for the sake of the millions of Catholics who live as minorities in largely hostile Muslim nations. Their lives and the gospel would be jeopordized by Papal endorsements of the USA.

But please note, while not praising the USA, neither has the Pope condemned us either. (If you think he has, please forward me the official text...I've been looking all over for it.)

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), November 11, 2004.

About the Pope making an infallible statement. He RARELY ever does. Not everything the Pope says is infallible. Only when he officially calls upon the "Chair of St. Peter" is he infallible, but he is only infallible concerning Church Doctrine. In history there has only been about 4 or 5 infallible statements made by the Pope. (If I get time later I will look them up).

Peace, Cameron

-- Cameron (shaolin__phoenix@hotmail.com), November 13, 2004.

That is not quite correct. It is correct that "not everything the Pope says is infallible". However, it is not correct that "in history there has only been about 4 or 5 infallible statements made by the Pope." What you are referring to here is specific doctrinal issues which have been formally defined "ex cathedra" or "from the chair", usually when under attack by heretical factions, or when general confusion has arisen concerning a specific doctrine of the faith. However, in such cases, which are rare as you said, such formal definition does not "make" the doctrine infallible. The doctrine was already infallible, or it could not have been formally defined. There are many other doctrinal truths which have never been formally defined ex cathedra, because the need has not arisen, but which are nevertheless infallible. In fact, every doctrine of the faith as taught by the Pope or an Ecumenical Council or the ordinary magisterium of the Church is taught infallibly. The Holy Spirit does not allow the Church or the Pope to teach error as doctrinal truth. Ever. If that were not so, we would have no way of knowing with certainty what the truth is. The entire content of Christian teaching would consist of only five ex cathedra statements. But that is not the case.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 13, 2004.

Jason, although a "papal" emissary has condemned the war in Iraq during an “official” White House visit to President Bush, there are still those (particularly extreme right-wing conservatives) American Catholics who stick their head in the sand and claim the war in Iraq is a just one and in keeping with Church teaching. DON’T BELIEVE IT FOR MINUTE!

-- Eyes Wide Open (notbuyingthespin@onthisone.com), November 16, 2004.

OK Mr"not an extremist" if it's so clear to you that this war is NOT just please elaborate for us unwashed Catholics just why this is the case.

Of course, you will be quoting for us the CCC and relevant Catholic Just War criteria and you will explain to us what applies and what doesn't.

Then you will attempt to make a case that is principled and not partisan which can provide rational criteria applicable to other armed conflicts which the Church has supported, such as the battle of LePanto and the crusade leading to the lifting of the seige of Vienna.

You may also want to educate us as to the import of the Papal blessing on all those Polish soldiers who died fighting in Italy during WW2 a thousand miles from their home, which had already been conquered by the Nazis. How they could be described as "fighting a defensive war" when they were clearly the ones doing the assaulting of Monte Casino, requires a nuanced mind that surely only a liberal like you possesses.

Oh. But then you'd have to allow that offensive campaigns are thus at least sometimes permissible. OK, then explain how this particular offensive campaign can't be good?

For the rest of us, I suggest checking out www.catholicjustwar.org for more reasoned reflections.

Any pin head who wants to call me "an extremist" had BETTER be loaded for bear with real arguments not nah nah nah nah blather.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), November 16, 2004.

Eyes wide open in shock:
What is your idea of (extreme right-wing conservative) American Catholics? Whoever disagrees with you? If we agree with you we aren't extreme, or right wingers? Are you someone conservative in the least? Or a left-wing radical?

Your inane spit-balls are hardly ''in keeping'' with Catholic teaching. Our country is at war. Because you break to the pacifist and defeatist side of politics, the Pope is useful to you. He seems a likely booster for your case. So what? His counsel is unnecessary when dealing with a threat to our national security. Our cause is JUST.

Right now Italy herself is over-run with muslim immigrants. Her public squares in Florence and other historical sites are becoming cess-pools where arabic children run wild outside tents in the streets. Is our Holy Father sticking his head in the sand? I hope not. We need his prayers, not political attacks. You may take him as seriously as you wish. Just don't preach here about American conservatives.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 16, 2004.

I ask anyone to provide quotes from the Holy Father or indeed Holy See specifically claiming that the what the US is doing in Iraq is an "unjust war". Put up or shut up.

I'd also like to invite those who think they're not extemists to check out all the good news from Iraq and Afghanistan by visiting two websites: Opinionjournal.com and checking on chrenkoff.blogspot.com. and visiting Iraq the Model blog spot.

Both have pages and pages of facts and data censored by the liberal Main stream media who don't want their stupid blinkered liberal readers from hearing about any good news.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), November 17, 2004.

The entire world, except for your two, knows of the Pope’s views on the war in Iraq. Even the White House has acknowledged that the Pope and the President have differing and opposing views on the war with Iraq. Here are only a few articles written on the subject to support the truth:

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

March 5, 2003 - USA Today:

White House rejects Vatican view that war has no moral justification WASHINGTON (AP) —— President Bush rejects the Vatican's argument that pre-emptive war with Iraq has no moral justification, but officials promise that he will listen carefully when he meets Pope John Paul II's envoy. Bush was meeting behind closed doors Wednesday afternoon with Cardinal Pio Laghi, a former papal nuncio to the United States, who said he would relay the pope's admonition on the war. Laghi is also an old family friend of the Bushes. "I'm here on a peace mission and I don't consider war to be inevitable," Laghi told Italian daily La Stampa in an interview from Washington published Wednesday. "It is a very complicated task at this point, and we do realize the president is faced with very difficult decisions. But we have hope." Laghi said he would deliver a pope message, and that he will discuss the two things that are dearest to the Holy See: "avoiding a war and finding a peaceful solution to the problem of Iraq's disarmament." He reiterated Vatican opposition to unilateral action, saying, "According to the Holy See, the decisions must go through the United Nations. This is a fundamental condition." He insisted a war would widen the gap between the East and the West and described as "encouraging" the latest moves by the Iraqi government, such as the destruction of al-Samoud 2 missiles. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that Bush respects the opinions of those who disagree with him and said the president is eager to "find out what the message of the Pope is on this topic." "If there are those who differ with the president on this, the president respects their opinion and respects their ideas and respects their thoughts," Fleischer said. "He listens. He listens carefully." The meeting comes on Ash Wednesday, the start of Lent for Roman Catholics. The church has asked its followers to mark the day through fasting and prayer for peace. The pope has said a war would be a "defeat for humanity" and that the conflict would be neither morally nor legally justified. He wants Iraq to be disarmed through methods short of military force. Fleischer suggested such methods were not effective. "Clearly, the fact that Saddam Hussein has violated the United Nations Security Council resolutions means he is not following the legal path that the world has set out to preserve peace," he said Tuesday. "The president thinks the most immoral act of all would be if Saddam Hussein would somehow transfer his weapons to terrorists who could use them against us," Fleischer said. "And so, the president does view the use of force as a matter of legality, as a matter of morality and as a matter of protecting the American people." The meeting and Laghi's message pose a thorny political problem for Bush, who has aggressively courted Roman Catholic voters after splitting the Catholic vote in 2000 with Democrat Al Gore. Catholics made up a quarter of the 2000 electorate.

