There’s a fair amount of angst on the right about Mel Gibson’s repudiation of the “War” on “Terror”, almost a sense of betrayal. The prevailing view seems to be that Mel is trying to win back favour in Hollywood by adopting a fashionable stance. Their handwringing and mockery is puzzling, because Mel is a staunch Roman Catholic, and the highest profile, most vocal critic of the “War” was Pope John Paul II.
John Paul II spoke out repeatedly, clearly and consistently against the current invasion of Iraq. He sought at every opportunity to distance the Catholic Church from Bush’s idea of the manifest Christian destiny of the United States, and consistently argued against the sanctification of the “war” as an apocalyptic clash of Christian civilization against Islam.
Both John Paul II and the current Pontiff, then Cardinal Ratzinger, were scathing on the notion of Bush’s invasion as a “just war”. In an interview with Zenit on May 2, 2003, Cardinal Ratzinger said: “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.”
It’s not surprising that a Catholic actor happens to agree with his Pope on the immorality of Bush’s invasion. The surprise is that so many American and Canadian Catholics haven’t. Or perhaps not. Harkening back to yesterday’s discussion on tribalism, we see here the clash of two conflicting sets of tribal values; confronted with two irreconcilable ideologies, it’s interesting to note that so many Catholic conservatives side consistently agree with and cite their Pope ONLY when he obligingly provides a useful endorsement for their political program on issues like gay marriage or abortion.
The assumption of course is that I adhere to the idea that the Roman Catholic Church should be making political policy or that Pope John Paul’s criticism of the War in Iraq was valid. In particular, John Paul and Cardinal Ratzinger did not agree with the idea of a pre-emptive war and that avenues should be taken through the U.N.; which of course they were.
Neither John Paul II nor Pope Benedict had the benefit of intelligence documents that the United States and Britain had. Even if they did it is hard to imagine that they would have backed the war for the reasons you mention.
However, I am not one that would rather sit back while American’s and American interests are targeted. For those of you on the left who forgot to pay attention there is an increasing amount of documentation being uncovered from Hussein’s regime that indicates that Saddam not only had illegal weapons programs but that he actively worked to hide them in the days leading to the war.
Not only that, one document indicated that Saddam was hiring suicide bombers to attack American interests as early as 6 months before 9/11.
There are many more documents along the same lines that talk about weapons programs, poison gases and attacks on American interests. Please don’t take my word for it and discount this as right wing propaganda; you can go read them for yourself.
You do realize that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was not the secular panacea that the left is painting it out to be. Saddam actively shipped people out to be killed and dumped in mass graves, men women and children. Not even babies were spared being shot in the head. Some estimates indicate that Hussein was responsible for 2 to 3 million deaths during his reign of terror. But that’s OK. As long as he’s not Bush, right?
The silly idea that Mel Gibson is a “staunch†Roman Catholic is just that, silly. Staunch Roman Catholics are not anti-Semites. Even if Mel were though that wouldn’t stand for much in this discussion because my views on this discussion are not formed through the lens of the Catholic Church.
Finally, the Catholic Church and the Pope are not playing up to Hollywood as Mel Gibson is. They have a role in speaking their moral conscious about war as they are the moral guide for millions of Catholics throughout the world. Not all Catholics agree with every word they speak yet they can appreciate and understand the basis from which they speak.
Mel’s comments are simply there to advocate for Mel, get people to talk about him and his movies, make money (gasp, should make the left cringe), and get back in the good graces of the Hollywood establishment who shunned him after making the Passion of the Christ and even more when he went on his anti-Jew rant. It worked and now all that anti-Jew ranting is forgotten. Seems pretty clear to me.