The Church and Iraq

by Editor · January 8, 2003

It is unfortunate that most news reports of Pope John Paul�s Urbi et Orbi Christmas and New Year�s messages did not go beyond the hackneyed phrase of the pontiff having issued “a call for peace”.

Had the various editors cared to examine just what kind of peace the pope has in mind, they might have found much of substance�particularly so at a time when the US administration seems to be spoiling for war in the Middle East.

In his Urbi et Orbi address, the pope called on political leaders to “extinguish the ominous smouldering of a conflict which, with the joint efforts of all, can be avoided.” He did not refer to Iraq specifically, but it is clear that the spectre of a new Gulf War was very much on his mind.

In a clear indication of prevailing thinking in the Holy See, the pope�s comments coincided with warnings by Vatican officials that the Iraqi disarmament crisis need not necessarily be resolved by military means. The president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Archbishop Renato Martino, has rejected the notion of a “preventative war”, saying it was doublespeak for a war of aggression.

Indeed, the Bush administration has not convincingly outlined what precisely such a proposed war would prevent. In the absence of an explicit validation of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, one may speculate whether interests other than defence inform the United States� urgency to act against Iraq.

As we report this week, the Vatican�s foreign minister, Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran, has expressed indignation at comments from the Bush administration that seem to pre-empt the outcome of the current UN weapon inspection in Iraq. His counsel that “it would be better to remain silent and await the final results of the investigation [into Iraq�s weapons capacities] before making judgments” is wise, and should ring around the world.

Archbishop Tauran rightly points out that penalisation of Iraq, if unavoidable, should be undertaken by the international community acting in concert, not by one or two members acting without an international mandate. Even then, it must not be taken for granted that the recourse need involve war, with all its dire consequences for Iraq�s civilian population.

Pope John Paul, in his message for World Peace Day on January 1, might well have expressed his wariness of American unilateralism when he proposed the establishment of a new international organisation that might ensure peace by more participatory and accountable political decision-making. While the Holy Father did not spell out the detailed form such an organisation would take, he seems to have in mind a reconciliatory forum aimed at finding peaceful solutions. The United Nations, dominated by US interests, does not seem to be such a body.

That lack of international collaboration on the question of Iraq (and other conflicts, notably in the Holy Land) only serves to entrench global divisions. Archbishop Tauran points out that a war on Iraq “could provoke a type of anti-Christian, anti-western crusade” by Islamic militants. It is safe to presume that such a war would not only fuel al-Qaeda�s zeal, but also alienate less hostile branches of the Muslim world. Is whatever the US hopes to gain from such a war worth the price?

When the Catholic Church rejects war on Iraq, as it has done now without equivocation, it is with a long view towards the political consequences, and with the immediate dimension of compassion for those innocent people who are likely to suffer.

We pray that President George W Bush and his close ally British Prime Minister Tony Blair, both self-professed Christians, hear the Church�s counsel, and find an alternative path to realising their objectives in the Middle East.