March 4, 2003 - Middle East Online

Christian leaders oppose Bush’’s Iraq policy

Religious US President finds in Christians led by Pope John Paul II unexpected opponents to his Iraq war stance.

By Jean-Louis Doublet - WASHINGTON US President George W. Bush, who rarely misses a chance to bring up his deep religious faith, has found unexpected opponents to his drive to disarm Iraq by force: leaders of Christian churches, including Pope John Paul II himself. Both Protestant and Catholic voices are being raised to call for a peaceful resolution of the Iraq crisis. The strongest among them is the voice of the pontiff, who wrote the US president to express his concern about possible war with Iraq. The pope wants his message to be delivered to Bush personally and has sent to Washington his envoy, Cardinal Pio Laghi, who hopes to be received at the White House Wednesday. But US officials appeared Monday rather embarrassed by the unexpected guest. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer indicated that such a meeting was not on the president's weekly scheduled announced last Friday and refused to confirm that the meeting would take place Wednesday. "So we will fill you in as events warrant," he told reporters Monday. "I don't think you should assume there's a meeting today." Cardinal Laghi is hardly a fortuitous choice. He is a personal friend of former president George Bush, the father of the current president, who served as vice president from 1981 to 1989 under president Ronald Reagan. Cardinal Laghi served as the papal nuncio in Washington from 1980 to 1988. With less than two years before a new US presidential election, George W. Bush can hardly take the risk of alienating Catholics. Nevertheless his administration has tried to play down the pope's opposition to the war. "The papacy is considered a sovereign nation also on this matter," Fleischer stated last week. "The pope has historically played a role in dialogue around the world. It is the papacy's right to engage in dialogue." Bush, who belongs to the Methodist Church, is also encountering strong opposition from reformed Christian denominations. The National Council of Churches (NCC), an ecumenical organization that represents the majority of Protestant churches, has also protested against the war and asked, so far without success, for a meeting with the US president. "NCC leaders were frustrated that the president had rebuffed their requests to meet with him to discuss their views," Fritz Ritsch, pastor of the Bethesda Presbyterian Church, wrote in The Washington Post on Sunday. "The president apparently believes that he can talk about theology from the bully pulpit without talking to theologians," Ritsch continued. "Which begs the question: When did the president become theologian in chief?" "As always, the president meets with a variety of groups and hears a variety of concerns," countered Ari Fleischer, who was asked Monday why NCC leaders had not been received at the White House. "And we'll keep you informed of who he meets with". But the antiwar stance of Christian churches fits badly the image a deeply religious man able to quote the Bible that Bush wants to project. The prospect of a war with Iraq, however, has succeeded in uniting Catholics and Protestants. In late February, leaders of the NCC were received at the Vatican and asked the pope to "come to New York to address the UN Security Council and in doing so address the US public on his opposition to war with Iraq," according to the council's statement. The Vatican denied Monday that the pontiff was preparing to make such step. But Vatican diplomatic sources indicated that he would be ready to undertake such an initiative if his message to Bush fails to persuade the president to give up his war plans vis-a-vis Iraq.

United Press International - June 4, 2004.

Analysis: Corridors of Power By Roland Flamini Chief International Correspondent Published 6/4/2004 6:14 AM WASHINGTON, June 3 (UPI) -- President George Bush advanced his trip to Europe by one day so that he could meet Pope John Paul II, who is scheduled to leave for Switzerland on Saturday. Considering that the pope and Bush hold divergent views on virtually every issue except abortion and gay marriage the question is, why did the White House consider the papal audience worth the schedule change? The answer: there are 60 million Roman Catholics in the United States and this is an election year. In the 2000 presidential race about half of them voted for Al Gore, against 46 percent for Bush. But that's not the whole picture. Regular church-going Catholics, namely those who attend Mass at least once a week, favored Bush over his Democratic rival by 63 percent to 30 percent. A Democratic challenger who is a Roman Catholic, as is Sen. John Kerry, could change that dynamic -- except that Kerry's flexible views on abortion are looming as a possible awkward issue for him. So for Bush it was worth the risk of perhaps having to swallow a papal lecture on U.S. policy in Iraq if he could demonstrate at home that he and the pope were of one mind on the controversial issue of abortion. Yet in other respects the Vatican has not hidden its opposition to several Bush administration policies, Iraq and the Middle East first and foremost. Pope John Paul has spoken out against U.S. intentions in Iraq at every step of the way. Time after time he has called for peace, denouncing what he calls "the culture of death" that threatens the world. The 84-year-old pontiff put his considerable moral authority on the line in an attempt to avert the conflict, only to have his efforts end in failure. In March 2003, with U.S. and British forces poised to cross into Iraq, he sent Cardinal Pio Laghi to Washington in an attempt to persuade Bush not to invade. But Laghi -- a former papal nuncio to the United States and well known in Washington -- apparently failed to even gain access to the president, and returned empty-handed. At about the same time John Paul received Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz -- a Christian -- and through him sent word to Saddam Hussein, urging the Iraqi president to avert a conflict by cooperating with the U.N. weapons inspectors in their search for weapons of mass destruction. That appeal failed too. When the conflict began, he said, "When war, as in these days in Iraq, threatens the fate of humanity it is ever more urgent to proclaim with a strong and decisive voice that only peace is the road to follow to build a more just and united society." His repeated comments on the war did not refer to Bush, but his meaning was always clear: "Violence and arms can never resolve the problems of man," and the United Nations must be given a central role in unraveling the situation in Iraq, which was in danger of escalating into a global conflict between Christianity and Islam. Last week, he referred to the maltreatment of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. forces at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib jail as "an intolerable assault on human dignity." Aside from his passionate opposition to war, the pope was distancing the Catholic Church from Bush's idea of a manifest Christian destiny of the United States, thereby avoiding any appearance of a clash between Christian civilization and Islam. The Iraqi Catholic Bishop Jean-Benjamin Sleimann told the Italian newspaper La Repubblica that by publicly and unequivocally denouncing the war Pope John Paul helped to avoid the impression that this was a conflict between a Christian West and an Islamic East. The Vatican has differences with the Bush administration over the whole strategy of bringing Western democracy to the Middle East. Recently, a senior Rome prelate, Archbishop Renato Martino, was quoted as saying, "It's a big mistake to try to introduce democracy by force in a country without involving it in the process. One has to warn those who organize these crusades of democracy that any aspirations to be perceived as a liberator are doomed to failure." But the list of divergences goes on. The Vatican and Washington disagree on U.S. environmental policy, American arms sales (or any nation's arms sales, for that matter), the Cuban embargo, and the death sentence. In the past, Pope John Paul has been known to join the candlelight vigils frequently held in the Coliseum in Rome on the eve of an execution in the United States.

