Is the war in Iraq an unjust war?

[bobzills]

Hi SoCal,

In this case, I was asking about the Bishop’s statement. For whom is it binding? .

He mentions specifically, the people under his jurisdiction, Catholics of the Eparchy of St. George:
"Therefore I, by the grace of God and the favor of the Apostolic See Bishop of the Eparchy of St. George in Canton, must declare to you, my people, for the sake of your salvation as well as my own, that any direct participation and support of this war against the people of Iraq is objectively grave evil, a matter of mortal sin. Beyond a reasonable doubt this war is morally incompatible with the Person and Way of Jesus Christ. With moral certainty I say to you it does not meet even the minimal standards of the Catholic just war theory.

Thus, any killing associated with it is unjustified and, in consequence, unequivocally murder. Direct participation in this war is the moral equivalent of direct participation in an abortion. For the Catholics of the Eparchy of St. George, I hereby authoritatively state that such direct participation is intrinsically and gravely evil and therefore absolutely forbidden.

My people, it is an incontestable Biblical truth that a sin left unnamed will propagate itself with lavish zeal. We must call murder by its right name: murder. God and conscience require nothing less if the face of the earth is to be renewed and if the salvation offered by Our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ is to reach all people, including us. We have no choice before the face of God but to speak unambiguously to the moral situation with which we are confronted and to live according to the Will of Him who gazes at us from the Cross ( Catechism 1785)."

 

[rlg94086]

He mentions specifically, the people under his jurisdiction, Catholics of the Eparchy of St. George:
"Therefore I, by the grace of God and the favor of the Apostolic See Bishop of the Eparchy of St. George in Canton, must declare to you, my people, for the sake of your salvation as well as my own, that any direct participation and support of this war against the people of Iraq is objectively grave evil, a matter of mortal sin. Beyond a reasonable doubt this war is morally incompatible with the Person and Way of Jesus Christ. With moral certainty I say to you it does not meet even the minimal standards of the Catholic just war theory.

Thus, any killing associated with it is unjustified and, in consequence, unequivocally murder. Direct participation in this war is the moral equivalent of direct participation in an abortion. For the Catholics of the Eparchy of St. George, I hereby authoritatively state that such direct participation is intrinsically and gravely evil and therefore absolutely forbidden.

My people, it is an incontestable Biblical truth that a sin left unnamed will propagate itself with lavish zeal. We must call murder by its right name: murder. God and conscience require nothing less if the face of the earth is to be renewed and if the salvation offered by Our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ is to reach all people, including us. We have no choice before the face of God but to speak unambiguously to the moral situation with which we are confronted and to live according to the Will of Him who gazes at us from the Cross ( Catechism 1785)."

Thanks for clearing that up. So, if you are part of the Romanian Catholic Church in America and a soldier in the Army deployed in Iraq, you are committing a mortal sin. However, if you are a member of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church, it is not a mortal sin. Is that correct?

 

[bobzills]

Thanks for clearing that up. So, if you are part of the Romanian Catholic Church in America and a soldier in the Army deployed in Iraq, you are committing a mortal sin. However, if you are a member of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church, it is not a mortal sin. Is that correct?

It looks to me like the bishop is indicating his firm belief that the Iraq war is unjust. My personal opinion is that if a war is unjust, then it would be an unjust war for any Catholic, regardless of the rite to which he adheres.
And I don;t see where the present Pope has declared the declaration of Bishop Botean to be in error. I am keeping in mind the declaration of Pope Felix III: “An error which is not resisted is approved…” (Inimica Vis of Pope Leo XIII, article 7).

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

Oh, I’m sure you can come up with all kinds of evil that outweighs any good from any of the wars we’ve fought. The problem with people like you is that the evil of war always outweighs the evil of tyranny. I thank God that there are those who refuse to live under your rules.

i’m not a pacifist. i supported our war in afganistan, as did the pope. it sounds like you are thankful for leaders who disagree with the pope.

name me one time the pope’s view on a war was wrong?

