Benedict XVI Calls for Iraqis to Strive for Reconciliation, Peace
March 17th, 2008 at 09:13am Mark Noonan
In response to the shocking death of Archbishop Paulos Faraj Rahho:
VATICAN CITY, MARCH 16, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI made a strong appeal for peace in Iraq today, in the wake of the kidnapping and death of the archbishop of Mosul.
The Pope led the praying of the midday Angelus in St. Peter’s Square after he celebrated Palm Sunday Mass. He began his pre-Angelus address with a tribute to Archbishop Paulos Faraj Rahho of Mosul.
The 65-year-old archbishop was kidnapped Feb. 29 after leading the celebration of the Way of the Cross. His two guards and driver were shot and killed…
…”At the end of this solemn celebration in which we have meditated on Christ’s Passion,” the Holy Father said today: “I would like to recall the late Chaldean archbishop of Mosul, Monsignor Paulos Faraj Rahho, who tragically died a few days ago.
“His beautiful witness of fidelity to Christ, to the Church and his people, whom he did not want to abandon despite numerous threats, moves me to cry out forcefully and with distress: Enough with the bloodshed, enough with the violence, enough with the hatred in Iraq!”
The Holy Father went on to plea for an end to the upheaval caused by the war in Iraq, which began five years ago this week.
He said: “And at the same time I make an appeal to the Iraqi people, who for five years have endured the consequences of a war that has provoked upheaval in its civil and social life: Beloved Iraqi people, lift up your heads and let it be you yourselves who, in the first place, rebuild your national life!
“May reconciliation, forgiveness, justice and respect for the civil coexistence of tribes, ethnic groups and religious groups be the solidary way to peace in the name of God!”
The left, following the lead of dimwitted MSM reports, has chosen to call this a Papal condemnation of the liberation of Iraq - of course, what it really amounts to is a heartfelt call for what all good people want - an end to the hatred, which can only be accomplished as Iraqis rise up and work for reconciliation, justice and peace. Iraqis are doing this, in ever greater numbers, but let us pray that the death of Archbishop Paulos serves as a catalyst to bring all Iraqis of goodwill together for the future of Iraq.
Entry Filed under: War on Terror
37 Comments
1. Joe | March 17th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Mark:
The left, following the lead of dimwitted MSM reports, has chosen to call this blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
Why do you insist on throwing a dig at Dems on every post? Even on posts that really have nothing to do with Dem/Repub?
You are making this blog look more and more foolish every day.
2. Sunny | March 17th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Pope Benedict XVI on War.
“There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq.
To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons
that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups,
today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit
the very existence of a ‘just war.’”
- Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, May 2, 2003.
3. Michael | March 17th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Good thing our government doesn’t take the advice of a religious leader in order to decide how to protect itself. Obama, you listening?
4. Canadian Observer | March 17th, 2008 at 11:50 am
2. Sunny | March 17th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Sunny, Sunny, Sunny.
His Holiness made those comments before he became God’s spokesman on earth. As Mark will testify, he doesn’t feel that way anymore. He is a staunch supporter of the Bush doctrine and any invasion the U.S. carries out will now receive the Creator’s blessing through him.
5. SteaM | March 17th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
I bet you could help out with some of that Iraqi hatred towards the United States by completely reversing the Debaathification giving people their government jobs back. Along with reinstating the Iraqi army that was disbanded. People who are good at what they do and are the professionals should probably be employed and helping to rebuild their country along with defending it by serving honorably in their army.
Instead we told them they were fired, banned from service, and sent them home to their families as unemployed men and woman. Do you think their children, spouces, family, and friends might be a little upset with the United States?
Mark, I just don’t think it’s fair to say that we should end the hatred without identifing the source.
6. OhioOrrin | March 17th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
u leefty eediot heathens…
God Almighty has DIRECTED war against the enemies of the faithful.
War has occured in Heaven itself.