Capital Hill Blue - March 5, 2003

1600 Pennsylvania Pope to Bush: Go into Iraq and you go without God By CHB Staff and Wire Reports Mar 5, 2003, 07:18

Pope John Paul II has a strong message for President George W. Bush: God is not on your side if you invade Iraq. But the President is expected to tell the Pope's envoy that the leader of the world's Catholics is wrong. Bush rejects the Vatican's argument that pre- emptive war with Iraq has no moral justification, but officials promise that he will listen carefully when he meets the Pop's envoy. Bush will meet behind closed doors Wednesday afternoon with Cardinal Pio Laghi, a former papal nuncio to the United States, who said he would relay the pope's admonition on the war.

Laghi is also an old family friend of the Bushes. "I'm here on a peace mission and I don't consider war to be inevitable," Laghi told Italian daily La Stampa in an interview from Washington published Wednesday. "It is a very complicated task at this point, and we do realize the president is faced with very difficult decisions. But we have hope." Laghi said he would deliver a pope message, and that he will discuss the two things that are dearest to the Holy See: "avoiding a war and finding a peaceful solution to the problem of Iraq's disarmament." He reiterated Vatican opposition to unilateral action, saying, "According to the Holy See, the decisions must go through the United Nations. This is a fundamental condition." He insisted a war would widen the gap between the East and the West and described as "encouraging" the latest moves by the Iraqi government, such as the destruction of al samoud 2 missiles.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that Bush respects the opinions of those who disagree with him and said the president is eager to "find out what the message of the Pope is on this topic." "If there are those who differ with the president on this, the president respects their opinion and respects their ideas and respects their thoughts," Fleischer said. "He listens. He listens carefully." The meeting comes on Ash Wednesday, the start of Lent for Roman Catholics. The church has asked its followers to mark the day through fasting and prayer for peace. The pope has said a war would be a "defeat for humanity" and that the conflict would be neither morally nor legally justified. He wants Iraq to be disarmed through methods short of military force. Fleischer suggested such methods were not effective. "Clearly, the fact that Saddam Hussein has violated the United Nations Security Council resolutions means he is not following the legal path that the world has set out to preserve peace," he said Tuesday. "The president thinks the most immoral act of all would be if Saddam Hussein would somehow transfer his weapons to terrorists who could use them against us," Fleischer said. "And so, the president does view the use of force as a matter of legality, as a matter of morality and as a matter of protecting the American people."

The meeting and Laghi's message pose a thorny political problem for Bush, who has aggressively courted Roman Catholic voters after splitting the Catholic vote in 2000 with Democrat Al Gore. Catholics made up a quarter of the 2000 electorate.

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

Just war according to Catholic teaching? Colin Powell’s “solid evidence” (United Nations speech) for going to war against Iraq was in the end, not so solid was it? “Whoops! Sorry, we made a mistake!” Tell that to the 1300 Americans and 100,000 (yes that’s right, 100,000) citizens of Iraq who have been killed because of this faulty intelligence.

Joe is the same guy, who, back in 1993 said that the Vatican should butt out of the Intelligence Field and leave that to the (American) experts. Well, it turns out the Vatican has far superior intelligence than what the Americans have. The Vatican found no evidence of WMD. It seems the Vatican’s prudent approach to explore all avenues to prevent war was the correct one all along.

Just War? Hmm... let’s see. What were the reasons for America going to war with Iraq in the first place?

1. Weapons of mass destruction! No further comment is necessary here, is it?

2. Saddam’s link to terrorism! See #1

3. Saddam’s attempt to secure nuclear power through the acquisition of raw materials! Again, see #1.

Don’t you find it peculiar that after Powell stated there was “solid evidence” (United Nations speech) for WMD in Iraq which was later proven to be entirely false, that Powell was not asked to resign? Over 100,000 people (whoops, in America they’re known as “collateral damage” - sorry) have died because of this “innocent” mistake and yet no one, not even the investigator on the lowest rung of the C.I.A. ladder has been asked to resign? Isn’t this strange? Well maybe not, if you think the White House might have been behind the “innocent” mistake all along.

Just War? Well, let’s take a look at what the Catechism really says about “Just War”:

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration.

(key words here: “legitimate defense” - fabricated, or even non- existent, evidence of weapons of mass destruction cannot be construed as “legitimate defense”, even by extreme right-wing standards.)

