AmP quoted in National Catholic Register today

Today's headline piece in the National Catholic Register, "Ron Paul Draws Passionate Support", by Charlie Spiering features two quotations from yours truly:

Paul stands alone among the Republican presidential candidates as one who voted against the Iraq war, stating that it was unconstitutional, since it never received a congressional declaration of war. If elected president, Paul promises to withdraw troops from Iraq.

Thomas Peters, who runs the blog American Papist, contributes to a blog called Catholics for Ron Paul. He noted that since the Vatican hasn’t spoken magisterially about the Iraq war, Catholics can continue to debate the issue. “He [Paul] has philosophical and rational reasons for why he thinks that American involvement isn’t the best choice,” said Peters. “He examines the question using principles of just war theory, specifically speaking about the Christian tradition of a just war,” he added.

Paul mentioned the Vatican’s comments regarding the Iraq War when paying tribute to John Paul II’s legacy. “The Pope’s commitment to human dignity, grounded in the teachings of Christ, led him to become one of the most eloquent spokesmen for the consistent ethic of life, exemplified by his struggles against abortion, war, euthanasia and the death penalty,” he said on the floor of the House of Representatives on April 6, 2005, four days after the Pope’s death.

Although initially a supporter of the death penalty, Paul changed his position after studying the issue throughout his political career.

Some religious voters remain skeptical about a vote for Paul, as his strict interpretation for the Constitution pits him against federal legislation to ban prostitution, drugs and homosexual “marriage.”

Peters said, “Ron Paul voted against the marriage amendment, but only because he thought it was non-constitutional, not because he doesn’t think marriage isn’t a union of a man and a woman.”

Ron Paul addressed the March for Life yesterday, but sadly I missed it. There were several Ron Paul supporters at the March, some of them carrying "Ron Paul for Life" banners.

Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade) endorsed Dr. Paul for President yesterday.

U.S. Bishops Tackle the Iraq Issue

Plenty of material to read:

• USCCB: Bishops call for bipartisan cooperation and responsible transition in Iraq
• CNS: Bishops finalize Iraq statement, urge new directions in war, policy

This amid reports that "More than half of Christians have fled Iraq since 2003" and Christians in Iraq would also be the "main victims of attack by Turkey" should that happen.

Perhaps more helpful is the accompanying "Questions and Answers on the War in Iraq" prepared by Bp. Thomas G. Wenski, Chairman of the Committee on International Policy" (scroll down the page).

My observations about the document:

• It is important for the U.S. Bishops to speak out on the issue of the Iraq War, and that they bring to bear the Church's teaching on these matters to U.S. policy makers.
• The statement that "Our nation must focus more on the ethics of exit than on the ethics of intervention" respects the sovereignty of Iraq but must also be contextualized within full a consideration of which strategy will improve humanitarian conditions in Iraq.
• Clearly, no one is happy with the situation in Iraq, that contribution of the document is nothing new.
• The two noted contributors to political paralysis ("Some policy makers seem to fail to recognize sufficiently the reality and failures in Iraq and the imperative for new directions. Others seem to fail to recognize sufficiently the potential human consequences of very rapid withdrawal") seem very sound.
• The statement explicitly mentions collaboration with Iran and Syria. While such a collaboration would be ideal, I don't see how it is necessarily a practical course.
• The statement calls for a pledge to not "seek permanent military bases in Iraq, nor control over Iraqi oil resources", a rather specific mandate.
• To its credit, the statment says "The suffering of the Christian community has a particular claim on our hearts and consciences." I think this dimension has not been receiving inadequate attention.
• A notable absence in the document - and I realize my observation could be taken as controversial - is a discussion of the religious/cultural causes of discord in Iraq and the Middle East in general. One could get the impression that U.S. forces "hold all the cards", so to speak, and retain ultimate moral responsibility for the humanitarian crisis. I think in addition to admonishing U.S. policy, more mention could be made of the embedded terrorist elements in Iraq (and Iran), and perhaps some guidelines could be given on how to address these enemy forces who are the primary cause for continued instability in the region. If Iraq were a united peaceful nation, American withdrawal would be far simpler.

Regarding the Q&A:

