But Bush's hawkish approach has won the support of some of the nation's most prominent Catholic theologians, who argue war with Iraq is not only morally permissible, but also a moral necessity.
So why, in their view, would a U.S. war with Iraq be just? "Because it is a just cause, mainly the disarmament of a regime which cannot be permitted to continue its defiance of the international community. And because we are at a last resort," said George Weigel, senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center here.
Last resort is a key component of the just war tradition, the framework through which most Christians, both Catholic and Protestant, consider issues of war and peace. Last resort is often understood as the final in a series of steps a nation must take before waging war. But it can also be construed to mean that war is the only option available in a given situation, and not simply the last option that should be tried. "It seems perfectly clear after 12 years of Iraqi defiance that the only way to achieve the disarmament of Iraq is through regime change," said Weigel. "And because it seems to me that the good that can come out of this for the people of Iraq, for the region, for the cause of world order, is substantial."
Weigel's argument cuts against the position of many Catholic leaders in the Vatican, who have argued for the continuation of weapons inspections and the building of an international consensus on Iraq. Though they acknowledge that disarming Iraq is a just cause, Vatican officials have said a U.S.-led war to do so would be unjust.
Pope John Paul II has argued forcefully that the war would be "a defeat for humanity" and visibly maneuvered to prevent it from beginning. But these measures may not be enough, according to Michael Novak, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C. Novak spoke at the Vatican recently in favor of war to remove Saddam Hussein from power.
He did so at the invitation of the U.S. ambassador to the Vatican. "The pope is no pacifist. He has not closed the door (to a military intervention in Iraq). But some in the Vatican have definitely said it would not be a just war. Some bishops and others have agreed. Clergymen these days are pronouncing on these things pretty regularly. Their judgment in such matters is not always very good," said Novak.
Novak said the decision to wage war, and whether that war would be just, should be left to elected officials, such as Bush, and not religious leaders. The job of religious leaders, he said, is to make clear the doctrinal issues and moral considerations at stake.
Novak went to the Vatican, he said, to make his argument public, not to change the minds of any officials there. "It would be silly to think you could be more Catholic than the pope or bring up things the leadership hasn't heard of in past years. But I did want to go and make a dignified and calm presentation of the various moral considerations," said Novak.
The pro-war position of Weigel and Novak, two thinkers often tagged with the "neo-conservative" label, is a definite minority within the leadership of the Catholic religious community. Some observers question whether it's even possible to justify neo-conservative views in light of traditional Catholic teaching, which emphasizes the role of international institutions, such as the United Nations, in governing the world community.
"The American Catholic neo-conservative agenda does not track very well with the global position of the church, even on its more conservative side, because the global position of the church is always internationalist and always multilateralist, said Robin Lovin, a professor of ethics at Southern Methodist University. "The issue there is: Can you offer an interpretation of traditional Catholic social teaching that emphasizes one set of issues rather than the others? I don't think so."
One supporter of the neo-conservative approach to Iraq is the Rev. Richard John Neuhaus, a Catholic priest and editor of First Things, a journal of religion and politics. Neuhaus, like Weigel and Novak, works within the just war framework and thinks a strong case can be made for the justness of war with Iraq. He takes issue, however, with the way the Bush administration initially framed the war debate. "One of the things that confused this, and the Bush administration is at fault for this, some in the administration in the National Security statement of last fall talked about preventive war. That, I think, is a big mistake.
"What that would suggest is that some power would simply see a danger anywhere, or see a hostile regime anywhere, and would then have the right to say, `Well, it's going to be a problem at some point in the future, therefore we're going to take it up,"' he said.
In Neuhaus' view, the United States is responding in a defensive manner to an aggression that has been under way since 1991. "All of this is in response to the failure of Iraq, after the 1991 war, to abide by the peace settlement, which required that Hussein disarm," he said. Neuhaus believes self-defense, but not preemption, is morally justified.
Despite his support for the U.S. policy in Iraq, Neuhaus approaches the prospect of war with great sadness. Underscoring the tragedy of the situation, Neuhaus thinks whether war is waged, the situation is fraught with potentially awful consequences. "Let's face it. It's a terrible situation in which we find ourselves. The consequences of acting are potentially terrible. The consequences of not acting are potentially even more terrible," he said.
After a pause, he continued, "A very unhappy situation."