The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time: - the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

(key word here: “damage inflicted” - no damage was inflicted by Saddam on America or its coalition partners prior to the invasion of Iraq. Any supposed links to terrorists have been successfully disputed over and over again. As Pope John Paul II has clearly stated, “pre-emptive strikes” are not an option as a means for justifying war.)

- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

(Key word here: “all other means” - the entire world, including the Pope, begged Bush to wait 90 more days for purposes of exhausting all avenues before the invasion take place, but to no avail.)

- there must be serious prospects of success;

(key word here: “serious prospects for success” - well, Bush is into his second year with this debacle and there seems to be no end in sight except for the possibility the Americans will claim “victory” as they have claimed “mission accomplished” after elections are held in Iraq, and then leave abruptly to have the Iraquis deal with the insurgents by themselves, these same insurgents, who by the way, were created out of hatred due to the Americans’ invasion of Iraq.

- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.

(key words here: “must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated” - no further comment is needed here, the mess America has created speaks for itself.)

Go ahead you who wage unjust war in the name of God, go ahead and kill in the name of a “just war”! Wage your battles for world dominance and control of all that is vital to America, but know this! There will be a day of judgement, and all the rhetoric and false information will be of no value for you then, for Truth will prevail.

-- Eyes Wide Open (notbuyingthespin@onthisone.com), November 18, 2004.

So you prove once again that you don't know how to read: you never quoted the Pope himself, only news reports about him, or Laighi.

Not once have I seen a specific, quote from John Paul II, specifically condemning the US for the invasion or calling it an unjust war. The words are important my friend, not the spin.

As for your "points": the number of Iraqi deaths has not been confirmed but it's not 100,000. The fact that the Iraqis were buying off the Security Council nations is no longer controversial - they were, and this has been proven recently in the oil-for-food scam uncovered. Thus the vaunted UN wasn't a moral authority and it wasn't the last say in the matter.

You condemn unilateralism? The US invaded along with 30 other nations - as of yet those vatican officials who feared armageddon have not explained how 30 nations are "unilateral" whereas France, Germany, Russia, and Syria's approval would magically make the action "legal" or moral.

The US has discovered Sarin in Iraq - that's a fact, and the Iraqi regime was sponsoring terrorist groups, again uncontroversial.

The recent document from the Iraq survey group shows exhaustive evidence that they did have a WMD program and that yes, they DID seek Uranium from Africa - but of course, you will accept as gospel only what you read in the press, not the official documents eh?

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), November 18, 2004.

Eyes Wide Open,

The election is over... Vitriolic rhetoric suggests you harbor an entrenched hatred... -no good will come from hate; move on to something constructive...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), November 18, 2004.

Give it up, Joe, Dan, and Eugene, you know darn well that the Pope unequivocally condemned the war, and events since have proved how wise his opposition to it was. Joe, your claim (you apparently have the ability to read the Pope’s mind) that the Pope REALLY wanted to unequivocally endorse the war, but said exactly the opposite to what he really believed in order to “avoid trouble” for the Church from Muslims, is as deeply offensive as it is ludicrous. The pope speaks the truth, in season and out of season, regardless of the consequences. He does not deliberately tell lies so that the Church can avoid trouble.

Yes Dan, the election is over, but the misery in Iraq will continue for God knows how long.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 18, 2004.

Here you go Joe, let’s spell it out for you (not that it will do any good anyway). Cardinal Laghi issued an “official” statement after he met with Bush on Ash Wednesday, 2003. It can be found on the VATICAN OFFICIAL WEBSITE here at:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/special_features/peace/documents/pe ace_20030306_card-laghi-usa-meeting_en.html

It reads as follows:

XXXXXXXXXX

STATEMENT OF CARDINAL PIO LAGHI, SPECIAL ENVOY OF JOHN PAUL II TO PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH Washington D.C., United States of America Wednesday, 5 March 2003

I was privileged to have been sent by the Holy Father as his Special Envoy to President George Bush. I assured him of the Holy Father’’s great esteem and affection for the American people and the United States of America.

The purpose of my visit was to deliver a personal message of the Holy Father to the President regarding the Iraqi crisis, to expound upon the Holy See's position and to report on the various initiatives undertaken by the Holy See to contribute to disarmament and peace in the Middle East.

Out of respect for the President and because of the importance of this moment, I am not in a position to discuss the substance of our conversation, nor am I able to release the text of the personal letter of the Holy Father to the President.

The Holy See is urging those in positions of civil authority to take fully into account all aspects of this crisis. In that regard, the Holy See’’s position has been two-fold. First, the Iraqi government is obliged to fulfill completely and fully its international obligations regarding human rights and disarmament under the UN resolutions with respect for international norms. Second, these obligations and their fulfillment must continue to be pursued within the framework of the United Nations.

The Holy See maintains that there are still peaceful avenues within the context of the vast patrimony of international law and institutions which exist for that purpose. A decision regarding the use of military force can only be taken within the framework of the United Nations, but always taking into account the grave consequences of such an armed conflict: the suffering of the people of Iraq and those involved in the military operation, a further instability in the region and a new gulf between Islam and Christianity.

I want to emphasize that there is great unity on this grave matter on the part of the Holy See, the Bishops in the United States, and the Church throughout the world.

I told the President that today, on Ash Wednesday, Catholics around the world are following the Pope’s request to pray and fast for peace this day. The Holy Father himself continues to pray and hope that all leaders who face difficult decisions will be inspired in their search for peace.

XXXXXXXXXXXX

In analysing the letter anyone with an ounce of brains and an interest in discovering Truth, will discover the following:

1.) “I was privileged to have been sent by the Holy Father as his Special Envoy to President George Bush.”

The Cardinal was “sent by the Holy Father as his Special Envoy”.

2.) “The purpose of my visit was to deliver a personal message of the Holy Father to the President regarding the Iraqi crisis, to expound upon the Holy See's position and to report on the various initiatives undertaken by the Holy See to contribute to disarmament and peace in the Middle East.”

The Cardinal was sent to covey a “personal message” from the Pope regarding Iraq and to “expound on the Holy See’s position” to “contribute to disarmament and peace” not war, in the Middle East.

