Nevertheless, reading between the lines, the statement is quite a rebuke to the liberal Congressmen who initiated the process that brought it into being, who were clearly hoping the Bishops would teach voters during this election year that good Catholics vote for "peace" in the same way that good Catholics vote to defend the right to life. No such luck:
We do not have specific competence in political, economic and military strategies and do not assess particular tactics, but we can, as teachers, share a moral tradition to help inform policy choices. Our Catholic teaching on war and peace offers hard questions, not easy answers. Our nation must now focus more on the ethics of exit than on the ethics of intervention.
The grave moral concerns we and others raised prior to the war now give way to new moral questions. In the current situation the traditional principles of “noncombatant immunity” and “probability of success” suggest these questions: How can we minimize the further loss of human lives? What actions will do the most good and least harm? What elements of a responsible transition are attainable? How can they be achieved? What actions should be avoided? How can decision makers take into account both the realities and setbacks in Iraq and the likely human consequences of rapid withdrawal?
Which is the way a large committee says the debate about whether we should have gone to Iraq is moot, and it's irresponsible to call for a quick withdrawal. Which is what the bishops have been saying for quite some time (see last year's statement). Will the press understand the USCCB has basically repudiated the Iraq policy of every Democratic presidential aspirant?
