Statement on Iraq
United
States Conference of Catholic Bishops
Washington, D.C.
November 13,
2002
As we
Catholic Bishops meet here in Washington, our nation, Iraq and the world face
grave choices about war and peace, about pursuing justice and security. These
are not only military and political choices, but also moral ones because they
involve matters of life and death. Traditional Christian teaching offers
ethical principles and moral criteria that should guide these critical
choices.
Two months ago, Bishop Wilton Gregory, President of the United
States Conference of Catholic Bishops, wrote President George Bush to welcome
efforts to focus the world's attention on Iraq's refusal to comply with
several United Nations resolutions over the past eleven years, and its pursuit
of weapons of mass destruction. This letter, which was authorized by the U.S.
Bishops' Administrative Committee, raised serious questions about the moral
legitimacy of any preemptive, unilateral use of military force to overthrow
the government of Iraq. As a body, we make our own the questions and concerns
raised in Bishop Gregory's letter, taking into account developments since
then, especially the unanimous action of the U.N. Security Council on November
8th.
We have no illusions about the behavior or intentions of the
Iraqi government. The Iraqi leadership must cease its internal repression, end
its threats to its neighbors, stop any support for terrorism, abandon its
efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction, and destroy all such existing
weapons. We welcome the fact that the United States has worked to gain new
action by the UN Security Council to ensure that Iraq meets its obligation to
disarm. We join others in urging Iraq to comply fully with this latest
Security Council resolution. We fervently pray that all involved will act to
ensure that this UN action will not simply be a prelude to war but a way to
avoid it.
While we cannot predict what will happen in the coming
weeks, we wish to reiterate questions of ends and means that may still have to
be addressed. We offer not definitive conclusions, but rather our serious
concerns and questions in the hope of helping all of us to reach sound moral
judgments. People of good will may differ on how to apply just war norms in
particular cases, especially when events are moving rapidly and the facts are
not altogether clear. Based on the facts that are known to us, we continue to
find it difficult to justify the resort to war against Iraq, lacking clear and
adequate evidence of an imminent attack of a grave nature. With the Holy See
and bishops from the Middle East and around the world, we fear that resort to
war, under present circumstances and in light of current public information,
would not meet the strict conditions in Catholic teaching for overriding the
strong presumption against the use of military force.*
Just
cause. The Catechism of the Catholic Church limits just cause to
cases in which "the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or
community of nations [is] lasting, grave and certain." (#2309) We are deeply
concerned about recent proposals to expand dramatically traditional limits on
just cause to include preventive uses of military force to overthrow
threatening regimes or to deal with weapons of mass destruction. Consistent
with the proscriptions contained in international law, a distinction should be
made between efforts to change unacceptable behavior of a government
and efforts to end that government's existence.
Legitimate
authority. In our judgment, decisions concerning possible war in Iraq
require compliance with U.S. constitutional imperatives, broad consensus
within our nation, and some form of international sanction. That is why the
action by Congress and the UN Security Council are important. As the Holy See
has indicated, if recourse to force were deemed necessary, this should take
place within the framework of the United Nations after considering the
consequences for Iraqi civilians, and regional and global stability.
(Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran, Vatican Secretary for Relations with States,
9/10/02).
Probability of success and proportionality. The use
of force must have "serious prospects for success" and "must not produce evils
and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated" (Catechism,
#2309). We recognize that not taking military action could have its own
negative consequences. We are concerned, however, that war against Iraq could
have unpredictable consequences not only for Iraq but for peace and stability
elsewhere in the Middle East. The use of force might provoke the very kind of
attacks that it is intended to prevent, could impose terrible new burdens on
an already long-suffering civilian population, and could lead to wider
conflict and instability in the region. War against Iraq could also detract
from the responsibility to help build a just and stable order in Afghanistan
and could undermine broader efforts to stop terrorism.
Norms
governing the conduct of war. The justice of a cause does not lessen the
moral responsibility to comply with the norms of civilian immunity and
proportionality. While we recognize improved capability and serious efforts to
avoid directly targeting civilians in war, the use of military force in Iraq
could bring incalculable costs for a civilian population that has suffered so
much from war, repression, and a debilitating embargo. In assessing whether
"collateral damage" is proportionate, the lives of Iraqi men, women and
children should be valued as we would the lives of members of our own family
and citizens of our own country.
Our assessment of these questions
leads us to urge that our nation and the world continue to pursue actively
alternatives to war in the Middle East. It is vital that our nation persist in
the very frustrating and difficult challenges of maintaining broad
international support for constructive, effective and legitimate ways to
contain and deter aggressive Iraqi actions and threats. We support effective
enforcement of the military embargo and maintenance of political sanctions. We
reiterate our call for much more carefully-focused economic sanctions which do
not threaten the lives of innocent Iraqi civilians. Addressing Iraq's weapons
of mass destruction must be matched by broader and stronger non-proliferation
measures. Such efforts, grounded in the principle of mutual restraint, should
include, among other things, greater support for programs to safeguard and
eliminate weapons of mass destruction in all nations, stricter controls on the
export of missiles and weapons technology, improved enforcement of the
biological and chemical weapons conventions, and fulfillment of U.S.
commitments to pursue good faith negotiations on nuclear disarmament under the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
There are no easy answers.
Ultimately, our elected leaders are responsible for decisions about national
security, but we hope that our moral concerns and questions will be considered
seriously by our leaders and all citizens. We invite others, particularly
Catholic lay people -- who have the principal responsibility to transform the
social order in light of the Gospel -- to continue to discern how best to live
out their vocation to be "witnesses and agents of peace and justice"
(Catechism, #2442). As Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers" (Mt.
5).
We pray for all those most likely to be affected by this potential
conflict, especially the suffering people of Iraq and the men and women who
serve in our armed forces. We support those who risk their lives in the
service of our nation. We also support those who seek to exercise their right
to conscientious objection and selective conscientious objection, as we have
stated in the past.
We pray for President Bush and other world leaders
that they will find the will and the ways to step back from the brink of war
with Iraq and work for a peace that is just and enduring. We urge them to work
with others to fashion an effective global response to Iraq's threats that
recognizes legitimate self defense and conforms to traditional moral limits on
the use of military force.
____________________
*"Just war
teaching has evolved…as an effort to prevent war; only if war cannot be
rationally avoided, does the teaching then seek to restrict and reduce its
horrors. It does this by establishing a set of rigorous conditions which must
be met if the decision to go to war is to be mostly permissible. Such a
decision, especially today, requires extraordinarily strong reasons for
overriding the presumption in favor of peace and against war. This is one
significant reason why valid just-war teaching makes provision for
conscientious dissent." The Challenge of Peace: God's Promise and Our Response
(1983), #83. November 13, 2002 Copyright © by United
States Conference of Catholic Bishops