from the editors
To say that the pro-Russian pope is an oversimplification, the Vatican secretary of state emphasizes: his condemnation of the war is unequivocal. But the Catechism of the Catholic Church provides a legitimate defense
In the war between Russia and Ukraine, as in all conflicts, disarmament is the only appropriate and decisive answer, but asking the person attacked to surrender their arms, rather than asking those who attack them first, does not seem right . This is what Cardinal Secretary of State Pietro Parolin says in the Limes interview and thus clearly interferes in the debate about arms deliveries.
His point of reference is the encyclical Pacem in terris of St. John XXIII: It’s about general disarmament and effective controls. But as far as the use of arms is concerned – as Parolin specifies – the Catechism of the Catholic Church provides for a legitimate defense. Nations have the right to defend themselves when attacked. But this legitimate armed defense must be exercised under certain conditions, which the catechism itself enumerates: that all other means of terminating the aggression have proved impracticable or ineffective; that there are good reasons for success; that the use of arms does not cause evils and disturbances more serious than those which must be eliminated. Finally, the Catechism affirms that the power of modern means of destruction plays an important role in evaluating this problem. For these reasons, Pope Francis affirms in the encyclical Fratelli tutti that war can no longer be thought of as a solution because, stresses the Vatican Secretary of State, the risks are likely to always outweigh the hypothetical benefits ascribed to it.
So that there are no misunderstandings, the cardinal warns: The Church for Peace. The gospel – stresses the Vatican Secretary of State – proclaims peace, promise and the gift of peace. All its pages are full of it. The Church follows the example of her Lord: she believes in peace, works for peace, fights for peace, witnesses to peace and seeks to build it. In that pacifist sense. And to say that the pro-Russian pope, a simplification that does not take into account the fact that Pope Francis condemned Russian aggression against Ukraine from the first moment, never put the aggressor and the attacked in the state or appeared on it same level, same distance away. In fact, Parolin is a little startled by this simplification: the pro-Russian Pope condemns the race to rearmament and the use of large sums of money to buy new and increasingly powerful weapons, instead of using the available resources to fight hunger and thirst in the world, to provide health care , welfare, education, the ecological transition? Why does the pro-Russian Pope invite us to reflect on what has led to these disturbing and dangerous developments, reminding us that coexistence based on military alliances and economic interests is a coexistence with feet of clay? Why is the pro-Russian Pope demanding to apply the peace scheme instead of continuing the war scheme? Parolin asks. Rather, the Pope was “ambiguous,” so to speak, that is, close to those suffering the damaging effects of this war, first the civilian casualties, then the soldiers and their families, including the mothers of many young people and very young Russian soldiers, one of whom they never heard of their children who died in the fighting.
For Parolin, therefore, certain criticisms are impolite and even a little rude, perhaps linked to the Cardinal’s statement that the Pope is not a Western cleric. Rather, with the same appeal of Paul VI. to the United Nations on October 4, 1965: Never again war!.
Aug 9, 2022 (Modified Aug 9, 2022 | 10:48 am)
© REPRODUCTION RESERVED