[piasa]

Well, I'm a Lutheran and not one to find being on the bad side of a Roman Catholic Pope unusual, and as a MO synod Lutheran being on the wrong side of the World Council of Churches, the reddest organization out there in the religious world, is most certainly not unusual.

But I am compelled to point out that there may be a higher purpose in this, IMHO, "wrong" decision of the Vatican.

The terrorists, both Osama, the Iranian clerics, and Iraq's none-too-religious Hussein... all want the arab world to see this as a Holy War.

That's because they have no hope of energizing Muslims any other way, except perhaps with the Palestinian issue- which is why we see both bin Laden and saddam hussein and Imad Mugniyah all too willing to stir up the palestinians. They need some other issue to raise the rabble and get them to topple the authorities in these various Arab nations where they would like to see the current regimes overthrown. the issue remaining to them is Jihad, or Holy War, and they need to get the mobs out there to see not just the Israelis as a threat, but also Christianity.

Bin Laden has tried desperately to get Arabs to see America as a crusader nation, and he is having a hard time of it because many arabs know this country and want to come here because we don't have "religious police" and the Imams' fatwas have no power here. So bin Laden has to overcome the apathy or even the positive viewpoints people have about America in order to make the average Muslim feel as if he personally could become a target of "Crusaders" out to destroy their Ummah.

But how can he spin it to the Muslim world that Christians are waging a Holy War on them instead of the other way around, if the single largest Christian entity they know opposes America's policy? How can bin Laden claim that the crusaders are joining the zionists against Islam if America is in defiance of the Roman Catholic Church, a large chunk of christianity? And the average Muslim doesn't know the World Council of Churches is a joke and not reprisentative of all Christians, either, so if they see those jokers tsk-tsking us, it only undermines Osama bin Laden's message since it looks like America is in defiance of "the Church."

It may or may not be intentional, but that's the effect of the Pope's position. The Pope won't stop us from completing the Gulf War, since it must come to pass and it is right that it come to pass; but wittingly or unwittingly he is helping to deny bin Laden his Holy War by making us look like the loose cannon.

And by denying bin Laden this propaganda victory, he may be denying him new recruits and so, this war may be far less costly and a good deal shorter than if it turned into a full fledged religious war and drew in people who otherwise wouldn't feel threatened enough to fight us.

[Smile-n-Win]

It may or may not be intentional, but that's the effect of the Pope's position.

The problem is that it also has an unfortunate side effect--to discredit the Catholic Church in the eyes of many people!

[MEG33]

I find your thoughts very interesting. Here we reject the Holy War concept and there its all they talk about. The National Council of Churches sounds like the left wing of the dems at times.

[wildandcrazyrussian]

Piasa --

I think your analysis is quite astute. As an Orthodox Christian, I have had reason to mistrust some initiatives undertaken by JPII over the years (such as his recent visit to the huge mosque in Damascus Syria which used to be an Orthodox church 1400 years ago, I believe). But any attempt to reduce murderous "reprisals" by Muslims against Christians in the Middle East and Indonesia after a war starts can only be good.

Since most such Christians historically since 610 AD have been "Eastern" Christians (in the Orthodox Church, the extinct Nestorian Church, the Assyrian Church, etc. who used to number in the hundreds of millions where now there are but a handful), it only makes sense to make it clear that a secularized Western nation bombing a secularized Middel Eastern country is not a religious war as such.

I think that the primary reason that the British Empire made such a mess of things in the Middle East (militarily defending the Ottoman Empire's Muslim tyranny against the Orthodox Christians, such as in 1855-56 and 1878, for example) is precisely because there has never yet been a Protestant nation annihilated by the Muslim armies. They can feel safe behind the buffer. There will never be a "religious war" as the Muslims believe is already happening, until the day that a nuclear bomb or other horror takes out a Western European city.

[Paul_B]

I remember when the War on Terror was initially launched, one of the Pope's unspoken reasons for not publicly endorsing it was so as not to exacerbate tensions for believers in Moslem lands. There are plenty of vulnerable believers not only in the ME, but in SE Asia as well. I found that to be a very wise and commendable consideration, and I think this remains a major goal of his.

But I think the Pope now takes his position and its advocacy way too far. It quite seems that he does not appreciate the danger an aggressor like Hussein would be once imbued with nuclear capability, which surely is on the horizon. Resultantly, he, who more than anyone is the curator of Just War Theory, disallows the validity of the concept of a preemptive Just War. It is exactly there that I believe he has erred philosophically.

In short, he's wrong on this one. Probably sincerely so, but nonetheless wrong. And now he's attempting to press the point, in spades.

[Domestic Church]

" it only undermines Osama bin Laden's message since it looks like America is in defiance of "the Church." "

Very good point...it is both a deflective psych ops and a philosophy operation for the Pope to color his opinion this way and if he knows he will be able to save innocent lives by grandstanding (and cloaking some action by this) he surely will take this position.

Interesting to note that the al queda operations big cheese caught this weekend was the one who orchestrated the recent(90's) attemped bump off of the Pope.

[RnMomof7]

But I am compelled to point out that there may be a higher purpose in this, IMHO, "wrong" decision of the Vatican.
The terrorists, both Osama, the Iranian clerics, and Iraq's none-too-religious Hussein... all want the arab world to see this as a Holy War
....But how can he spin it to the Muslim world that Christians are waging a Holy War on them instead of the other way around, if the single largest Christian entity they know opposes America's policy? .

This point was made on another thread to me and I believe it is valid. As most know I am no defender of the Pope ..but I agree that in this time the Pope does give "cover" to the war even if he does not mean to

Rom 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to [his] purpose.

[Happygal]

Piasa..thank you for this thought provoking post.

As a Catholic, I'm sorry that the Holy Father is engaging in this, at a time when our Church is already hurting very deeply from many scandals.

Ivan, read piasa's post..I'd be interested in your opinion.

[MadIvan]

This argument is compelling in some ways, but here is my problem with it - it assumes that the Arab street has a rational perception of cause and effect. Were that so, then they would be going out of their way not to harm French targets - but we know from Bin Laden's rantings and the attack on the French tanker off the coast of Yemen, that there are no rational distinctions: infidel are infidel, and they must be destroyed.

Thus it is a Holy War in spite of the Pope - as the attackers on Iraq and Al Qaeda are Christian, that's all that matters.

Regards, Ivan