3.) The Cardinal did not release the “text of the letter” or “the substance of the conversation” out of “respect for the President” and “the importance of this moment”.

So Joe, no matter how often you say, “I won’t believe it until I actually read the letter!”, (by the way, your middle name isn’t Thomas, is it?), it ain’t going to happen since the Church recognizes there are proper ways to dealing with such matters. This doesn’t lend any leverage to your inference “if they don’t release it so that I can read it, it doesn’t exit!” Just take the Cardinal's word for it Joe - it exists!

4.) The Cardinal writes that the Holy See “is urging those in positions of civil authority to take fully into account all aspects of this crisis.”

Even an idiot knows the Vatican is saying “please exhaust all avenues before you march into Iraq and annihilate a population!!! War isn't nice!!!”

5.) The Cardinal says the position of the Church is “...these obligations (meaning Iraq’s) and their fulfillment must continue to be pursued within the framework of the United Nations.”

I wonder what this means? Hmmm... We all know Bush went off on his own with his SMALL group of "friends" and corporate executives and waged war against a population - not a dictator, (he has already been captured and war still rages on) - against what Cardinal Laghi clearly shows is against the Vatican’s position on the matter. They wanted him to work within the framework of the United Nations!!! Duh!

6.) “The Holy See maintains that there are still peaceful avenues within the context of the vast patrimony of international law and institutions which exist for that purpose.”

To further emphasize the point, so that thick, blinded people like Joe can get the message, the Cardinal clearly states some “peaceful avenues” have yet to be explored and totally exhausted.

7.) “A decision regarding the use of military force can only be taken within the framework of the United Nations,”

Tough one here, eh Joe? I wonder what the Vatican could possibly mean??? (Remember Joe, this can be found on the Vatican website!!!)

8.) “but always taking into account the grave consequences of such an armed conflict: the suffering of the people of Iraq and those involved in the military operation, a further instability in the region and a new gulf between Islam and Christianity.”

Yeah right, Bush really gave the outcome of this mess, the "grave consequences", some thought didn’t he? This campaign was so well- planned “mission accomplished” was “accomplished” only 3 months into the fighting and 1000 American lives ago and a year and a half ago!!!

9.) The Cardinal clearly states, “I want to emphasize that there is great unity on this grave matter on the part of the Holy See, the Bishops in the United States, and the Church throughout the world.”

This is not a personal view given on the spur of the moment and taken out of context by some cub reporter while speaking “off the record”. This is found on the Vatican website!!! The Church is in unison on this matter!!!

Summary

Oh well, never mind Joe, we’re all wrong (including Cardinal Laghi) and you’re right. See you later, I'm fed up of explaining the obvious and tired of talking to those whose eyes and ears are covered.

-- Eyes Wide Open (notbuyingthespin@onthisone.com), November 19, 2004.

OK Nimrod, please - if it's so obvious, tell us what exactly "peaceful avenues within the context of the vast patrimony of international law and institutions which exist for that purpose" MEANS?

You seem to be thinking that there was some obvious 3rd or 4th way between unconditionally surrendering to Iraq's violations (by lifting sanctions) or going to war and solving the problem.

The UN had tried and exhausted all forms of non-violent persuasion - the Pope had already condemned as unjust the economic embargo (oil- for-food) and blamed the US for the deaths of children supposedly affected (which were later proven to be cause exclusively by Saddam spending money on palaces not hospitals and keeping the medicines and food bought by the Oil for food program from reaching his Iraqi people).

The UN had already tried two rounds of inspections - stymied all along by the regime with handlers, spies, and obstructions. If the inspections were so effective, please explain why the Regime had such success building illegal weapons and spending billions on terrorists and illegal arms from FRANCE, GERMANY, RUSSIA, CHINA, SYRIA, AND PAKISTAN?

Only after the war did we discover 3 illegal oil pipelines! Only after the war did we discover that their WMD facilities had not be dismantled, their scientists and know-how not revealed and destroyed respectively, and their strategic plans to acquire weapons in the future when possible not given up.

Let's talk about corruption shall we? All the vaunted Security Council Nations who did not vote for the use of force WERE OWED BILLIONS BY SADDAM - and they also ALL received billions in kick- backs from the illegal skimming of the Oil-for-food vouchers.

Obviously the Vatican diplomats in question were working with a set of PRESUPPOSITIONS WHICH TURNED OUT TO BE CATEGORICALLY FALSE.

There wasn't a huge gulf created between the West and Islam due to this war - witnessed by millions of pro-American Afghanis and Iraqis.

There weren't millions or even hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties - certainly not more than were ROUTINELY killed or starved to death by the Saddam Regime during the vaunted "International Community" phase of diplomacy.

There wasn't an economic or ecological catastrophie resulting in millions of refugees fleeing Iraq. The opposite has happened - people are flocking TO Iraq from all over the region to find work in the booming Iraqi economy (which you'd never know reading only the Left Media but would if you check the Iraqi dollar, construction booms, and Iraqi media reports).

In short, most of the anti-War argument was based on SUPPOSITIONS OF FEARED CONSEQUENCES which haven't played out. Consequentialism is a heresy by the way, but you knew that of course.

It was also based on unspecified suggestions of alternatives NEVER EVER SPECIFICALLY LISTED.

And what exactly IS the "International community"? France and Germany?

Where is the vaunted UN and "International community" now in the Sudan??? If the non-US world is so great and so wonderful and so wise and holy, what is keeping them from solving the genocide in Sudan? (Other than the fact that the two main owners and developers of the Sudanese oil fields happen to be the French and Chinese national oil companies)?

Let's see one case of the non-US "International community" solving a major humanitarian crisis without the USA.

Not Somalia (where was Osama when those Muslims were starving?) Not Yugoslavia (the feckless EU and UN just watched the Muslims die - where was Osama and his boys?) Not Rwanda (the UN actually pulled OUT it's 5000 troops in Kigali as the massacre began!). Not Sudan....