Are you saying that Arabs don’t deserve to be free? Are you saying they are not sophisticated enough to enjoy liberty? Are you saying that they deserved to be under the thumb of Saddam Hussein? What exactly are you saying?

what do you mean by free? free to break the natural law like we are in america?

 

[Elric]

Anything can and will be argued. It is obvious you don’t believe in the war on terror.

Yes anything can be arued, but that wasnt my argument.

How is it obvious that I dont believe in the war on terror?

Maybe you are one of those who don’t believe in war for any reason, I don’t know.

I already stated in an earlier post contrary to that. There certainly are reasons for going to war, some of them are just, but not in this case for the reasons used.

But you insinuate that the government lied. I’m not above believing that governments do and will lie. But I don’t believe it in this case.

I thought that it was a well known fact that the intellegence about Iraq was false (wasnt that announced in British Parlament?).

I thought even the CIA (or whoever provided the intelegnece) admitted that there was no evidence.

Are you saying that Arabs don’t deserve to be free?

Am I?

Because that is exactly what happened isnt it?

Are you saying they are not sophisticated enough to enjoy liberty?

You mean American Liberty?

I dont think that they want that (because it has really healped rebuild their hospitals and such that were destroyed by American liberty). I think that they are sophisticated to choose what they want for themselves without it being forced apon them by outsiders.

Are you saying that they deserved to be under the thumb of Saddam Hussein? What exactly are you saying?

LoL, it has been pointed out that Iraq was better off under Saddam before the coalition and “liberated” the country. They had power, employment, water, education, hospitals ect.

But I believe that Saddam had to be removed from power. Not because of the reasons stated for invading Iraq, but because of real things that he had done to people in Iraq.

I think that genocide is more than enough reason to dethrone someone, dont you?

But none of this answers that question that I asked you, what greater good exactly?

 

[RWMorris]

name me one time the pope’s view on a war was wrong?

Now, be careful here. I’m only disagreeing with his opinions. He was wrong on Iraq. He was wrong on Vietnam. He was wrong on most of the minor conflicts that America has been involved in the past 50 years. He is wrong on his criticism of the US role in the UN. He’s even wrong on global warming.

what do you mean by free? free to break the natural law like we are in America?

There is only one freedom and that is the freedom God gave everyone. Just because Americans misuse and abuse freedom doesn’t mean it is not God’s will. And it does not mean the Iraqis don’t deserve it.

 

[ProVobis]

Saying someone is “wrong” on four counts doesn’t sound as if you’re giving him an opinion. Also, aren’t we talking about TWO Popes that you’re in disagreement with here?

 

[rlg94086]

It looks to me like the bishop is indicating his firm belief that the Iraq war is unjust. My personal opinion is that if a war is unjust, then it would be an unjust war for any Catholic, regardless of the rite to which he adheres.
And I don;t see where the present Pope has declared the declaration of Bishop Botean to be in error. I am keeping in mind the declaration of Pope Felix III: “An error which is not resisted is approved…” (Inimica Vis of Pope Leo XIII, article 7).

I agree that there can only be one truth (i.e. something can’t be moral and immoral at the same time). What if another Bishop or the Pope says that Catholics can have differing views on the war (IIRC, the Pope did say something to that effect)? Who is correct in that case? Certainly, Bishop Botean’s proclamation does not trump other Bishops does it?

IIRC, the Pope also said that we should now stay to help bring stability to Iraq. In that case, it would seem that the Bishop’s proclamation about the war being unjust is old news - IOW…we are now in the post-war process of bringing stability.

 

[RWMorris]

How is it obvious that I dont believe in the war on terror?

Maybe you do, but maybe you have a better war plan than our leaders. If you do then maybe you could run for office.

I already stated in an earlier post contrary to that. There certainly are reasons for going to war, some of them are just, but not in this case for the reasons used.