• In answer to question 4: "What was the position of the Church and the Bishops’ Conference prior to the Iraq war?", the response states: "Prior to the war, Pope John Paul II, the Holy See, and USCCB repeatedly expressed grave moral concerns regarding a possible military intervention in Iraq and the unpredictable and uncontrollable negative consequences of an invasion and occupation. The Holy See and the Conference remain highly skeptical of the concept of "preventive war." I remain open to seeing the documentation on that, but if my memory serves, "repeated ... grave moral concerns" were not vocally expressed at the time. I think this response lays itself open to charges of "I-told-you-soism". Similarly, I'm not aware of an entrenched teaching that views the concept of "preventative war" skeptically. Certainly, the stakes for a just preventative war are higher, but in an age of nuclear and biological weapons, I think the legitimate situations for preventative war will increase, not decrease. Of course, preventative individual military interventions is the more restrained and preferably path. While the answer to Question 11 elaborates on what they mean by this skepticism, the quotation from #501 of the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church seems to improperly use the term "preventative war" to discuss what is not legitimate "preventative war," thus begging the question. Of course unjust preventative war is not moral, but there is such a thing as preventative war that is moral, and that would be one where "a clear proof that an attack is imminent." The question about how imminent an attack must be remains one of prudence.
• One observation is very precient: "In addition, terrorism cannot be fought solely with military methods; we must address the poverty, powerlessness and injustice that terrorist leaders exploit to gain recruits."
• Regarding the question of religious freedom, the Q&A states "Post-war Iraq should be a nation where people of different religions and ethnicities can live together." Again, I think this obligation falls more on the shoulders of the Iraq people and Middle Eastern governments in general than the U.S. forces. No mention is made of the need for the Arab nations to spontaneously enact such legislation (I'm not aware of efforts). U.S. presence, if anything, is currently the best hope for religious freedom.
• Question 11 addresses the wider instabilities of the region, but makes no determinations regarding the endemic cultural and/or religious causes of this instabiliy. Have the U.S. Bishop's explicitly discussed this elsewhere, or do they for some reason consider it impolitic? It remains hard for me to see how the Bishop's can fruitfully criticize U.S. policy in the region without simultaneously identifying the unique challenges obtaining to a Western democracy intervening in the affairs of Middle-Eastern Islamic nations.

Okay, what do you think?

Follow-up: Kidnapped Catholic priests freed in Iraq

Pope Benedict prayed for their release last Sunday.

And this Sunday, Deo gratias, they have been freed:

Two Catholic priests kidnapped in Iraq have been freed and are in good health, a cleric at the residence of Cardinal Emmanuel III Delly in Baghdad said on Sunday."I talked to the hostages. They are well.

They say they were treated like guests," said the cleric, who asked not to be identified.

He said the priests were celebrating their release with a service at a church in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, where they were taken hostage amid reports they were being held for a $1 million ransom.

A Vatican spokesman confirmed their release.

... and in the Vatican, much rejoicing.

Pope urges release of two priests kidnapped in Iraq

Reuters:

Pope Benedict appealed on Sunday for the release of two Catholic priests kidnapped in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, with reports in Iraq saying they were being held for $1 million ransom.

The Pontiff told pilgrims at his weekly Angelus address in St Peter's Square that two priests of the Syrian Catholic Church had been taken "and are now threatened with death".

"I appeal to the kidnappers to release these two priests quickly and I underline once again that violence cannot bring relief to this tense

Rocco has a full translation of the Pope's Sunday angelus.

CNS covers Aussie bishops' opposition to preemptive war

Catholic News Service:

The Australian Catholic Bishops' Conference said it did not believe the war in Iraq is justified and warned against participating in another pre-emptive strike with the United States.

While admitting that Australia's alliance with the U.S. is an "important element of Australia's international security arrangements," the bishops questioned whether the doctrine of pre-emption was consistent with Catholic teaching on just war.

The bishops stressed that war cannot be judged only by its consequences.They said Australians "would fail in our duty ... if we were again to take military action without our own thorough assessment of its morality and prospects, and without broad international approval."

"Obligations to an ally cannot include an obligation to engage in war that is not justified," the bishops said.

From what I've read, the possibility of a preemptive strike against Iran by the end of the current administration or during a Hillary Clinton administration is significant. I'm trying to keep track of what local bishop conferences are saying both about the legitimacy of the current war in Iraq and about the application of just war principles to the future of U.S. relations with Iran.

Related: Jeff Miller covers CNS's recent woeful coverage of Dutch dominican liturgical abuses.

Update: Pope 'refused meeting with Rice'

I don't think you can really make that much of it.

Update: Since the story is getting some traction (slow news day), I'll comment.

From the AFP:

Pope Benedict XVI refused to meet US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in August, saying he was on holiday, an Italian newspaper reported Wednesday.

Rice "made it known to the Vatican that she absolutely had to meet the pope" to boost her diplomatic "credit" ahead of a trip to the Middle East, the Corriere della Sera daily reported without citing its sources.

She was hoping to meet the pontiff at his summer residence of Castel Gandolfo at the beginning of August, it said.

"'The pope is on holiday' was the official response," the paper said....The newspaper said the pope had rejected all meetings with political representatives during August.

1) It was August, and the pope really does take a break from meetings during the entire month (as does most the Vatican). I do, however, seem to remember that he broke that general rule for some special situation last year, but at the moment I can't recall the details. (anyone?)

2) If Condi requested a meeting just to "boost her diplomatic credit" than it's not at all surprising the pope would decline. Asking for advice or offering support is one thing. Photoshoots are another.