New Sisyphus's Last Criticism.

Is one I find to be more valid than the other criticisms. This was the Pope's opposition to Gulf War I and Gulf War II. Opposition to the former leaves little doubt about the Pope's position as he still was in command of his full faculties. The later I doubt the Pope's abilities to fully comprehend what was going on. I do not believe he would have approved but I do believe he would have been less willing to be used as he was by Tariq Aziz and Saddam.

Say what you will, the United States had the tougher case to make. Iraq was just "minding its own business" and boom it is attacked and its government removed. This case is not even easy here in the USA and all too many on the left here still hope for an Iraqi terrorist revival (sing it to the tune of "Bad Moon A Rising" "I see bad blood boiling").

However, Jesus is called "The Prince of Peace" not the "King of Kick &^^" so what is the Church going to do? While rare, things have changed in this world in a peaceful fashion. The fall of Communism did not require violence on a highly organized and wide scale. India went independent without widespread violence. Perhaps given the time the same sort of thing would have happened in Iraq.

In any event I am not aware that anything that came out in opposition to the Iraq war amounted to more than the opinion of an Important man in the world. That is, there was never a statement that carried the weight of an encyclical on the matter.