The Holy See recognizes the doctirne of Righteous War like freeing the slaves & defeating the Nazis.
educate thyself…
7. BARRASSO | March 17th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Good to see the perpetrators of this blog follow their political party over their religion, Bush is right God is wrong. Catholics everywhere who followed the republican party over the Pope must have some real issues.
8. Nietzsche-Is-Pietzsche | March 17th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Mark’s silence in responding to us “heathen” leftists is speaking volumes on this subject. He knows he’s going against the leader of his church.
9. Decidenator | March 17th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Mark,
Please link to somebody in the MSM who “has chosen to call this a Papal condemnation of the liberation of Iraq”. I haven’t seen any such claims.
Thanks,
Decidenator
10. MorrisMajor | March 17th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Both popes were agains the war. I know GOP theocons seem to suffer from dementia when their cherished Church disagrees with the party line, but the GOP party line is God’s mandate as all right thinking people know.. I’m sure all the hardline jihad types are going to go beat their swords into pruning forks and find a Christian or Jew to hug.
11. southerner | March 17th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Pope John Paul on the planned invasion of Iraq in January 2003:
SOURCE: http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/01/13/sproject.irq.pope/
Pope John Paul is in line to be Sainted Mark, I guess he’s just another lib-tard in your book.
Also, there was a very depressing story on the BBC yesterday about the fact that of the 1.5 MILLION Iraqi refugees that have fled Iraq to Syria alone, an estimated 20% of them are Christians. Christians have essentially been told to leave Basra in the south and of those that remain the women have taken to wearing muslim veils to disguise themselves, something they never had to do in Saddam’s secular Iraq.
This is occuring five years in to our occupation, only a fool could deny that something tragic has happened in Iraq and it has happened directly due to our invasion and post-war stewardship. Whose administration did all of this occur under again?
The macroeconomic effects of this war, whose total cost is now estimated to be in the range of $3 - $5 TRILLION dollars are unfolding on Wall Street as we speak.
Roll on November, America has a lesson it’s waiting to teach the Republicans.
12. southerner | March 17th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Cardinal Ratzinger’s thoughts on the Iraq war immediately prior to the invasion:
CARDINAL RATZINGER SAYS UNILATERAL ATTACK ON IRAQ NOT JUSTIFIED
SOURCE: http://www.zenit.org/article-5398?l=english
13. southerner | March 17th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Pope says Iraq war threatens humanity
SOURCE: http://www.cathnews.com/news/303/124.php
14. Almiranta | March 17th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Catholic doctrine says that the Pope is infallible on matters of the faith.
On other matters, he is just a guy with an opinion.
15. southerner | March 17th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
No one said the Popes were ‘infallible’ on this issue. What is clear is that they are experts in Catholic morality and they found that the war was not justified according to Catholic morality, simple as that.
16. southerner | March 17th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Mark,
Your little blog has become a complete freak show recently. Watching you justify McCain’s acceptance of a rabid anti-Catholic was bizarre enough, then watching you first ignore the economic turmoils everyone else in America is flipping out about and now vaguely acknowledge that something has to be done to “strengthen the dollar” has also been priceless. (hint Mark - the only proven technique a government can use to strengthen a currency is to increase interest rates - hardly the best course of action in a recessionary economy facing a real estate meltdown).
But none of the above compare to your new low - completely mischaracterizing the position of the leader of your own Church in regard to the Iraq war. Well done Mark, you never cease to amaze.
17. Joe | March 17th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Almiratna: Catholic doctrine says that the Pope is infallible on matters of the faith.
On other matters, he is just a guy with an opinion.
So why is everyone up in arms over Obama’s pastor? Couldn’t you also say that what Obama’s pastor said/says is just a guy with an opinion?
18. Nietzsche-Is-Pietzsche | March 17th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Almiranta has unwittingly exposed the quicksand on which conservative thought is based.
Mark probably agrees with Almiranta on this. The Pope can do away with Limbo in the stroke of a pen but when it comes to the morality of the Iraq War he’s just “some guy with an opinion”.
19. JD | March 17th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
It is absurd that anyone who claims to be a Christian could possibly justify Bush’s war of terror in Iraq. The invasion and occupation of Iraq would seem to be more pleasing to Satan rather than to God.
