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.
Blogs For Victory 
“…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.
Deleted – off topic, slanderous.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“…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?
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.
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?
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
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.
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.