I thought that it was a well known fact that the intellegence about Iraq was false (wasnt that announced in British Parlament?).

I thought even the CIA (or whoever provided the intelegnece) admitted that there was no evidence.

The British Parliament nor the CIA determine facts or truth, they just state opinions. If the CIA lied before the war and misled our nation into war, what makes you think they are telling the truth now? I believed the case for the war was strong before we invaded and I still think the evidence is strong. If you want to read what that evidence is, go back and read all my past posts on the subject.

Because that is exactly what happened isnt it?

No, I believe the Iraqis are enjoying freedom for the first time in their lives, but they don’t have the democratic institutions in place to support and sustain those freedoms. Their problem and ours is the US has a left leaning segment of the population and press who have no concept of the costs of liberty and therefore are unwilling to spend what is necessary to maintain it. They are living off an inheritance. One day that inheritance will be spent, and I pray that there will be a people who will be willing to spend their treasure to assist my great grandchildren in maintaining liberty.

You mean American Liberty?

I dont think that they want that (because it has really healped rebuild their hospitals and such that were destroyed by American liberty). I think that they are sophisticated to choose what they want for themselves without it being forced apon them by outsiders.

There is only one kind of liberty. Either they have or they don’t. And I’ll let them speak through their democratically elected representatives whether they want us there or not.

LoL, it has been pointed out that Iraq was better off under Saddam before the coalition and “liberated” the country. They had power, employment, water, education, hospitals ect.

But I believe that Saddam had to be removed from power. Not because of the reasons stated for invading Iraq, but because of real things that he had done to people in Iraq.

I think that genocide is more than enough reason to dethrone someone, dont you?

But none of this answers that question that I asked you, what greater good exactly?

I’m sure there are a few who feel that the Iraqis were better off under Saddam. There are still people around who feel that Hitler had the right idea, but just went about accomplishing his goals in the wrong way. So which is it, how do you feel? Should Saddam have stayed, or should he have been dethroned? Get off the fence! By the way, what does LoL mean?

 

[bobzills]

I agree that there can only be one truth (i.e. something can’t be moral and immoral at the same time). What if another Bishop or the Pope says that Catholics can have differing views on the war (IIRC, the Pope did say something to that effect)? Who is correct in that case? Certainly, Bishop Botean’s proclamation does not trump other Bishops does it?

IIRC, the Pope also said that we should now stay to help bring stability to Iraq. In that case, it would seem that the Bishop’s proclamation about the war being unjust is old news - IOW…we are now in the post-war process of bringing stability.

There is an element of prudential opinion which has to be factored in. But I thought that Bishop Botean had addressed that in his declaration.

 

[SoCalRC]

Now, be careful here. I’m only disagreeing with his opinions. He was wrong on Iraq. He was wrong on Vietnam. He was wrong on most of the minor conflicts that America has been involved in the past 50 years. He is wrong on his criticism of the US role in the UN. He’s even wrong on global warming.

Just so I understand, are you Roman Catholic?

As an American, one is free to hold some pretty extreme or even straing beliefs. For example one can believe in frequent and widespread alien abductions, complete with probings and implants. Or that an obese drug felon with a string of failed marriages and a seeming ED problem and a taste for underage Dominican prostitutes is a legitimate authority on family values. But a central aspect of Catholicism is the Pope’s divine role, and that of the Bishops teaching in communion with him.

Per the dogmatic constituion of the Church, we are called to obey with proper reverence. The Church understands dissent, but makes it clear that it must be handled appropriately and with deference lest it be a detriment to the faith.

 

[rlg94086]

There is an element of prudential opinion which has to be factored in. But I thought that Bishop Botean had addressed that in his declaration.

He did?? Where?