20. phil | March 17th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Deleted - mindless insults; commenter to be banned….we stood it till we could stand it no more.
21. Michael | March 17th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Warning! Beware of anything a leftist “thinks” about religion or matters of God and Satan. Why did we not hear about this Satan fellow when Al Qaeda was posting beheadings on YouTube? Must be because the beheaders were doing it in the name of their God.
A couple of more things. There was no “war of terror” by the US in Iraq. Our troops did not strap on suicide vests and blow themselves up in civilian marketplaces full of women and children. War, as we fight it, is the effective use of military force against a known enemy. For those particular individuals, I suppose it is pretty terrifying because it is so effective and deadly. But the US military goes through incredible checks and double checks before they take out a terrorist stronghold to minimize the likelihood of civilian damage. The terrorists in the hideout, though, are not afforded that chance, nor should they be. Yes fighting against the US military is a frightening and terrifying experience, at least I hope it is. That will make many think twice before they try to do that. But a war of terror is what Al Qaeda wages and they don’t give a damn about civilians or children or anything but killing. And they justify it with their religion. That’s probably why not too many countries are run by religious leaders and many of the ones that are happen to be dangerous like Iran.
22. Almiranta | March 17th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Joe, have you EVER been able to follow a train of thought?
If you have, please provide a link so we can see where and when—’cause it sure ain’t happened here.
Yes, Jeremiah Wright is just a guy with an opinion. Several opinions, in fact. They include clinging to past wrongs, using them to justify current hatreds, anti-Americanism, rampant hatred for many including this country, white people and Jews, and the belief that he has the right to preach these canards under the pretense that Christian dogma supports them.
Fortunately, Jeremiah Wright is not running for office, so his opinions in and of themselves are not very important—except to illustrate a dependence on a bizarre combination of general hatred and a sense of victimhood which seems to be far more prevalent among people of color than the average white person realized.
What matters is that a man who IS running for office apparently shares those views. At least he has financially supported the man who preaches them from his pulpit, has named this man as a personal friend, mentor, and both spiritual and poltical advisor, and has participated as a member of the congretation which appears to enthusiastically approve of the messages coming from that pulpit.
What matters is that the messages which have been apparently accepted by the primary candidate for the presidency of this nation include messages of virulent racism and hatred of this country.
What matters is that the wife of this candidate, the woman who wants to be First Lady, apparently has accepted and incorporated those hateful messages into her own identity, as illustrated by her comment that she never, in her adult life, felt pride in this country, until it started to support her husband.
What matters is the efforts of this candidate to now separate himself from these vile messages of hatred and racial prejudice—he now claims he did not hear such messages, claims which have been proven false. He seems to think we won’t believe that he and his wife ever discussed the messages of hatred for this country, or of white people. We are supposed to believe he didn’t know about the hateful and bigoted speeches from the pulpit, but just heard loving messages of God and peace.
What matters is not the pastor but the true philosophy of the man who would be President, and what matters is his honesty.
Only a poor silly befuddled Joe could think that there is any connection between a man who believes that his church stands for peace at all costs and one who believes his religion allows him to preach hatred and refusal to forgive as “Christian” teachings—”it says so in the Bible”.
Joe, you’re a joke. Just never funny.
And BTW, if a Catholic was running for the Presidency and the Pope issued such a statement, it would be vital to know if the candidate would factor the teachings of his religious leader into his leadership of the country. While most religious teachings are irrelevant to political leadership, a belief that it is immoral to go war might be seen differently. It would be worth some discussion.
23. Almiranta | March 17th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
NiP, you are as dense as Joe.
The Pope is infallible in matters of Catholic dogma.
He is not infallible in matters other than Catholic dogma.
Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Why do you think you need to try to make this into some kind of “point”?
He can lead the Church in religious matters, and he can offer his opinion on other matters. Only the most rabid knee-jerk oppostional Lefty could try to make more of that than there is.
