From the WSJ Opinion Archives
THE WESTERN FRONT
This Just In?
The Vatican's views on war are welcome, agree or not.
When Saddam Hussein met with papal emissary Cardinal Roger Etchegaray in Baghdad a few weeks ago, the Iraqi dictator responded to questions about why he wasn't cooperating with United Nations weapons inspectors by drawing a long knife. Holding it for the cardinal to see, he ran his finger along the sharp edge of the blade--it was an obvious gesture at intimidation.
But Mr. Etchegaray wasn't stricken with fear. He simply reached into his pocket and drew out a rosary.
"We Christians have weapons too," the cardinal told the dictator.
The Vatican is clearly not afraid of Saddam. And Pope John Paul II is well aware of the evil of Saddam's regime.
It is both interesting and significant then that the pope objects to President Bush's intention of invading Iraq if Saddam does not disarm. The pope's position naturally carries with it a certain amount of moral weight. His opposition automatically puts Mr. Bush on the moral defensive in justifying this war.
That, anyway, is how the press plays it. Reporters know the president needs the Catholic vote in 2004. Playing up the pope's objections as a moral declaration against the war thus has the makings of a good political story. But this misses the point.
War is justifiable, under just war theory, if all reasonable steps are taken to avoid it, if it is conducted with reasonable caution to minimize civilian casualties and if there is a reasonable chance of success. It also acknowledges that political leaders--who have a moral obligation to defend their people from attack--often have no choice on whether to go to war.
"No to war," the pope told his diplomatic corps recently. "War is always a defeat for humanity. . . . I say this as I think of those who still place their trust in nuclear weapons and of the all-too-numerous conflicts which continue to hold hostage our brothers and sisters in humanity." The pope went on to say that "war cannot be decided upon, even when it is a matter of ensuring the common good, except as the very last option and in accordance with very strict conditions, without ignoring the consequences for the civilian population."
A statement published by the Catholic News Service is a little more categorical: "The Vatican maintains that there is no moral justification for a war against Iraq. The pope and Vatican officials argue that a war on Iraq would be disproportionate to the threat, potentially catastrophic in its effects on civilians and counterproductive to the global fight against terrorism."
The pope is against war, but admits it is justifiable within "strict conditions." Conditions that Mr. Bush is arguably doing everything within his power to meet: He went to the U.N., giving Saddam the means and the time to disarm himself. What's more, America's precision weapons will minimize the number of Iraqi civilian casualties.
The pope is right to say "war is always a defeat for humanity." But this universal principle is no vindication for Saddam Hussein. It is the Iraqi dictator who has caused this defeat by pushing civilized nations to the brink of war.
The pope's reference to nations that "place their trust in nuclear weapons" isn't so much a jab at the United States--the Senate, after all, just last week unanimously approved a treaty with Russia to reduce the two nations' nuclear arsenals. Rather it is aimed at Iraq, Iran and North Korea--the axis of evil--and any other nation bent on nuclear blackmail.
All this is partly the reason why the Vatican has been careful to argue that the coming war is immoral, stopping short of "declaring" it so. That is an important distinction, for it recognizes that--as just-war theory spells out--it is President Bush who must bear the moral obligation of defending his nation. The Vatican doesn't carry that burden; its role is to offer advice.
That advice, at times, seems to be free flowing. Cardinal Pio Laghi met with President Bush last week and told him to get further U.N. approval before acting on Iraq. Vatican officials have condemned the war saying it might inflame a billion Muslims against the West. But these objections are political, not moral, arguments. The Vatican has no special standing in making political arguments.
When I met up with him, Mr. Novak had recently returned from Rome where he'd debated that this is a just war in front of Vatican officials. He's now back in Rome teaching a short course to theology students. He told me that Vatican officials may be staunchly against war, but judging from e-mail conversations he's had with them, they also are taking great care not to declare categorically that the coming war is immoral.
That is about as far as President Bush should want the Vatican to go. Not having the church in favor of invading Iraq helps clarify that this is not a war of religious domination. And a call for all nations to adhere to moral principles can't hurt in the broader effort against terrorism.
Mr. Miniter is assistant editor of OpinionJournal.com. His column appears Tuesdays.
