The Bishops' debate and discussion on a document on the Iraq situation was also very interesting. What happened was that on Monday, a Bishop moved that the body consider a statement in light of the very real possibility of war with Iraq. A statement was prepared and the discussion on the issue was held today.

Apparently many of the Bishops were uncomfortable with the document because even though it was for a specific situation, i.e.,the Iraq war, it is setting a precedent for future conferences on the topic of war in general. The document draft said that for the US to go to war in Iraq it needed a constitutional imperitive (no argument on that one), broad consensus among US citizens (some concern), and some form of international sanction, preferably the UN Secutiry council (red flags everywhere).

It would take more time than perhaps necessary to recount the specifics of the debate, but the issue is that if all the conditions are met for just war sans international sanction, is that then an extra requirement? Also the US is a soveriegn nation and is sufficient in itself to determine what constitutes a threat and does not need any form of international sanction at such a time. Cardinal Law, who is chair of International committee was very reluctant to accept these suggestions, he argued that this document clearly refers to this particular situation. Some Bishops pointed out that the 15-0 outcome of the UN security council vote is very rare and it wasn't too long ago that the Soviet Union was our enemy and would have vetoed the US backed resolution . . . then what? A voice vote was taken on this issue and it was to close to call, so they took a stand up vote and the language pretty much remained in there, but the margin was very close.

BTW, the specific motion was made by Cardinal Bevliacqua to strike from the document, language by the Holy See requiring UN approval for war. This was very interesting because almost half the bishops were willing to go against the Holy See. It was doubly interesting because it was a Cardinal and that showed some back bone.

I thought that since it was obvious that many Bishops were not happy with the language, I thought they should have reconsidered the document. Anyway it takes two-thirds majority to pass the statement and we'll know tommorrow morning.

There was also the problem of conscientious objection and selective conscientious objection which is objection to a particular war and this is against the law for service men/women. However, they established that both forms of objection have long been supported by the U.S. Bishops.

I think that they should have held off on considering such a document because it was too hastily written and things are changing so fast in this unfolding saga. Oh well, that's why I am not a Bishop.