24. Jones | March 17th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Before any leftists continue to comment on the Pope’s view or the Catholic church’s view on the war, they should first read the following link:
Just War Doctrine
Before you actually use the Catholic Church to support your view, you may want to actually realize what you are supporting.
First of all, ‘the Catechism identifies those who have the burden of evaluating the conditions for whether a particular war is just: “those who have responsibility for the common good.” In modern nation-states, this means the government.”‘
For those leftists who cannot comprehend this, this means that the Pope and the Church can offer guidance but cannot make an infallible decision on the morality of the war.
Finally, from this link, read this paragraph over and over again until it seeks in:
“This means that it is not necessary for the aggressor to strike first. A moral certainty that the aggression will occur is sufficient. Such certainty might be present, for instance, if a party with a history of aggression began amassing troops or munitions.”
Sounds like the Church has no problem with the idea of preemptive war as long as all of the other conditions are met.
25. Some Assembly Required | March 17th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
“…Such certainty might be present, for instance, if a party with a history of aggression began amassing troops or munitions.”
Yes, but herein lies the problem. There was no proof Iraq was amassing troops or munitions before the war started.
Also, what constitutes as a moral certainty and a history of aggression. The vagueness of these statements are completely open to interpretation as is almost everything written in the bible. So I fail to see and validity of your point here.
26. JD | March 17th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Deleted - off topic, slanderous.
27. Nietzsche-Is-Pietzsche | March 17th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
Almiranta
“He is not infallible in matters other than Catholic dogma.
Why is this so hard for you to understand?”
Translation: Religion and the Pope have nothing to say about the world we live in it only refers and applies to itself . It is nothing but a closed system.
28. Decidenator | March 18th, 2008 at 12:10 am
Didn’t Mark say that the pope’s speech on Monday 3/16/2008 was reported as a condemnation? Why are so many people linking to the pope’s condemnations from 5 years ago to support that?
All I want is to see some MSM articles saying that the recent speech was a condemnation, because I wouldn’t want it to look like this blog’s posters are making stuff up.
29. Mark Noonan | March 18th, 2008 at 12:31 am
Decidenator,
I said the left, following the MSM’s idiot manner of report, choose to refer to these statements as a condemnation of our effort in Iraq - when they are nothing of the kind. Pay attention - get a dictionary, if some of the words I use are too complex for you to immediately grasp.
30. Mark Noonan | March 18th, 2008 at 1:20 am
Lefties,
The Catholic Church teaches that whether or not to begin a war is a prudential judgement in the hands of the duly constituted government authorities. The Church will advise and will, of course, always urge that every effort must be made to preserve peace - but when it comes down to it, the Church’s area of responsibility is not “war/no war” but “right/wrong”.
War is not inherently wrong - how a war is fought and for what aims, that will make it right or wrong. Once again, and very typical for left thinkig, you are confusing the thing with the intent of the act - and it is always in the intent of the act where right or wrong are to be found.
A war of conquest would be an intentionally wrong act - a war of defense, even if the information used to decide on the war were wrong, is not a wrong act. President Bush considered it necessary for the United States to engage in war in Iraq - and as his intention was not conquest or any other wrong act, the war itself was not immoral.
As for how we fought it - had we gone in and just blown up everything that stood in our path with no mind towards the deaths of non-combatants, then our intent in the way we fought would have been wrong, no matter how justified our cause was. Given that we have fought with a super-abundance of concern for both non-combatants and enemy combatants, the intent of our method has been fully within Catholic teaching on just war doctrine.
And so, as regards Catholic teaching on war, the US has done no intentional wrong in this war - this still, of course, leaves open to opinion whether or not we should have gone to war, or whether or not we should continue in it - and in this area, the Church makes no judgement, but does advise that all efforts be bent towards securing peace in Iraq as soon as is humanly possible, understanding that the US has taken on the immense moral responsibility of ensuring that Iraq is morally and materially better off post-war than pre.
31. Some Assembly Required | March 18th, 2008 at 9:32 am
“…and as his intention was not conquest or any other wrong act, the war itself was not immoral.”