He mentions specifically, the people under his jurisdiction, Catholics of the Eparchy of St. George:
"Therefore I, by the grace of God and the favor of the Apostolic See Bishop of the Eparchy of St. George in Canton, must declare to you, my people, for the sake of your salvation as well as my own, that any direct participation and support of this war against the people of Iraq is objectively grave evil, a matter of mortal sin. Beyond a reasonable doubt this war is morally incompatible with the Person and Way of Jesus Christ. With moral certainty I say to you it does not meet even the minimal standards of the Catholic just war theory.

Thus, any killing associated with it is unjustified and, in consequence, unequivocally murder. Direct participation in this war is the moral equivalent of direct participation in an abortion. For the Catholics of the Eparchy of St. George, I hereby authoritatively state that such direct participation is **intrinsically and gravely evil and therefore absolutely forbidden.
**
My people, it is an incontestable Biblical truth that a sin left unnamed will propagate itself with lavish zeal. We must call murder by its right name: murder. God and conscience require nothing less if the face of the earth is to be renewed and if the salvation offered by Our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ is to reach all people, including us. We have no choice before the face of God but to speak unambiguously to the moral situation with which we are confronted and to live according to the Will of Him who gazes at us from the Cross ( Catechism 1785)."

How does prudential opinion come into it?

 

[Nino]

What are your thoughts?

Yes,as a true right winger.ie: anti-collectivist…I know its not true! Nations like Cuba,Ven and China pose more of a threat to America then this camel back tribe! What a disgrace to send our young men there to stand on street corners and be killed by juiced up kids convinced Americans are invaders…like the poor southern whites during americas civil war,they also were brainwashed by the corporations that control the world!!! All of the early reports on 9-11 revealed that it was Saudi nuts who attacked …not folks from this poor nation…now of course its a racial /religious thing and the entire Muslim world hates us and poor Israel has to suffer as well,I consider Israel my spiritual homeland and it too is being sold down the river by this skull and bonesman! Is this war a just war…no way…bring the troops home…on their way let them free the great people of China and Cuba…then stand guard on our borders…may God save America but frankly its appearing more and more like its too late…

 

[bobzills]

He did?? Where?

How does prudential opinion come into it?

I will highlight it in bold, although it is not highlighted in the original which you can see at:
jonahhouse.org/boteanRCbishop.htm
“The evaluation of these conditions of the just war theory for moral legitimacy belongs to the **prudential **judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good,” states the Catechism. (2309) However, the nation-state is never the final arbiter or authority for the Catholic of what is moral or for what is good for the salvation of his or her soul. What is legal can be evil and often has been . Jesus Christ and his Church, not the state, are the ultimate informers of conscience for the Catholic.

This is why the Church teaches as a norm of conscience the following: “If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order such arrangements would not be binding in conscience.” ( Catechism 1903) She also warns “Blind obedience [to immoral laws] does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out” ( Catechism 2313). When a moral conflict arises between Church teaching and secular morality, when contradictory moral demands are made upon a Catholic’s conscience, he or she “must obey God rather than man” (Acts 5:29).

Because such a moment of moral crisis has arisen for us, beloved Romanian Catholics, I must now speak to you as your bishop. Please be aware that I am not speaking to you as a theologian or as a private Christian voicing his opinion, nor by any means am I speaking to you as a political partisan. I am speaking to you solely as your bishop with the authority and responsibility I, though a sinner, have been given as a successor to the apostles on your behalf. I am speaking to you from the deepest chambers of my conscience as your bishop, appointed by Jesus Christ in his Body, the Church, to help shepherd you to sanctity and to heaven. Never before have I spoken to you in this manner, explicitly exercising the fullness of authority Jesus Christ has given his Apostles “to bind and to loose,” ( cf . John 20:23), but now “the love of Christ compels” me to do so (2 Corinthians 5:14). My love for you makes it a moral imperative that I not allow you, by my silence, to fall into grave evil and its incalculable temporal and eternal consequences.

