VATICAN REJECTS PACIFISM, BUT DEBATE SIMMERS

UNCLAS VATICAN 004778

SIPDIS


DEPT FOR EUR/WE (Levin)

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PREL PHUM VT
SUBJECT: VATICAN REJECTS PACIFISM, BUT DEBATE SIMMERS

--------------
Summary
--------------


1. (U) Contrary to the popular perception of a pacifist
Vatican generated by the Holy See's opposition to the Iraq
war, senior Vatican officials have consistently
acknowledged the legitimacy of war as a last resort and
have recently gone out of their way to make clear that the
Holy See is not pacifist. The Holy See's Permanent
Observer at the UN in Geneva cited the obligation to disarm
the aggressor when the human rights of citizens are under
threat. Likewise, speaking at a Catholic Social week in
Camaguey, Cuba, Bishop Giampaolo Crepaldi of the Pontifical
Council for Justice and Peace warned against the excesses
of pacifism. Crepaldi's comments reinforced private
reassurances the Embassy has received from senior officials
that the Vatican continues to adhere to its traditional
doctrine on war and peace issues: that war is a
regrettable but sometimes necessary aspect of human
existence. There is no doubt that the Holy See and the
Pope himself oppose war. But the Vatican's well-known
preference for peace can make its voice all the more
important when it does conclude that military action is
justified. End summary.

--------------
Rejecting Pacifism
--------------


2. (U) Affirming the realism reflected in many Papal
statements and official Church doctrine, the Vatican's
Secretary for the Council of Justice and Peace restated the

SIPDIS
Holy See's rejection of pacifism as a utopian response to
war and violence. Speaking at a Catholic Social week in
Camaguey, Cuba, Bishop Giampaolo Crepaldi said that
pacifism, while generally a positive good, runs the risk of
overstatement. Crepaldi, the number two in the Council,
implied that a total rejection of all forms of violence
would be neither helpful nor realistic in today's world.
He pointed out that Pope John Paul II could never be called
a pacifist. As proof, he noted the Pope's call for
humanitarian intervention during the Balkan wars, his
consistent appreciation of the sacrifice and valor of those
killed in defense of their homelands, and the fact that he
has never condemned wars "in a single sense."

3.(U) The Holy See's Permanent Observer to the UN in
Geneva, Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, delivered a similar
message recently, citing Pope John Paul's Message for the
2000 World Day of Peace. In this message the Pope
addressed the issue of "humanitarian intervention,"
observing: "Clearly, when a civilian population risks
being overcome by the attacks of an unjust aggressor and
political efforts and non-violent defense prove to be of no
avail, it is legitimate and even obligatory to take
concrete measures to disarm the aggressor. These measures
however must be limited in time and precise in their aims.
They must be carried out in full respect for international
law, guaranteed by an authority that is internationally
recognized and, in any event, never left to the outcome of
armed intervention alone."

--------------
Pope John Paul II: No Pacifist
--------------


4. (SBU) The comments by Tomasi and Crepaldi come at a time
when some in the Church have sought to advance the view
that war in today's world can no longer be considered just.
Such a view, however, goes well beyond the Pope's thinking,
and it is likely that Crepaldi's comments, which would have
been cleared internally, were aimed at setting the record
straight. Certainly, the Pope rejects war as a tool of
international policymaking. On December 16, in fact, in an
address to new ambassadors, he lamented the continuing
presence of the "scourge of war" and reiterated his appeal
"to all men and women of good will to definitively lay down
arms and to commit themselves to...dialogue." The Pope
emphasized that "violence never serves the cause of
peoples, nor their development." However, both he and the
Holy See's traditional just war doctrine have consistently
recognized that when faced with violence, civilized peoples
sometimes have no choice but to face the last resort of
responding in kind. In the period immediately preceding
the 2003 military action against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the
Vatican's Secretary of State, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, as
well as official papal spokesman Joaquin Navarro Valls,
were at pains to stress that Pope John Paul II and the Holy
See were not pacifists, but rather peacemakers.


5. (SBU) More recently, the Pope has affirmed that states
have the obligation to defend themselves against terrorism.

In his Message for the 2004 World Day of Peace he spoke of
"the necessary fight against terrorism" and acknowledged
the potential necessity of the use of force for "repressive
and punitive operations." Similarly, the Pontiff's calls
to "disarm the aggressor" at the time of the conflicts in
Bosnia, Kosovo, and later in East Timor hardly reflect the
sentiments of a pacifist. The position of the Catholic
Church documented officially in its catechism is clear,
regarding war as a regrettable but sometimes necessary
aspect of human existence. Catholic doctrine upholds the
right to self-defense for individuals and nations.
Citizens are required to participate in the defense of
their nation in wartime. Members of the military are
described as "servants of security and freedom of nations."

--------------
Prelates Pushing Anti-War Views
--------------


6. (U) Ironically, Crepaldi's comments will be seen by many
as at cross-purposes with the views of his boss, Justice
and Peace Council President, Cardinal Renato Martino, who
recently asserted that war constituted a modern evil
"infinitely greater than the eventual goods" it can procure
for the victors. Martino, who tends to offer his personal
views in his frequent contacts with the media, added that
war had become ever more absurd and intolerable because of
the increased destructive power of weapons. He also
condemned what he termed the human and economic costs of
war. Martino said it was a fundamental ethical imperative
to put an end once and for all to war, which he described
as "pre-human."

--------------
Battle Over Pacifism Not over
--------------

7.(SBU) Although the Pope's view is clear to members of
the Curia, this will not likely put an end to debate within
the Holy see about the proper role of warfare in the modern
world. Members of the Vatican hierarchy do not hesitate
to speak their minds on political issues -- as opposed to
theological issues where the Pope's word is law. As a
result, the public perception of the Holy See's position on
war and peace is likely to remain clouded by ongoing
freelancing by senior Vatican officials. Such freelancing
is tantamount to U.S. Cabinet officers giving their
independent opinions on U.S. policy issues, and will
continue to feed the media's penchant for emphasizing
statements by cardinals or other Curia members at variance
with traditional doctrines. Thus, even as the Pope
reaffirms his rejection of pacifism, contrary views will
continue to be publicly aired.

--------------
Comment
--------------

8.(U) The Pope's opposition to the war in Iraq left a
widespread impression of a Vatican opposed to war at all
costs, even though the Pope's opposition at the time
carried careful caveats and ultimately recognized the right
of legitimately-elected governments to make prudential
judgments about war. Church leaders with more absolute
anti-war views have sought to take advantage of the Pope's
opposition to the Iraq war to build support for a shift in
the Church's doctrine toward a complete condemnation of all
war. While this struggle will continue, the Holy See's
practice on war and peace issues will more likely reflect
the realism -- rooted in centuries of diplomatic activism
on the world stage -- that led it to approve of the U.S.
action in Afghanistan and to calls for humanitarian
intervention to ward off greater loss of life in Timor and
Kosovo. Likewise, the Vatican's abhorrence of religiously-
inspired terrorism -- violence the Pope has described as
"an act of blasphemy and a perversion of religion" -- will
spur it to remain a strong partner in the war on terror.
In fact, its well-known preference for peace makes its
voice all the more important when it does conclude that
military action, whether against terror or to resolve a
humanitarian catastrophe, is justified.

Nicholson


NNNN