«No to “preventive
war”»
John Paul II, Ratzinger, Tauran, Ruini. The
position of the Church has been reiterated through the mass media. The
crisis with Iraq has to be resolved within the framework of the United
Nations
i
Is the war that has been announced against Iraq a just war? “All I can do is invite you to read the Catechism,” Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger replied with a mischievous grin, “and the conclusion seems obvious to me…” For the guardian of Catholic orthodoxy, the obvious conclusion is that the military intervention that is taking shape “has no moral justification” (September 20, interview on the Italian national news program). The Catechism, Ratzinger explained, does not embrace a pacifist position a priori; indeed, it admits the possibility of a “just war” for reasons of defense. But it sets a number of very strict and reasonable conditions: there must be a proper proportion between the evil to be rooted out and the means employed. In short, if in order to defend a value (in this case, national security) greater damage is caused (civilian victims, destabilization of the Middle East, with its accompanying risks of increased terrorism), then recourse to force is no longer justified. In light of these criteria, Ratzinger refuses to grant the moral status of just war to the military operation against Saddam Hussein. The Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith added another consideration: “Decisions like this should be made by the community of nations, by the UN, and not by an individual power.”
It is perhaps paradoxical that in this grave international crisis the Holy See finds itself in a diplomatic and political position closer to the Social-Democratic Germany of Schroeder and the orthodox Russia of Putin than to the America of George W. Bush. But this is precisely the situation. And the Church, fortunately, does not let herself be imprisoned by partisan logic. Rather, she is one of the few “powers” free to have as her sole criterion the passion for truth and compassion for all men, especially the poorest and most defenseless.
The law of the strongest
The Vatican’s first perplexities were expressed, very prudently, on September 9 by the papal “foreign minister” Jean-Louis Tauran. In an interview with the Italian newspaper Avvenire, on the eve of the commemoration of the attack on the Twin Towers, the French-born diplomat insisted that the Iraqi crisis be resolved within the sphere of the United Nations, without unilateral acts on the part of America. “If the international community were to judge the recourse to force to be opportune and proportionate, this should take place on the basis of a decision made within the framework of the United Nations, after weighing the consequences for the Iraqi civilian population as well as the repercussions that it could have on the countries of the region and on world stability; otherwise it would simply be a case of the imposition of the law of the strongest. But it can legitimately be asked if the type of operation that is being considered is an adequate means for bringing about peace.”
Archbishop Tauran’s doubts were echoed a week later in Cardinal Camillo Ruini’s inaugural speech to the permanent council of the Italian Episcopal Conference, which met in Rome on September 16. His words were awaited. Last year, he had in some way justified on a moral plane the military operation “Enduring Freedom” against the terrorist groups of Al-Qaida in Afghanistan. Ruini now affirmed that he agreed with the need to fight terrorism also by subjecting Iraq to “more attentive and rigorous vigilance.” But he pronounced a first clear “No” to the war and the so-called “Bush doctrine.” “This does not mean that the road of preventive war can be undertaken, which would have unacceptable human costs and very grave destabilizing effects on the entire Middle East, and probably on all international relations.” The alternative to war, according to Ruini, must be sought in the weapon of “dissuasion exercised within the sphere of the United Nations.”
Good news
Thus, his was an appeal to the UN to regain the political initiative, forcing Baghdad to accept the return of the UN inspectors in order to ascertain (and subsequently to defuse) the possible threat posed by Saddam’s armaments. The next day, on the night of September 17th, the Iraqi dictator made the surprise announcement that he unconditionally accepted the return of the inspectors. “A delaying action,” huffed the White House, which had already mobilized its land, sea, and air troops and was disappointed because Iraq’s move upset its plans. The Pope’s practically immediate comment took a completely different tone. At the end of the general audience of the faithful on Wednesday, September 18th, John Paul II spoke of the “good news” about the “renewal of collaboration between Iraq and the international community.” And he prayed to the Lord to “enlighten the leaders of the nations” and “open up and sustain the glimmers of good will,” in order to “avert the winds of war” that had begun blowing again in the Middle East. Two days after these clear words from the Pope came the interview with Cardinal Ratzinger that we mentioned above.
There is also something unsaid in the Church’s public distancing from military intervention in Iraq. It is bitterness, or rather, disdain for the disparity in the treatment given in recent months by the powerful of the earth to the question of the “Holy Land.” A strong and expeditious manner is used to force Iraq to respect the UN resolutions, while indifference and immobilism meet Israel’s lack of respect of the UN resolutions concerning the Palestinians. Is this the law of the strongest again? The director of the Vatican press office, Navarro Valls, let himself make these very considerations in an informal conversation that improperly ended up on the front page of an Italian newspaper on September 20th. But the sense of this injustice which is tearing Jesus’ land apart is deeply felt by the Pope and those responsible for Vatican foreign policy. And it contributes to the skepticism with which they view the latest decisions by the White House. The Pope has repeated numerous times in recent months: the just fight against terrorism cannot be separated from the commitment to remove the most “scandalous” situations of injustice on the international level. He had in mind first and foremost the Palestinian situation. His is the truest and most realistic position. It is the opposite of an abstract preaching based on good sentiments or a position of pure principle. It is realistic, because it takes all the factors into consideration. Whoever does not savor the taste, which is sometimes bitter, of this freedom of judgment, of this sacrosanct independence from the propagandistic machine of power, loses something of the extraordinary experience of the Christian event.