Humanly speaking, I would much prefer to keep silent. It would be far, far easier for me and my family simply to let events unfold as they will, without commentary or warning on my part. But what kind of shepherd would I be if I, seeing the approach of the wolf, ran away from the sheep ( cf . John 10:12-14)? My silence would be cowardly and, indeed, sinful. I believe that Christ, whose flock you are, expects more than silence from me on behalf of the souls committed to my protection and guidance.

Therefore I, by the grace of God and the favor of the Apostolic See Bishop of the Eparchy of St. George in Canton, must declare to you, my people, for the sake of your salvation as well as my own, that any direct participation and support of this war against the people of Iraq is objectively grave evil, a matter of mortal sin. Beyond a reasonable doubt this war is morally incompatible with the Person and Way of Jesus Christ. With moral certainty I say to you it does not meet even the minimal standards of the Catholic just war theory.

Thus, any killing associated with it is unjustified and, in consequence, unequivocally murder. Direct participation in this war is the moral equivalent of direct participation in an abortion. For the Catholics of the Eparchy of St. George, I hereby authoritatively state that such direct participation is intrinsically and gravely evil and therefore absolutely forbidden.

 

[SoCalRC]

It takes two parties to make a war. You give the other side a pass.

Because we invaded Iraq “preventatively”. We used our might to crush a realitvely weak opponent (after years of containment and on the heels of international weapons inspection) in short order. Now we are spending years in a costly and bloody occupation.

In Afghanistan, we apparently had cause, we were attacked by a group being given safe haven. But in Iraq we attacked because it was a long standing neoconservative goal - the strategic occupation of an oil rich nation. Remember, all the original arguments for Iraq being an immediate threat have not only turned out to be false, there is strong evidence that the people making them know that they were false, or at least dubious.

So it seems reaonsable to me that when so many of the main architechs of the war are PNAC mission statement signatoires, and PNAC has been calling for the strategic occupation of Iraq for US self interest for more than a decade - that the long standing wish of, well, nitwits, deluded by wishful thinking.

As to civilian casualties: We have done nothing, I mean abslutely nothing in this war as bad as what we did during world war II.

Two important points, first you need to stop arguing with whatever non existant straw man your used to hearing bashed on right wing radio. I’ve spent over half a million dollars of my own money sending helmet liners and body armor to US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. So it is just silly for people to tell me I should shut my mouth and put a yellow ribbon on my car instead - if I ‘really want to support the troops’.

Second, please be very careful in making relative moral comparisons. Certain acts are gravely immoral, regardless of their scope. If we torture, use white phosphor on children, etc., we cannot stand before the Son of Man and explain ourselves with the argument that others have done much worse.

 

[Elric]

Maybe you do, but maybe you have a better war plan than our leaders. If you do then maybe you could run for office.

Im sorry, but what kind of answer is that?

The British Parliament nor the CIA determine facts or truth, they just state opinions.

What?

If the CIA lied before the war and misled our nation into war, what makes you think they are telling the truth now?

Actually it was a couple of nations (England and Australia amongst others).

What makes me think that they are telling the truth now?

lets see, They didnt find anything that was meant to be there.

I believed the case for the war was strong before we invaded and I still think the evidence is strong. If you want to read what that evidence is, go back and read all my past posts on the subject.

I really dont know how you came to this conclusion.

No, I believe the Iraqis are enjoying freedom for the first time in their lives, but they don’t have the democratic institutions in place to support and sustain those freedoms.

Oh they are free alright. Free of hospitals, free of employment, free of electricity.

Their problem and ours is the US has a left leaning segment of the population and press who have no concept of the costs of liberty and therefore are unwilling to spend what is necessary to maintain it. They are living off an inheritance. One day that inheritance will be spent, and I pray that there will be a people who will be willing to spend their treasure to assist my great grandchildren in maintaining liberty.

I really dont know what to say. Did you ever consider that this whole invasion and “rebuilding” was handled poorly from the start?