Meanwhile FRANCE IS FIGHTING A WAR IN IVORY COAST AND NO ONE CARES! CHINA CONTINUES REPRESSION IN TIBET AND NO ONE CARES. RUSSIA CONTINUES MILITARY OPERATIONS IN CHECHNIA...AND NO ONE CARES. SYRIA CONTINUES OPERATIONS IN LEBANON - AND NO ONE CARES.

But let the USA give a nation 12 years of warnings about our intentions - let Bill Clinton make it the official policy of the US government that we seek regime change....and the "world" only cares when a Republican president actually means what he says and amasses a coalition of 30 nations to actually overthrow the regime!

Yes, nimrod, I am calling Pio Laghi a light weight - based on his own words - when it comes to the issues above. He may be ambassador but the Pope hasn't said categorically that the war is immoral...

And no one, especially you, have made a case, an argument, a listing of catholic reasons why the war wasn't just. Claiming it is because of feared consequences isn't CATHOLIC JUST WAR TERMINOLOGY!

1) Was it last resort? Yes. Given the alternatives of allowing him to stay in power, with the other powers in collusion with him, with terrorists coming and going and his oil money flowing north and south, financing suicide bombers... yes.

2) Was it done in a fashion to minimize casualties? Yes. 3) Was there prospect of success? Absolutely. 4) Was their founded chances of it provoking a wider war? No. Not with that many US forces arrayed in the region. 5) Was the proper authorization given? Resolution 1441 says, yes. What "serious consequences" did the UN have in mind that it hadn't already done (including Clinton's missile strike)? According to the CCC the UN has NO ROLE! According to all other Magisterial documents, encyclicals - the UN was not considered the moral judge of the human race - or of legality for that matter as it is self-appointed, made of more than 50% of dictatorships which aren't the duely elected voice of their people.... thus bereft of moral authority. Conclusion - Pio Laghi was wrong. The Pope didn't re-affirm his choice of words or novel conditions created out of thin air for this situation... and has subsequently blessed other nations' involvement in Iraq.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), November 19, 2004.

IMHO the posit and subsequent arguments supporting theory that the war is unjust are quite the 'davinci code' of ambiguity and derived pseudo Truth.

In matters of this gravity our Holy Father would not 'hint' or allude to that which is clearly and easily declared. Especially, if such declaration was to be clearly communicated.

--There is no Magisterial grassy knoll suggesting the Truth vague, missing or requiring extraordinary effort to obtain and discern in this matter...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), November 19, 2004.

Nice one Joe. Eyes Wide Open clearly and categorically refutes your accusation that the Pope did not oppose the war on Iraq. In reply you totally ignore the subject of this thread, and instead revert to your tired old arguments why YOU think the war was justifiable. (Arguments which have several times been thoroughly refuted on other threads.)

Regardless of your PERSONAL opinion, Joe, the Pope and the whole Curia and the bishops of your own country disagree with you, and you can’t continue to deny it, nor pretend that you “can’t find it” or that “it isn’t clear”. (But you probably will anyway.)

Hmm I wonder if you were ever in a group of boys marching, and your Mom said “Look at my little Joe – he’s the only one in step, everyone else is out of step!”

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 20, 2004.

The Pope, as Pope can't be in favor of war. He must be a man of peace and diplomacy. But while he can say "war is always a defeat for humanity" and "the decision to go to war is grave" that is not the same thing as making a magisterial pronouncement that the United States is an unjust aggressor in Iraq, and thus both illegal and immoral.

That's what you, Steve, are arguing, based on a couple of cardinals and bishops' statements. But that's NOT what the Pope has said - spin aside.

Eyes wide open has quoted officials - not the Pope. I asked for clear Papal statements, not spin. I'm still waiting.

As mentioned before, those against the war have avoided the classic Catholic Just war theory almost entirely - their argument is not based on its criteria. Instead we are told that the UN is the final word in legality (but not explained why this is so) and that if only the Security Council gives its blessing would an invasion be legitimate (again not explaining why when in 1990, this was the case, the Pope still didn't give his blessing).

When anyone makes an assertion of morality without providing a rationale for it based on scripture and tradition that teaching is suspect. This is what separates Catholics from protestants - Our Pope is not a seer or prophet. He doesn't rule on whim, but as a shepherd constrained by tradition.

And lo and behold, if you want to search for questionable Papal opinions on worldly affairs, they abound. But the question of this thread is not a Pope's opinion but whether than opinion thus hinted at and floated in a handful of discreet diplomatic sentences is the same thing as Papal Magisterium demanding all Catholics to give assent of reason and faith.

The Pope has preached and ellaborated many moral topics through encyclicals and homilies. In 1994 during the Clinton run abortion- fest in Cairo, the Pope led the world in an anti-US rebellion that kept abortion and gay agendas from being ram-rodded down the throats of the rest of the world by the US. And he didn't do it with a couple of sparse sentences buried in a handful of diplomatic paragraphs or Urbi et orbi discourses.

No, he spent a whole year preaching and teaching and explaining, homilies, encyclicals (Evangelium Vitae) so that the Catholic teaching on life was crystal clear.

This time around he didn't do that. You seem to think that he doesn't have to quote precedent, scripture, and tradition - or make a coherent argument based on a,b,c reasoning in order to be making a magisterial pronouncement binding on all Catholic consciences.

If this is your belief, as I think it is, then please have the decency of pointing to any clear Catholic teaching we all agree on to make this case.

You think the war is unjust, and I think it's not. Of the two sides, my side has more arguments based on history and Catholic tradition and accepted teaching than yours.

You take Pio Laghi's assertions as conclusions - he asserts this or that about the UN or the USA without proving anything. Certainly without proving that he knows the details of the things being discussed - which you have to in order to render a classic moral judgement.

If I say "Steve is an immoral idiot" that is an assertion. It may be true or not. But I will not have proven it no matter who I am or job I fill.

If the Pope says "Steve is an immoral idiot", that's no greater an asssertion than mine. It's a judgement call - and hence depends on information for legitimacy.

The Pope may very well have the grace to read souls - and so we give him more benefit of the doubt than myself...but still, an assertion isn't a conclusion no matter how you dress it up.

So did the Pope (or was it only his men) really declare the UN to be the legitimate moral authority in the world absent any proof that the UN is indeed a moral representative of the world's people?

