This morning I find this article, which points out the error in my perception as to where the Holy Father stands and what he says.
My apologies to you, dear Pippin, for my thoughtless remark yesterday.
I've already apologized to the Pope.
The times they are confusin'...)
... His [Moussaoui's] possible transfer to a military tribunal reminds us that, regardless of Iraq, we already have a major and just war on our hands, against Islamic terrorists. If there is a significant connection between Iraq and terrorists an attack on Iraq could be justified as an aspect of that just war. [My emphasis]
The "just war" theory is a method of moral reasoning to prevent war and to minimize its effects if it does occur. The requirements for jus ad bellum, justice in going to war, are: proper authority, just cause and right intention. The Catechism lists further details: "[T]he damage inflicted by the aggressor must be lasting, grave and certain;" war must be a last resort, with "all other means impractical or ineffective;" "there must be serious prospects of success;" and "the use of arms must not produce evils graver than the evil to be eliminated." Jus in bello, justice in fighting a war, requires proportionality and discrimination (non-combatant immunity from intentional attack). [Some will say that none of these criteria have been met. I think they have all been met.]
Pope John Paul II has emphasized, with reference to Iraq, that war "is always a defeat for humanity" and cannot be waged "except as the very last option and in accordance with very strict conditions." On Nov. 13, the U.S. Catholic bishops opposed the Iraq war in a major but guarded statement. , [My emphasis] They affirmed the fact-dependent nature of the just war criteria and the deference owed to the government's evaluation. The bishops said
"We offer not definitive conclusions, but our serious concerns and questions. People of good will may differ on how to apply just war norms especially when the facts are not altogether clear. [My emphasis] Based on the facts that are known to us, we find it difficult to justify the war against Iraq, lacking clear and adequate evidence of an imminent attack of a grave nature."But then the bishops conceded:
"There are no easy answers. Ultimately, our elected leaders are responsible for decisions about national security." [My emphasis]Similarly, the Catechism notes that the "evaluation" of the conditions for a just war "belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good." [My emphasis]
A preventive war is not intrinsically wrong, but it is more difficult to justify. It is debatable whether the administration has disclosed convincing evidence that Iraq aids, or is about to aid, the terror network or that Iraq is an imminent threat to the United States. But, as the bishops implicitly acknowledge, the public does not have a right to disclosure of facts where that would be contrary to national security. The governmental decisions here are entitled to the benefit of the doubt [My emphasis] up to a point of incredibility that does not appear to have been reached in this case. One factor is that we no longer have an adjudicated liar in the White House. [Hah!!]
In any event, all of this shows the wisdom of the framers of the Constitution in putting the decision on declaring war in the hands of Congress rather than in one man. The President has a war power, to enable him, as James Madison said, "to repel sudden attacks." [My emphasis] Congress, unwisely but probably validly, has authorized the President to decide whether to make war on Iraq. So war or peace will be decided by one man.
I think Prof Rice's evenhanded and thoughtful words exhaust the topic.
Apology accepted! :^)
Now I have to apologize to you for jumping on you like I did.