From the WSJ Opinion Archives
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
The Pope's Legions
John Paul was wrong about the Gulf War too.
If there were any doubts left about where Pope John Paul II stands on war with Iraq, they ought to have been answered by his characterization of any military effort against Saddam as a "crime against humanity." That message has been effectively communicated to the world. Alas, the pope has not enjoyed similar success in providing the context that would put this conclusion in proper moral perspective.
We appreciate the irony of a secular American business paper presuming to instruct a pope on the finer points of Catholic teaching. But it strikes us that the U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See, James Nicholson, had it right when he said that the Catholic catechism distinguishes between lay and clerical roles, placing the responsibility for weighing the morality of a war with public authorities.
Now, we appreciate too that the Holy Father's own statements have been more nuanced than the oft-intemperate language used by other Vatican officials, not to mention the Vatican's official and semi-official publications. But it strikes us that precision is also a moral obligation. As a teacher, the pope surely bears special responsibility not simply for his own words but the interpretations and framework offered by men and institutions under his control.
The pope has stated that he is not a pacifist and that Iraq must disarm. But those trying to parse these comments do so in the context of Vatican Radio bashing "American unilateralism"; the Jesuit monthly Civilta Cattolica attributing President Bush's motive to obtaining "sure access to Iraqi petroleum"; or the Vatican's secretary of state, Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran, talking about "a war of aggression."
We have been here before. In his otherwise positive biography of the pope, George Weigel notes that the pontiff struck an "almost apocalyptic" note in the run-up to the war provoked by Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Today the Vatican argues that no war against Iraq can be just without the imprimatur of the Security Council and an overt act of aggression on Baghdad's part. But back in 1991 we had both--and the Vatican's opposition was equally impassioned.
Certainly there exist legitimate concerns, from the consequences of war for Iraq's Christian minority to the church's reluctance to appear to be sprinkling holy water on what the Islamic militants incessantly refer to as latter-day "crusaders."
But as America's archbishop for military services, Edwin O'Brien, reminded his priests in a recent letter, the catechism says that "the evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good"--that is, to lay authorities and not clerical leaders. Can anyone honestly say that the Vatican has communicated this crucial point with anywhere near the force or enthusiasm with which it has communicated its opposition?
Over the course of a pontificate that helped bring down the Berlin Wall, Pope John Paul II has made his greatest impact with the blazing focus he has brought to moral truths and teachings. As long-time admirers of his, we are thus saddened to watch these principles, advertently or not, being clouded rather than clarified.