A Catholic would search through past pronouncements on statescraft and theory before taking a cardinals word for it!

How is the UN any more moral an agent than NATO? What intrinsic quality do the Security Council nations plus Syria have that other nations don't?

In both 1990 and 2003 the Pope's letter to the President mentioned as part of his insistance on a diplomatic solution as still viable the assertion that war would provoke unthinkable humanitarian and ecological disasters. Again - that is an assertion of POTENTIAL consequences.

Consequentialism is not a Catholic moral theory. Sure, you have to take into consideration LIKELY consequences of action (this falls into prudence) but what the Pope fears as likely and what the President knows is likely are two different things.

NONE of the feared consequences of the invasion of Iraq have turned out to have occured. On the face of this situation, it would appear then that those whose argument agaist war rested on feared consequences, were wrong and thus their argument wasn't right.

It has also been proven that the UN security council and many other nations were ILLEGALLY on the take from Iraq's Oil for food scam, and had been ILLEGALLY trading in high-tech weaponry with Iraq while the people starved. In light of this, those who claimed some intrinsic moral authority of the UN must - if logical - also admit that they put faith in the wrong team.

Finally, the hope for diplomacy as a solution - one can always hope for a better tomorrow. But again, this has to be based on something called "evidence". If the Pope truly believed that there were diplomatic tricks or treats available to the US and world with respect to disarming Saddam's Iraq and keeping them from mischief... not only has the Holy See NOT spelled out what exactly these wonderful things consisted of, exactly, but neither has the vaunted "international community" (NEVER SPECIFIED) used such devices in solving other hot spots like in Ivory Coast, Sudan, North Korea or anywhere else!

But we are treated with the disdain of the Steve's of the world as if it was all crystal clear and proven that a) a war would certainly result in catastrophic human and ecological destruction and would certainly provoke a clash of civilizations as opposed to ending it b) there were concrete, tried and true diplomatic alternatives readily available, just sitting there eager to go to action and c) a war would certainly be illegal because the UN is certainly the world's only sovereign legal judge.

All of the above were assertions - not followed by anything like a train of facts or arguments, not conclusions.

And that's not how Catholic moral tradition holds the decision ad bellum and in bellum is supposed to be made. You don't go or refrain from war because someone "just says so". You make decisions based on arguments.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), November 22, 2004.

Check out www.catholicjustwar.org

An excerpt from Jeremiah Denton follows.

"The situation today seems similar, and the majority is the vocal, quoted group. My criticism of any of these bishops is not categorical; I consider them well meant. My criticism is limited to their naiveté in world affairs and their eagerness to offer aggressively expressed and frequently wrong opinions aimed at policies of American presidents in their role as commander in chief.

I visited Pope Paul VI in 1973, and having read much anti-war sentiment ascribed to him, I was anxious about the meeting. As soon as he understood my curiosity, he eagerly sat me at his desk and then spent 45 minutes alone with me intensely confiding about his views on war and peace.

I was delighted at what he said, and charmed and educated as he took me through page by page of his encyclical on war and peace, in which he made clear that war is hell but there are other forms of hell that can be worse, that the definition of peace is not the absence of war, and that Vietnam was a just war for the U.S."

Check that one out! He is claiming that Pope Paul VI opined that the US war in Vietnam was JUST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Golly, gee Steve, suppose he is right... now what would that mean for your world view and the use of "unilateral" armed might by the United States?

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), November 22, 2004.

Wow, and you have the nerve to call ME a “spin doctor”!!

Whether YOU are convinced by the Pope’s arguments, whether he made sufficient references to scripture and tradition to justify himself to your satisfaction, is not the point. The Pope made it perfectly plain to everyone from Bush to the man in the street, that he did NOT approve the war. But you block your eyes and ears and refuse to believe it.

Then after claiming that the Pope hasn’t been clear enough and dismissing all statements by his official spokesmen as simply their own personal opinions, you then rely on an obviously concocted ludicrous piece of hearsay that Paul VI, despite his vehement call for the war to cease, also supported war. The totally spurious nature of this “evidence” should be obvious. The idiot who made it up can’t even get the author of the encyclical right. It was John XXIII, not Paul VI, who wrote Pacem in Terris.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 22, 2004.

A Pope's opinion is not the same thing as a Papal teaching, Steve. That's why you are a spin doctor.

As I explained in reference to 1994-1995 and the Cairo conference, the Pope didn't just mumble a handful of sentences and have others issue their own statements to ellaborate his "real" position. He wrote a pointed encyclical, spent every Wednesday's audience spelling out the rights of families and why abortion is wrong....

THAT'S Papal teaching... offical, founded on scripture and tradition, elaborated with REASONS and syllogisms, giving people the "why" not just the "what". St Thomas after all nailed down as incontrovertable that arguments from authority are the weakest of all...

And I haven't ducked the issue of this as you have. I admit he was personally opposed to the idea of war - just as he is opposed to the idea of capital punishment - because he believes in peaceful solutions. But that's his personal opinion. As a Pope he has presided over OFFICIAL MAGISTERIAL documents, such as the Cathecism of the Catholic Church which has stated that recourse to both the death penalty and war are still IN PRINCIPLE moral... his opinion notwithstanding. He doesn't like the prudential application but he didn't issue a categorical condemnation binding on our consciences either.

As in 1054, the Pope's men went beyond what he himself had stated and made assertions which even they could not base or prove as being relevant or conclusive.

It's kind of like you harping about some mysterious and as of yet unelaborated "3rd way" for economics. Maybe that way exists. If so, I'm all ears...but no one - certainly no Churchman - has spelled it out. It's up to us Catholics to invent one. But it doesn't yet exist so it's not a real, viable option for moral debate.

It's like proposing that we drop a non-existent weapon on Iraq to avoid having to go to war... and then holding us culpable for not using this non-lethal means, which doesn't exist!

According to Catholic Just War doctine, the one's who have the authority to make the call to go to war are NOT the Popes or bishops. This is because according to the Church's own teaching about subsidiarity, the political sphere is distinct from the ecclesial.

