The President of the Australian Catholic Bishops' Conference, Archbishop Francis Carroll of Canberra and Goulburn took part in a Radio National public debate recorded at Old Parliament House last week on the topic, Should Australia go to War on Iraq?

Archbishop Carroll outlined the criteria for a Just War and told radio presenter Phillip Adams he was not convinced the case for a Just War against Iraq had been proven.

Following is a transcript of his comments:

Archbishop Carroll

Any right-minded person, of course, would be opposed to war. Nobody would want war. I think all of the great religions would preach peace in their fullness.

In the Christian tradition, certainly there would be many voices, right throughout Christianity that would take a pacifist position - that war is not to be tolerated in any circumstances.

Personally, I could be very pacifist for my own self. I would find it increasingly difficult if I had a responsibility for loved ones or other people and I can recognise that when a public authority has responsibility for the welfare of its citizens then it is very difficult to avoid the possibility of the Just War approach.

The Just War approach is still the basic principle which people do debate, not only theologians, but I think even leaders. It probably originated in about the 5^th Century with St Augustine and has been a fairly constant tradition which has grown and developed, with new questions arising - they've even arisen in our day.

But the requirements for a Just War are very strict and I think because war is such a terrible thing they have to be interpreted and applied quite strictly.

ADAMS: What are those requirements?

Well first there is a Just Cause. Usually, defence against an unjust aggressor would be seen as a Just Cause. In other words that the damage that is threatened or the threat that is there is a tremendously serious one and needs to be opposed and it's an evil thing.

ADAMS: And has that test been met?

It's very hard to say. I think the threat of Saddam Hussein and his regime is a very, very serious one. But there's a lot of other things have to start coming in before you start drawing any conclusions like that.

Second, there must be a Right Intention on the party undertaking the Just War. Again, there can be areas of discussions there. To try and eliminate terrorism is certainly a Right Intention.

Sometimes people have mixed motivations and we have to ask what is the full motivation, say for the Bush Administration. But basically to oppose terrorism and weapons of mass destruction could be a Right Intention.

The decision has to be taken by a Legitimate Authority.

Now traditionally that has been a sovereign state in its own defence. In our day of course, we've developed towards international bodies and most now would say that the United Nations, however flawed an organisation it is, should be the one that would take that kind of decision. Although I believe the United Nations does still allow for individual nations to take the decision to defend themselves. But in this broad field we would certainly emphasise the role of the United Nations.

There needs to be a Reasonable Chance of Success.

If you went to war in a hopeless cause just because it was against injustice one would have to query the wisdom of that.

And there has to be Proportion between the evil of war and the evil to be eliminated. In other words, if the war itself was totally destructive, to a greater extent than the evil it is trying to eliminate, then again that lack of proportion would be there.

And perhaps most important, or at least one of the final points, would be it must be a Last Resort. In other words, all other means of resolving a conflict, resolving a problem like this would need to have been taken.

I think there's also another area that's sometimes referred to. Certainly the original Just War Theory says that non-combatants, civilians, should not be put at risk. And certainly in the past century we've seen a terrible escalation in the involvement of civilians.

So those, I would see, would be the basis for making judgments on a Just War. And of course, in the end people have to make a prudential judgment as to whether those conditions, all of them, have been met or not.

ADAMS: Sir, have you made your prudential judgment?

At the moment, I am not yet convinced that to take pre-emptive action against Iraq would be a Just War.

I think there are things still to be further explored. I am not sure in my judgment, and I can only like everybody else in Australia, make a personal judgment on that, that I don't think the case is proven to the point that one could justify a war being undertaken.

ENDS.