The secular Left has co-opted the slogan "war is a defeat for humanity" from Pope John Paul II, but in the original passage, you'll see that the Holy Father isn't saying what they think he's saying.
He has used the words many times since, but he uttered the phrase in question almost four years ago, on January 1, 2000, and therefore could not have been speaking about the Iraqi War. He was talking about wars in general, but he enumerated legitimate reasons for war that were applicable to the original decision to remove the former Iraqi government. See the passage I highlighted below to see if that's a fair summary.
"In the century we are leaving behind, humanity has been sorely tried by an endless and horrifying sequence of wars, conflicts, genocides, and “ethnic cleansings” which have caused unspeakable suffering: millions and millions of victims, families, and countries destroyed, an ocean of refugees, misery, hunger, disease, underdevelopment, and the loss of immense resources. At the root of so much suffering there lies a logic of supremacy fueled by the desire to dominate and exploit others, by ideologies of power or totalitarian utopias, by crazed nationalisms or ancient tribal hatreds. At times brutal and systematic violence, aimed at the very extermination or enslavement of entire peoples and regions, has had to be countered by armed resistance.
"The 20th century bequeaths to us above all else a warning: wars are often the cause of further wars because they fuel deep hatreds, create situations of injustice and trample upon people’s dignity and rights. Wars generally do not resolve the problems for which they are fought and therefore, in addition to causing horrendous damage, they prove ultimately futile. War is a defeat for humanity."
Yes - fully agree with you Eric. This Cardinal has got his priorities wrong. Yet there are many bishops and priests (catholic and not) who would share similar feelings.
From the NYT today re Martino on Saddam:
"It seems illusory to hope that it will repair the drama and the damage of the defeat against humanity, which war always is," he said.
For months leading up to the war, which started in March, Pope John Paul II's strong opposition to the conflict and support for United Nations efforts to disarm Mr. Hussein's government were a rallying point for antiwar campaigners.
Earlier this year the Pope warned that the war in Iraq "threatens the fate of humanity."
I don't think the Pope is being quoted out of context by the Left. The "defeat for humanity" theme was repeatedly sounded by the Vatican during the runup to Iraq.
Mark, as ever, I am open to correction, but I can find no citation on the Internet where the Holy Father says that *this specific* war would be a "defeat for humanity." The media spun it that way, but again: he was talking about wars in general.
Except for one statement on January 13, I can find no other time this year that he used the phrase. Below is an URL with the most extensive quotations (I can't find the entire text of the speech.)
http://www.catholic.org.au/media/2003/jan14.htm
"The world would be totally different if people began to apply in a straightforward manner the agreements already signed," he said.
"War is not always inevitable. It is always a defeat for humanity.
"International law, honest dialogue, solidarity between States, the noble exercise of diplomacy: these are methods worthy of individuals and nations in resolving their differences."
...and I would like to point out that the New York Times is not accepted as a canonical source on Catholic Light. ;)
Well, here's the National Catholic Register quoting the Pope on Jan. 13 specifically re Iraq:
"No to war! War is not always inevitable. It is always a defeat for humanity; international law, honest dialogue, solidarity between states, the noble exercise of diplomacy: These are methods worthy of individuals and nations in resolving their differences. I say this as I think of those who still place their trust in nuclear weapons and of the all-too-numerous conflicts which continue to hold hostage our brothers and sisters in humanity. ... And what are we to say of the threat of war which could strike the people of Iraq, the land of the prophets, a people already sorely tried by more than 12 years of embargo? ... War is never just another means that one can choose to employ for settling differences between nations."
And this from the Voice of America, March 22:
Pope John Paul II says the war in Iraq is threatening the fate of humanity. It was the first papal statement since the outbreak of U.S.-led hostilities against Baghdad.
Speaking to television journalists in the Vatican, the pope said weapons can never solve the problems of mankind. At this time, the pope said, it is ever more urgent to proclaim, with a strong a decisive voice, that peace alone is the way to construct a more just and united society.
Again, the "threat" or "defeat" for humanity theme re US war in Iraq has been sounded consistently, by JPII as well as by Vatican officials, particularly Martino and Tauran.
But Tauran is French.
Mark, again, those are selective quotations. What the Holy Father has said was that, however necessary a war might be, it is always a defeat for humanity because it does nothing to advance the human race. At best it is a correction of an injustice, at worst it is injustice itself.
I'm aware that the Holy Father did not think the Coalition should have gone to war against Iraq. The point in my post -- before we get too far afield -- was that the anti-war, secular Left has read him as saying that ALL wars are EQUALLY bad, and unjustified, and that was not his point.
Fine.
But that JPII and the Vatican have gone out of their way to serve the cause of the anti-war Left in this case (while doing little to clear up any misperceptions or miscommunications you maintain surround their wording) seems to me clear.
Taking things out of context is a primary modus operandi for the left.
Sorry for the following long-winded diatribe.
Catholic moral theory holds that a person cannot judge the moral culpability of another unless taking into account the Intent, Act, and circumstances. The morality of an action can not be discerned by solely looking at the consequences (or just some consequences) since the end does not justify the means.