Priests (and thus bishops) ought to refrain from all bellical activities - that goes way back to the 1000's. But someone has to defend the common good, and thus lay people have the duty and thus right. But their rights are not absolute, hence the rise of the sophisticated Catholic just war doctrine (which none of the prelates used in their condemnations because to have used it would have made it obvious quickly that they didn't have an argument, they just had personal opinions.)

You however seem incapable of seeing the difference between someone opining something and that same person making an official teaching binding on souls. I wonder if this is for political reasons. I wonder if you would have the same opinion if Clinton were president still or if Al Gore were commander-in-chief.

I call em as I see em... When you are right I've praised you on these threads. But how can I not see you failure to distinguish an opinion from an official teaching as anything but spin?

The whole anti-US liberation of Iraq corpus of statements from the Pope could be printed on a single sheet of paper, font 12. If he had been making an official teaching he'd have used Ratzinger and unloaded a boat load of scripture, tradition, references to the CCC, other encyclicals, quotes of the Church Fathers, etc.

But he didn't. And that's the give away that his words were opinion, not magisterium STEVE.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), November 23, 2004.

Excerpt from the Pope's speech to Iraq's new ambassador to the Holy See.

"Your Excellency has remarked on the importance of protecting the dignity of every human person. Essential to this is the rule of law as an integral element of government.

[weeeelll let's see, the rule of law was one thing missing from Saddam's Dictatorship wasn't it now?]

"Preserving this fundamental principle is basic for any modern society that truly seeks to safeguard and promote the common good. In fulfilling this task, the clear distinction between the civil and religious spheres allows each of these to exercise its proper responsibilities effectively, with mutual respect and in complete freedom of conscience."

[What? The Church and state are distinct entities? Why I wonder what this means in terms of politicians and prelates relative responsibilities and rights? Do you suppose this may also apply between the Holy See and the Bush Administration?]

"It is my hope that the Iraqi people will continue to promote their long tradition of tolerance, always recognizing the right to freedom of worship and religious instruction. Once these fundamental rights are protected by ordinary legislation and become an enduring part of the living fabric of society, they will enable all citizens, regardless of religious belief or affiliation, to make their proper contribution to the building up of Iraq. In this way the country can express the deeply held religious convictions of all its peoples through the creation of a society that is truly moral and just."

[hmmmmmm I wonder what other great world power is known as a bastion of freedom for religion. Let's see, not in Europe, not in Asia, not south of the Rio Grande or north of Minnesota...]

"I can assure Your Excellency that the entire Catholic Church, and in a special way the Chaldean Christians present in your country since the time of the Apostles, is committed to assisting your people in constructing a more peaceful and stable nation."

[Well, that certainly looks like an endorsement of the current government in Iraq, which was set up thanks in large part to a handful of European and Central American countries as well as a notable contribution from a country known affectionately as the Arsenal of Democracy. Gee. I don't suppose the country who almost unilaterally helped establish the current Iraqi government was unjust in doing so now could it?]

"Iraq is currently in the throes of the difficult process of transition from a totalitarian regime to the formation of a democratic State in which the dignity of each person is respected and all citizens enjoy equal rights. Authentic democracy is possible "only in a State ruled by law," and requires that "the necessary conditions be present for the advancement both of the individual through education and formation in true ideals, and ... through the creation of structures of participation and shared responsibility" (cf. Encyclical Letter "Centesimus Annus," 46)."

[Yes, and just exactly how DID Iraq begin the difficult process of "transition" from totalitarian regime to a democratic one? Miraculously? Through enlightened European diplomacy? Through brilliant dialogue and hand-holding? Or thanks to Americans tanks, bombs, and Marines?]

"As you prepare your people to undertake the task of freely electing the men and women who will lead the Iraq of tomorrow, I encourage the current government in its efforts to make certain that these elections are fair and transparent giving all eligible citizens an equal opportunity in this democratic right which they are encouraged to exercise.

The struggle to overcome the challenges brought about by poverty, unemployment and violence is also currently faced by Iraq. May your government work untiringly to settle disputes and conflicts through dialogue and negotiation, having recourse to military force only as a last resort. Accordingly, it is essential that the State, with the assistance of the International Community, promote mutual understanding and tolerance among its various ethnic and religious groups. This will enable the people of the region to create an environment that is not only committed to justice and peace but is also capable of sustaining the necessary economic growth and development integral for the well-being of your citizens and the country itself. Men and women can together eliminate the social and cultural causes of division and conflict "by teaching the greatness and dignity of the human person, and by spreading a clearer sense of the oneness of the human family" (Message for the 2002 World Day of Peace, 12)."

[Well would you look at that. No categorical condemnation of war! He told the Iraqis that they could - if it were the last resort, go to war to defend their nation (as opposed to defending some thug). Now how in the world could THEY have that right of last resort if the Pope has condemned, MAGISTERIALLY, that all war is a defeat for humanity????? Steve? anyone?]

Mr. Ambassador, I am confident that your mission will strengthen the bonds of understanding and cooperation between the Republic of Iraq and the Holy See. Be assured that the various offices of the Roman Curia are always ready to assist you in the discharge of your high duties. Upon yourself and the beloved people of Iraq I cordially invoke the abundant blessings of Almighty God."

[He blessed the regime set in place by the United States of America who led a coalition of nations to overthrow a totalitarian dictatorship and is now still the primary guarantor of Iraqi security and economic stability. This nation - ours - has spent billions more than "the international community" to rebuild Iraq not just from war damage but from 30 years of Saddam's neglect or rapine.

Golly gee folks, it sure seems like this "unjust" war turned out pretty well if the Pope has just blessed the ambassador and his government in such favorable terms.

This is how diplomacy works - you don't draw attention to past mistakes, you don't take sides until you are sure who has won and who has lost. You smile and shake hands and be nice and drop hints and innuendo such that governments respect agreements and the rights of minorities (catholics).

And I wouldn't have it any other way. I'm glad the Pope did'nt bless the US invasion as that would have been a propaganda gold mine for Osama Bin Laden and the islamofacists who insist on making this a war of religions when it's not.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), November 23, 2004.