Catholics disagreeing with Catholics (Part 1)

[AlanFromWichita]

Antonio B:

Theme #2 is not a view I uphold at all. It is a view many uphold when they criticize Catholics like me who support the war. I told you and everyone “why” many of us hold the position that the war is just. Now, you and others may disagree with us in our position, but you can’t deny that we have “reasons” for our position. Instead of making childish statements like the one you just made, it would have been nice if you had explained why our reasons for our position are somehow flawed!

Antonio

The problem I have with debating you, is that I also disagree with both “Theme #1” and “Theme #2.”

Theme #1: Especially when I was new to this forum, anything I said that even questioned the actions of priests or bishop was met with harsh words. I tried like mad to get people to realize the importance of dissent, much like the quote you cited from Sheen. My other post that you tore into was my caraciture of the exact type of post that I thought you were talking about when you said “Theme #1.” Perhaps I made it too realistic.

Theme #2: Last night Michael Savage was talking about a gruesome beheading video he decided to link from his web page. I watched it, and it reminded me of the day I worked for a friend’s dad in a slaughter house, except they were more humane to the cows than these masked cowards were to this innocent American citizen. A couple years ago I heard a letter from a mother of one of the 9/11 hijackers talking about how proud she was of her son and that he had really made something of himself and so forth. There is no way to negotiate with these people. It’s either kill them or they will kill us. I don’t know if invading Iraq was the best strategic move, but I have enough confidence in Bush and he’s obviously more in tune with this thing than I am, that I support him. If Clinton or Kerry were running the show I probably would not have that confidence.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

AlanFromWichita:

Awww, what does the Holy Father know about war anyway? He probably thinks some crazy stuff like “love your enemies.”

Alan

I may have said this tongue-in-cheek, but I actually believe there to be truth in it.

Making decisions on war to protect the U.S. from terrorism is really not the Holy Father’s expertise. If I want an opinion on that, I’ll ask a military strategist. If I want an opinion involving my spiritual attitude toward my enemies, they don’t get any better than the Holy Father. Didn’t he forgive the guy who shot him? In this case, I think President Bush has a little more responsibility to those of us he serves to just “forgive” the terrorists for what they did. Most U.S. citizens are not Catholics, and are not ready to be martyred; that’s why they should reelect Bush.

You might want to check out the thread “Bush or the Pope” at:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=15956
There’s some very good discussion there involving the Pope comments v. supporting the war.

Alan

 

[Antonio_B]

AlanFromWichita:

The problem I have with debating you, is that I also disagree with both “Theme #1” and “Theme #2.”

O.K.

Theme #1: Especially when I was new to this forum, anything I said that even questioned the actions of priests or bishop was met with harsh words. I tried like mad to get people to realize the importance of dissent, much like the quote you cited from Sheen. My other post that you tore into was my caraciture of the exact type of post that I thought you were talking about when you said “Theme #1.” Perhaps I made it too realistic.

I guess I misunderstood what you were saying. It’s possible. After all, age does not necessarily improve one’s mind.
This business of not being able to question the actions or words of one’s bishop or priest is not part of respectful intellectual questioning we have been accustumed to for hundreds of years in Catholcism but, alas, some people think that is not allowed, ever.

Theme #2: Last night Michael Savage was talking about a gruesome beheading video he decided to link from his web page. I watched it, and it reminded me of the day I worked for a friend’s dad in a slaughter house, except they were more humane to the cows than these masked cowards were to this innocent American citizen.

I also heard him last night. Sometimes I get a bit angry at the way he deals with some of his callers. Unfortunately, what he described yesterday on radio, some folks here would blame on Bush rather than on the terrorists.

A couple years ago I heard a letter from a mother of one of the 9/11 hijackers talking about how proud she was of her son and that he had really made something of himself and so forth. There is no way to negotiate with these people. It’s either kill them or they will kill us. I don’t know if invading Iraq was the best strategic move, but I have enough confidence in Bush and he’s obviously more in tune with this thing than I am, that I support him. If Clinton or Kerry were running the show I probably would not have that confidence.

Alan

And what our attitude should be against mounting terrorism is what we should be united about, but some folks here just don’t get it. Perhaps it will take another 9/11 God forbid, for these idealists to wake up and smell the coffee.

Antonio

 

[tru_dvotion]

I presume Canadians differ among themselves as to what is true and what is not. Am I wrong?

No you are not wrong. ”I merely posted one side of the Canadian viewpoint." In other words there is more than one opinion in Canada. Although I do believe, the majority of Canadians are pacifists.

Homebound? So, when he attacked Kuwait that was homeboud? When he engaged his country in a bloody war against Iran, that was homebound? When terrorists used his country to prepare to attack the West, that was homebound?

Homebound in a sense that it was with a neighboring country. Somebody else’s business. There are many countries that wage war with neighboring countries, and your nation certainly has not gone to aid most of them. The oil is certainly a factor. No, most of those terrorists were backed by Saudis and not Saddam.

And if Canada is ever attacked by terrorists, would Canadians be willing to wallow in their pacifism and not call on the United States for military help? In other words, are you guys willing to uphold the consequences of your pacifism and the lack of support for the U.S.

