Posted on 11/18/2002 7:33:28 PM PST by Land of the Irish
Cardinal Ratzinger has no authority to invent a new multi-lateral constraint to the Church's Just War teaching. Nor does Cardinal Ratzinger himself claim such authority. Therefore Cardinal Ratzinger's statement invoking the necessity of the U. N. in this matter cannot be accurately described as an exercise of his legitimate authority. It is therefore either an error in his judgement, or his personal opinon.
He lost, but had he done nothing to defend the temporal power of the papacy, the office would have come to exist entirely at the suffrance of the Italian government.
<> This dubious website quotes very few of Cardinal Ratzinger's words as a pretext to launch an assault against legitimate authority. Seattle Catholic frequenlty engages in attacking the Pope and the Magisterium. They should have referenced a particular speech or speeches and provided sources and/or links. I have my doubts about EVERYTHING issuing from this website.
I don't accept your characterisation as to what this isssue is about which is one reason I have posted the links I have. You, and others, are making hard decisons about this issue with darn few words of the Cardinal to go on.
Speaking just for myself, I find it grotesque and sickening that so many of my Catholic brethern are so quick to oppose the Cardinal and the Pope.
Reagan could speak about an 11th Commandment - Thou shalt not attack another Republican - but he was "old school." In these new times, we Catholics are quick to attack the Hierarchy. It is too bad for Cardinal Ratzinger and the Pope they are not registered American Republican office holders. Mebbe if they were, they'd be treated with more respect.<>
This is a really weird contention on your part. It's not simply my "characerisation" of what this issue is about. The entire article spawning this thread is specifically written in regard to that single statement. Re-read it if you're still having trouble accepting it.
If you doubt Cardinal Ratzinger ever said it, that's fine. But why not be clear about it in the first place, if that's your position? Instead you seem to have gone to some lengths to defend this statement, and now have changed your mind.
You, and others, are making hard decisons about this issue with darn few words of the Cardinal to go on.
I and others have been careful to cite the specific statements we are disagreeing with, despite your attempt to inaccurately broaden our criticism. If the Cardinal never said these words, he will be utterly vindicated because our criticisms are about specific statements, not the Cardinal himself. If he did make the statement in question, our criticism remains valid.
Reagan could speak about an 11th Commandment - Thou shalt not attack another Republican - but he was "old school." In these new times, we Catholics are quick to attack the Hierarchy.
Your misunderstanding of Reagan's political strategy (that is what his "11th commandment" was about) matches yor misunderstanding of criticism toward the Hierarchy. Despite your insistence, not every criticism is an "attack." When the Cardinal, and Archibishop or even the Pope himself makes an error, it is not an "attack" to correct it.
Treating members of the Hierachy as if they are always right about everything, and don't any Catholic DARE to suggest otherwise, is to enact the Protestant caricature of the Catholic Hierarchy so often refuted by Church apologists.
Oh is it? Here is an interesting article in which Cardinal Ratzinger seems to disagree with you:
"It is important not to attribute simplistically what happened on September 11 to Islam," the Cardinal replied to journalists. "It would be a great error. It is true that the history of Islam also contains a tendency to violence, but there are other aspects, too: a real openness to the will of God. It is thus important to help the positive line, which does exist in its history, to prevail and to have sufficient strength to win out over the other tendency." But could the currently debated war against Iraq compromise the efforts that are being made in this direction? Ratzinger replied that political questions are outside his sphere of competence, but he explained his ideas with great precision. "Does this war," he was asked, "have a moral justification?" "In this situation, certainly not," answered the Cardinal. "There is the United Nations. That is the proper authority for making the decisive choice. It is necessary for the community of peoples to decide, not an individual power. And the fact that the United Nations are looking for a way to avoid war seems to me to demonstrate sufficiently that the damage would be greater than the values that one seeks to save." The Cardinal did not hide his conviction that "the UN can be criticized" from various points of view, but "it is the instrument created after the war to provide a coordination, also from the moral standpoint, of politics," he pointed out. The journalists continued to press him, asking the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith if the Catechism of the Catholic Church permits "preventive war" in exceptional cases. "The concept of preventive war does not appear in the Catechism," Ratzinger stated, adding in clarification, "We cannot simply say that the Catechism does not justify war, but it is true that the Catechism has developed a doctrine which on one hand does not deny that there are values and populations that must be defended, in certain circumstances, and on the other proposes a very precise doctrine on the limits of these possibilities." (taken from Avvenire, September 21, 2002, p. 25).
(emphasis mine. source url: http://www.comunione-liberazione.org/articoli/eng/1/ratz210902.html
It seems the Cardinal did indeed assert a multi-lateral constraint upon just war. However, as I surmised above, he recognized that he was not speaking within his sphere or authority when doing so. He was providing his own opinion.
It is necessary for the community of peoples to decide, not an individual power.
