Any pre-emptive, unilateral use of military force to overthrow the government of Iraq cannot be justified at this time, the U.S. bishops told President Bush. The bishops urged Bush to step back from the brink of war and help lead the world to act together to fashion an effective global response to Iraq’s threats. In a letter to Bush, the bishops used Catholic just-war criteria to argue that unilateral strikes against Iraq would differ from the use of force against Afghanistan, which was part of a broader war against terrorism in response to attacks on the United States on Sept. 11, 2001.
Given the precedents and risks involved, we find it difficult to justify extending the war on terrorism to Iraq, absent clear and adequate evidence of Iraqi involvement in the attacks of Sept. 11 or of an imminent attack of a grave nature, the bishops said. The letter, dated Sept. 13 of this year and released in Washington on Sept. 17, was signed by Bishop Wilton D. Gregory of Belleville, Ill., president of the U.S. bishops’ conference, on behalf of the bishops’ administrative committee.
In the bishops’ letter, Bishop Gregory said the Catechism of the Catholic Church limits the just-war criterion of just cause to cases in which the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations is lasting, grave and certain. He asked: Is there clear and adequate evidence of a direct connection between Iraq and the attacks of Sept. 11 or clear and adequate evidence of an imminent attack of a grave nature?... Is it wise to dramatically expand traditional moral and legal limits on just cause to include preventive or pre-emptive uses of military force to overthrow threatening regimes or to deal with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction? Should not a distinction be made between efforts to change unacceptable behavior of a government and efforts to end that government’s existence? He said the moral credibility of force depends on legitimate authority, and as such, decisions of such gravity require compliance with U.S. Constitutional imperatives, broad consensus within our own nation, and some form of international sanction, preferably by the U.N. Security Council.
He added that war against Iraq could result in dangerous and unpredictable effects upon Iraqi civilians and Middle East stability, in violation of the criteria of the probability of success and proportionality. Would...force succeed in thwarting serious threats or, instead, provoke the very kind of attacks that it is intended to prevent? he wrote. How would another war in Iraq impact the civilian population, in the short and long term? How many more innocent people would suffer and die, or be left without homes, without basic necessities, without work?
Would the United States and international community commit to the arduous, long-term task of ensuring a just peace or would a post-Saddam [Hussein] Iraq continue to be plagued by civil conflict and repression and continue to serve as a destabilizing force in the region? he asked. Would war against Iraq detract from our responsibility to help build a just and stable order in Afghanistan and undermine the broader coalition against terrorism?
Just over half of all Americans have organizational ties to a religious body, but nearly as many remain without a church home, according to the results of a religious census conducted every 10 years. The study, Religious Congregations and Membership in the United States: 2000, was released on Sept. 18 by the Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies and the Glenmary Research Center. The data showed that 141.4 million Americans50.2 percent of the total U.S. population of 281.4 millionwere associated in the year 2000 with one of the 149 religious bodies participating in the study, which for the first time included Muslims and some other non-Christian groups in its latest totals. Ten years ago, when the study was called Churches and Church Membership in the United States: 1990, about 55 percent of the U.S. population were affiliated with a religious congregation.
At 62 million, Catholics were the largest single denomination represented in the United States in 2000, although Protestants grouped together were more numerous at 66 million. Catholics also experienced one of the largest increases in membership, 16.2 percent. Only the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (19.3 percent), Christian Churches and Churches of Christ (18.6 percent) and Assemblies of God (18.5 percent) had larger increases since 1990. Most mainline Protestant denominations experienced declines.
The data for the study was gathered not by the U.S. Census Bureau, which dropped its question on religion in the 1950s over concerns about separation of church and state, but by the religious organizations themselves. Some groups, such as Jehovahs Witnesses, do not want to participate in the census and therefore are not counted. Some -- such as Buddhists, Hindus and certain Orthodox and black Baptist churches -- only provided information on the number of congregations, not the number of adherents.
The report found:
66 million Protestants in 222,000 congregations.
Pope John Paul II’s affirmation of humanitarian intervention, mentioned by Drew Christiansen, S.J., (8/12), contrasts with the U.S. policy of acting only if it is in its strategic interest. East Timor showed the tragic gulf between the two.
The East Timorese voted overwhelmingly for independence in a United Nations-mandated referendum, believing as they courageously went to the polls that they were under the protection of the world community of nations and, certainly, its superpower, the United States.
Instead, they were sheep to the slaughter, as militia gangs wrought carnage that Americans watched on television news for weeks.
The United States not only failed to act, fearing to offend Indonesia (though the United Nations had never recognized the bloody annexation of East Timor), but blocked Australia, East Timor’s near neighbor, from acting.
When the combat-ready Australian troops were finally allowed in as peacekeepers, the game was over. East Timor was a land of corpses, rape victims and rubble.
As we preen ourselves on the moral high ground in the world arena, we ought to look in the mirror. In East Timor and elsewhere we have been complicit in the loss of thousands of innocent lives.
(Rev.) George P. Carlin
The call for an end to the Cuban embargo by John W. Donohue S.J. (Of Many Things, 7/15) is well intended, but should not be considered uncritically. Indeed, there are two considerations, both legal and moral, that should give us pause: collaboration and ideological apartheid. Is it moral for American tourists to stay at hotels where Cubans are not allowed, even if invited by foreign friends or relatives? Is it right for a baseball team to play in Cuba when tickets are doled out to government supporters, and Cuban players are barred from baseball because of suspicions that they are politically disloyal or potential defectors? Is it right for an intellectual to speak at a university, when dissidents have been expelled from the faculty and are not allowed to attend? Should American investors be allowed to build a factory where the politically incorrect are denied jobs or higher paying positions? Ideological apartheid is as objectionable as racial apartheid. Though we do not make the owners of a sweatshop in Asia responsible for poverty in the countries where they invest, we should make them responsible for conditions and wages in their factories. So too we should simply require that American companies and travelers not collaborate with political apartheid through their commercial or investment activities. And this rule should not single out Cuba, but should be applied to all foreign investments, while keeping an eye on those countries where violations are most likely to occur. That way the United States would not be imposing its values on other countries, but on its own citizens and companies.
Pedro J. Saavedra