There is only one kind of liberty. Either they have or they don’t.

If you say so.

And I’ll let them speak through their democratically elected representatives whether they want us there or not.

Thats very big of you.

I’m sure there are a few who feel that the Iraqis were better off under Saddam. There are still people around who feel that Hitler had the right idea, but just went about accomplishing his goals in the wrong way. So which is it, how do you feel? Should Saddam have stayed, or should he have been dethroned? Get off the fence! By the way, what does LoL mean?

You are joking right?

I did state that I believe Saddam should be removed from power and even gave a reason for that belief (genocide). I really dont know where you got this idea that I was sitting on a fence, or is that only because I dont buy into that “liberty” and “they support terrorists” rubbish?

You see, people can advocate something (removal of Saddam from power) and disagree with the reasoning as well as the execution of that thing (the invasion of Iraq).

LoL=Laugh Out Loud.

 

[RWMorris]

Saying someone is “wrong” on four counts doesn’t sound as if you’re giving him an opinion. Also, aren’t we talking about TWO Popes that you’re in disagreement with here?

I’m not trying to give him an opinion, I’m just disagreeing with his. I’m not saying he is “wrong” in the absolute sense. Opinions are like armpits, everybody has a couple and many times they smell bad, including mine.

I believe we are talking about at least three Popes. And I’m only disagreeing with a small minority of their opinions. The Popes are European, they are influenced by European thought in a couple of areas that many Americans are going to disagree with them on.

One is liberty, many Europeans have a fundamental belief that liberty is granted by the state, that it flows from the state. Many Americans believe that liberty is an unalienable right that flows from God, that to maintain it government must be kept small, and liberty must be defended at all costs.

The same can be said about the UN. Many Europeans are willing to cede a certain amount of their sovereignty to the UN, if in their view, it avoids war. This makes the UN a de facto government and grants it authority to “evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy”. Americans will never cede any sovereignty to the UN on any issue. This has been and will continue to be a source of conflict between the US and the Vatican, and between American Catholics and their European counterparts.

 

[rlg94086]

I will highlight it in bold, although it is not highlighted in the original which you can see at:
jonahhouse.org/boteanRCbishop.htm
“The evaluation of these conditions of the just war theory for moral legitimacy belongs to the **prudential **judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good,” states the Catechism. (2309) However, the nation-state is never the final arbiter or authority for the Catholic of what is moral or for what is good for the salvation of his or her soul. What is legal can be evil and often has been . Jesus Christ and his Church, not the state, are the ultimate informers of conscience for the Catholic.

Yes, the Bishop quotes the Catechism, but then basically says, “yes, but…” IOW…he does ***not ***allow the individual Catholic prudential judgment on the matter.

 

[RWMorris]

…You see, people can advocate something (removal of Saddam from power) and disagree with the reasoning as well as the execution of that thing (the invasion of Iraq).

LoL=Laugh Out Loud.

I always thought LoL meant Lots of Love. I like my definition more.

Well Elric, it seems we are losing focus. I’ll be happy to continue debating this issue with you, but let’s stick to one issue on the subject. You pick and you can fire the opening salvo.

 

[Ender]

I was asking about the Bishop’s statement. For whom is it binding?.. He said, “any direct participation and support of this war against the people of Iraq is objectively grave evil, a matter of mortal sin.” That seems very clear to me. I just want to know the ramifications of his pronouncement.

Exactly the question I asked back in post #29: for whom is it binding?

SoCalRC:

So, the opinion of two Popes and local authority should be given tremendous weight, but are still prudential.

This is just what I would have said (but your saying it doesn’t generate the same eye-rolling response.)

It should be pretty clear that - given the prudential nature of the popes comments - they are not binding. Given that even the popes comments are not binding, and that a bishop’s declarations are not binding on anyone outside of his diocese, the statements of a Romanian Catholic bishop are not binding on any Roman Catholic.