The road to hell was paved with the best intentions Mark.
Once again you have interpreted religion to match your agenda. Your trying to justify the war in Iraq in the eyes of God. Please sir, can you explain to me how that is any different from the Islam extremist who believe they are waging a Jihad against the west? Which religion is right or wrong, which is more holy?
32. Jones | March 18th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Some Assembly Required,
My point was that some liberals were trying to use the Pope’s words to support their position. I felt it was worthwhile to make sure that they understood what the Pope believed. They may want to think twice of using his statement’s to bolster their argument.
As for your comment about Mark interpreting religion to meet his agenda, I do not think that you have the knowledge of the Catholic faith to make such a statement. In your response to me, you made a reference to the Catechism and the Bible being vague. That shows you have no knowledge of our faith. If you understood our faith and read the Catechism you would realize that Mark was not twisting the Catholic faith to meet his agenda.
Finally, as for your comment about being no different that an Islamic radical waging a Jihad, you probably won’t have that same opinion if an Islamic Jihadist gave you the choice of death or conversion.
33. Some Assembly Required | March 18th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Jones,
Personally I feel trying to use religion to support a political position is ridiculous. I am not a religious man, though, I do consider myself a little spiritual at times. For me it was a realization that since there has been one God there has been killing in his name. I always thought if God is as just and righteous as he is said to be, why would he allow such killing, and in his name non the less… I do not expect you to agree with me, nor would I argue for you too.
Though you are correct that I am no scholar of religion it does not mean I am unaware of how easily the teachings can be interpreted to mean different things. These teachings are not concrete otherwise there would be no killing of innocents in the name of the church and God throughout the years. The fact that teachings are open to interpretation is further proven by extremist factions of all religions.
Mark was indeed trying to justify the war in Iraq through God, I stand by this.
If an Islamic radical gave me a choice between death or conversion I would like to think I’d choose death. Though I would not go quietly. The way I see it, would their righteous Allah demand worship or death? If Allah did than he is not righteous. So, give me death. If theres an after life great, I’ll make amends and have a few questions, if not, at least I’d have dignity when I died. That being said, I’ll flip it vice-versa and ask you…
If a Evangelical Radical Christian gave you the choice of death or conversion what would you do?
34. Southerner | March 19th, 2008 at 3:52 am
Jones -
As far as the Catholic Cathecism not being vague goes, you’re right -
“The concept of a ‘preventive war’ does not appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church,”
- Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger shortly after the United States invaded Iraq and not long before he became POPE Benedict.
SOURCE: http://www.zenit.org/article-5398?l=english
35. Jones | March 19th, 2008 at 8:00 am
Some Assembly Required,
When Evangelical Christians starting waging a Jihad to convert the world forcibly through war, then I will answer that question. For now, I feel pretty comfortable with the fact that Mike Huckabee and other Evangelicals will not be showing up at my door with that question.
Finally, as for using religion to support a political position, I wish more people would. Too many people get into political office and forget their faith (i.e. John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi). I think Mark would agree with me here in saying that you cannot separate your Christian faith from any aspect of your life. That would include politics.
36. Some Assembly Required | March 19th, 2008 at 8:45 am
Jones,
Some evangelicals do view what is going on as a holy war. But my question was more of a hypothetical one towards you where there really has not been any documented forms of terrorism related to evangelicals.
I disagree with you about using religion to support politics. This becomes a very slippery slope which can lead to a theocracy. I’m sure I do not need to mention what kind of problems that brings with it.
I think your faith can give you a set of principles and morals. For example, do unto others… and thou shalt not kill… but as for using it to argue for or against making abortion illegal, global warming, stem cell research, etc.. I am against it. Religion does not provide any concrete facts. I mean the bible is after all heresay (a story written by people who were not there at the time). So to quote it to prove an argument I personally find foolish.
37. types of swords europe&hellip | May 17th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
types of swords europe
CK55 Krupp Steel - Common in some retail swords, this material is the European equivalent of AISI 1055. Also tested it on horizontal