Consequentialism is not an approved Catholic moral theory. In fact, it's proscribed. Yet in virtually all the published texts from the Vatican since 1990, it was the FEARED consequences of "the use of modern weaponry" alone which has consistently been pointed to as the unacceptible part of war and US led wars in the Persian gulf to be precise.
Let's be clear: if you think Countries A & B are going to use tactical or strategic nuclear weapons, chemical and/or biological weapons and carpet bomb cities indiscriminately... then, of course, their impending war would be categorically immoral.
If you think their conflict will spark armageddon or a world war, cause millions of casualties and permanent and grave damage to ecosystems and infrastructure... then again, such a war would be immoral.
And if country A resorts to war as first option instead of diplomacy...then sure, war could be considered immoral.
In case no one noticed, this is why the US is not massing troops in S. Korea: Seoul, a city of 12 million souls is within artillery range of 10,000 North Korean howitzers and rockets. Any war on the pennisula would be a bloodbath - thus, diplomacy alone is the only moral alternative.
War with North Korea won't spark a world war, but it would result in millions of dead south Koreans.
But the above hypotheticals do not match the reality of the US-Iraq conflict.
Neither Gulf War 1 (approved by the UN Security council and thus in no way WWIII) nor Gulf War 2 (involving 40 nations vs. Iraq) could have sparked a world war, and the stated goals and tactics of American armed might have never included indiscriminate use of NBC weapons or carpet bombing.... in the actual blitz there wasn't even the much feared urban warfare!
Thus, NONE of the "feared consequences" which directly influenced the moral judgement that "this war is immoral" came to pass. One could reasonably assume therefore that the Vatican diplomats were not basing their moral judgments on questions of fact but on myths.
So my question is: what other reasons have Cardinal Martino et aliquid given us for being against the US action?
They have pointed to the need for a UN framework of international law...without mentioning the minor detail that virtually no nation in the UN and none on the Security Council itself agrees with the Catholic view of natural law! Yet without a natural law grounding of positive law - and morality - how could the sum of such nations have moral or legal authority? Wishful thinking is wonderful. "Ojala" "Oh would that it be" is great for day dreams. But you can't make moral judgments on someone else' moral choice because in a fictional parallel universe different choices are possible!
Nor have they mentioned the awful historical record of said "internation body" in the case of Rwanda (in which France and the Rwandan delegation sat on the Security Council and vetoed any proposal to send in UN troops to stop the Rwandan genocide!).
I have yet to hear or read an explaination as to why the US invasion and occupation of Bosnia and Kosovo were OK morally when the same Security Council didn't approve them. In neither case was the US homeland at risk. So what exactly is the principle we are to accept? The US is to be the world's policeman when the Vatican decides it's the last hope a population has? What if the US had been given a green light to invade the Balkans in 1991? We not only would have beaten the Serbs in 30 days, we'd have spared 2 million people from being "ethnically cleansed".
Or is that consequentialist of me?
In reality, the actual US invasion and occupation of Iraq was actually more in tune with natural rights than any UN policy or proposal which as an a priori regarded the Baath regime as legitimate.
And in case no one noticed, International law as we know it was codified or promoted by the Catholic Church in the time of Spain's global empire.... but like civil law, International law is toothless in the face of terrorism and terror-sponsoring states for the simple reason that police forces are civil, not international.
Armies by definition are used internationally... thus while police can arrest individuals, armies invade and occupy countries...essentially ending the man-made "structures of sin" which cause all the moral suffering humanity suffers.
When the UN can't be counted on to act in defense of the USA (or Rwanda, or Kosovo) precisely because half the supposed arbiter of moral authority (security council) have business and ideological ties to the repressive regime, nations who have the ability have the moral responsibility to right the wrong!
If the good Samaritan arrived earlier and saw the man being robbed... he would have been morally justified in arresting or subduing the criminals. That's why the Church has a "just war theory" - to handle such real-life situations.
Thus by the logic of the UN's own founding document which allowed states to defend themselves and the natural law doctrine allowing for coalitions of nations to right unjust situations even without unanimous world approval (i.e. favorable press in Paris, Berlin and Moscow), the US invasion and toppling of Saddam's regime was legitimate.
So if you are not going to give us principled arguments apart from consequentialism and refuse to provide concrete alternatives to war (while condemning the UN mandated embargo to boot), all the platitudes about "solidarity" and the need to pursue peace are meaningless.
Solidarity with the Iraqi people IS what the USA did: it overthrew an immoral regime, and is spending $87 billion of its own money to rebuild an entire nation. Why is this bad again?
If everyone involved were practicing Catholics then everything the Pope and cardinals have said on the matter would make perfect sense. We'd all go on a retreat and behave like good Christians to one another. But unfortunately neither the UN nor the nations in the Middle East are Christians nations or governments.
So what is the United States to do?
We spent 12 years working with other nations, spreading wealth and opportunity to them via globalization... and they respond with a string of terror attacks culminating in 9/11. When some small nation invades or attacks another the UN calls on the US military to provide muscle...but who can the US call when it's attacked itself?