With the following statement from the Catholic Encyclopedia's (a source you yourself cite quite often) entry on War:
The right of war lies solely with the sovereign authority of the State. (from III. THE POSSESSOR OF THE RIGHT OF WAR)
<> I reread i talready. It stil stinks. That citation of Cardinal Ratzinger was merely the pretext for a diffuse attack<>
If you doubt Cardinal Ratzinger ever said it, that's fine. But why not be clear about it in the first place, if that's your position? Instead you seem to have gone to some lengths to defend this statement, and now have changed your mind.
<> I havent changed my mind.<>
You, and others, are making hard decisons about this issue with darn few words of the Cardinal to go on. I and others have been careful to cite the specific statements we are disagreeing with, despite your attempt to inaccurately broaden our criticism. If the Cardinal never said these words, he will be utterly vindicated because our criticisms are about specific statements, not the Cardinal himself. If he did make the statement in question, our criticism remains valid.
<> WE will disagree<>
Reagan could speak about an 11th Commandment - Thou shalt not attack another Republican - but he was "old school." In these new times, we Catholics are quick to attack the Hierarchy. Your misunderstanding of Reagan's political strategy (that is what his "11th commandment" was about) matches yor misunderstanding of criticism toward the Hierarchy. Despite your insistence, not every criticism is an "attack." When the Cardinal, and Archibishop or even the Pope himself makes an error, it is not an "attack" to correct it.
<> Your arrogance is astounding. A disagreement exists over how Catholic Doctrine/principles ought to be applied or reasoned about. You disagree so they are wrong...yeah, right<>
Treating members of the Hierachy as if they are always right about everything, and don't any Catholic DARE to suggest otherwise, is to enact the Protestant caricature of the Catholic Hierarchy so often refuted by Church apologists
<> While your approach merely apes those protestants you reference.<>
<> Once again, the Cardinal is correct and you are incorrect
Email the poor confused man. He doesn't know what he is doing...<>
That is a fair criticism. Let me see what else I can find.
Cardinal Ratzinger Says Unilateral Attack on Iraq Not Justified: Gives Personal Opinion; Favors Decision from U.N. -- Zenit News Agency
TRIESTE, Italy, SEPT. 22, 2002 (www.Zenit.org).- Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger does not believe that a unilateral military attack by the United States against Iraq would be morally justifiable, under the current circumstances.
According to the prefect of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith -- who acknowledged that political questions are not within his competence -- "the United Nations is the [institution] that should make the final decision."
"It is necessary that the community of nations makes the decision, not a particular power," the cardinal said, after receiving the 2002 Trieste Liberal Award. His statements were published Saturday in the Italian newspaper Avvenire.
"The fact that the United Nations is seeking the way to avoid war, seems to me to demonstrate with enough evidence that the damage would be greater than the values one hopes to save," the cardinal said.
He said that "the U.N. can be criticized" from several points of view, but "it is the instrument created after the war for the coordination -- including moral -- of politics."
The "concept of a 'preventive war' does not appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church," Cardinal Ratzinger noted.
"One cannot simply say that the catechism does not legitimize the war," he continued. "But it is true that the catechism has developed a doctrine that, on one hand, does not exclude the fact that there are values and peoples that must be defended in some circumstances; on the other hand, it offers a very precise doctrine on the limits of these possibilities."
The Vatican official appealed to the three religions derived from Abraham to offer the Ten Commandments as the means to dissuade terrorists.
"The Decalogue is not the private property of Christians or Jews," Cardinal Ratzinger said. "It is a lofty expression of moral reason that, as such, is also found in the wisdom of other cultures. To refer again to the Decalogue might be essential precisely to restore reason."
It appears that the original article in Avvenire was picked up by Zenit News Service, and from there has been printed in many other Catholic publications, from both the right and left.
Are you stating your affirmation of the notion that a sovereign nation is not the proper authority for making a decision about whether or not to wage war? Even though the Cardinal himself prefaced his remarks by saying this matter was outside his sphere of competence? Even though it disagrees with the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on the matter?
Cardinal Ratzinger at least prefaced his remarks by stating that this was outside his sphere of competence. In other words, if he is in error it is his own error, not that of the Church.
I'm disturbed that some seem to be ignoring this distinction, even though Cardinal Ratzinger himself called the reporters' attention to it.
I have many flaws. Thank you for attempting to call one to my attention.
A disagreement exists over how Catholic Doctrine/principles ought to be applied or reasoned about. You disagree so they are wrong...yeah, righ
The disagreement exists not just between myself and Cardinal Ratzinger. It exists between the Cardinal's statements on the matter and existing Church doctrine, which states that decisions of war belong to soverign states, not to multi-national bodies.
If you think this sort of error is beyond the capacity of a Cardinal to make, you are out on your own. That's not a teaching of the Catholic Church. If you think obedience insists we remain silent in the face of error, you are again on your own. Catholic doctrine teaches no such thing. If you find this notion "Protestant" you demonstrate poor understanding of the history of our Church which, unlike Protestant propagansists depict and you seem to agree with, has a rich tradition of open debate and inquiry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.