If that would ever happen, you would surely run to our aid, because threat on Canadian soil would be a threat to you as well. But if you were attacked on US soil, Canadians will indeed come to your aid, whatever little aid we could provide with our vastly inferior and under funded army. As large we are in territory, we are very small in numbers and in financial resources to contribute beyond peacekeeping.

Well if you consider appeasement a virtue, I guess your Prime Minister was correct in denying support for an ally who has always helped your nation, but I deviate.

Restraint is a virtue. We do all we can on the international scene. We have not been bad neighbors to you. We prefer to go with international standards and follow UN guidelines rather than deviate from them. That is why we are trusted on the international scene, and as close neighbors and allies (because we remain your allies) that trust benefits you too.

I had hope you would actually wrestle with the church documents I quoted.

Sorry Antonio, this has not been an issue in Canada, nor a topic of debate, I would not have known about it if it was not for the Internet. I cannot participate in a debate without knowledge of the key players or the uniquely political and cultural aspects of this debate. I should not have posted on this topic, please forgive me for my intrusion.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Antonio B:

And what our attitude should be against mounting terrorism is what we should be united about, but some folks here just don’t get it. Perhaps it will take another 9/11 God forbid, for these idealists to wake up and smell the coffee.

Antonio

It’s kind of like dissention in the Church, I guess. We can have opposing opinions but to openly and publicly battle is yet another thing.

What is going on now is disgraceful; whether or not you agree with the war, our children are in harms way and the sorts of public statements the anti-war people are making are once again giving aid and comfort to the enemy. They are fueling the fires that make the beheadings worth it. The more they can make Americans hate the war, the more they will hate Bush and elect Hanoi John to the whitehouse so we can hand over all our remaining superpower status to the U.N. That’s good for the anti-war people, at least until they realize that being “sensitive” isn’t going to change the terrorists’ minds, and it’s good for the terrorists. Ten out of 10 terrorists agree: anybody but Bush.

The other day I “smelled the coffee” both literally and figuratively in a Barnes and Noble bookstore; it had been a while since I’d been to one. I looked at a section of books on politics, and it was the darndest thing I’d ever seen. Perhaps 80% of the books were all about Bush-hating. Bush-hating seems to be a bigger industry than abortion these days.

Alan

 

[Antonio_B]

AlanFromWichita:

It’s kind of like dissention in the Church, I guess. We can have opposing opinions but to openly and publicly battle is yet another thing.

And yet I don’t know how else to find out what other Catholics believe about important matters in the Church.

What is going on now is disgraceful; whether or not you agree with the war, our children are in harms way and the sorts of public statements the anti-war people are making are once again giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Absolutely! If I were a terrorist and read some of the Bush haters here hammering him for the Iraqi war, I would be very happy. Also, if I were a parent of one of those soldiers in harm’s way and read some of the garbage here against the war and how they’re dying for no reason, I would be so angry the world could not contain my anger.

They are fueling the fires that make the beheadings worth it. The more they can make Americans hate the war, the more they will hate Bush and elect Hanoi John to the whitehouse so we can hand over all our remaining superpower status to the U.N. That’s good for the anti-war people, at least until they realize that being “sensitive” isn’t going to change the terrorists’ minds, and it’s good for the terrorists. Ten out of 10 terrorists agree: anybody but Bush.

I couldn’t agree with you more. Here is a man who openly criticized the United States in Paris harming fellow American soldiers who were being kept prisoners by the Communists, and now he wants to be Commander-in-Chief. I will vote against him for those two reasons, betrayal of this country in its hour of need and his support of murder against the unborn.

The other day I “smelled the coffee” both literally and figuratively in a Barnes and Noble bookstore; it had been a while since I’d been to one. I looked at a section of books on politics, and it was the darndest thing I’d ever seen. Perhaps 80% of the books were all about Bush-hating. Bush-hating seems to be a bigger industry than abortion these days.

Oh, I was at Borders two weeks ago and went to buy that book that exposes the leftist bias in the media. Well, I could not find the book but the vast majority of books were into Bush hatred. That’s why if Bush wins Nov 2 all those publishers will have egg in their faces and well-deserved!

Antonio

Alan

 

[Antonio_B]

tru_dvotion:

No you are not wrong. ”I merely posted one side of the Canadian viewpoint." In other words there is more than one opinion in

Canada. Although I do believe, the majority of Canadians are pacifists.

I know

Homebound in a sense that it was with a neighboring country. Somebody else’s business. There are many countries that wage war with neighboring countries, and your nation certainly has not gone to aid most of them. The oil is certainly a factor. No, most of those terrorists were backed by Saudis and not Saddam.

The latter statement is true, However, we never went there for “oil” There is no evidence oil was our motivation at all and to this day there is no proof we are stealing Iraqi oil, which would certainly prove that was our motivation for going to war against Hussein in the first place.

If that would ever happen, you would surely run to our aid, because threat on Canadian soil would be a threat to you as well. But if you were attacked on US soil, Canadians will indeed come to your aid, whatever little aid we could provide with our vastly inferior and under funded army. As large we are in territory, we are very small in numbers and in financial resources to contribute beyond peacekeeping.

Given the anti-American feelings in your country, a fact well-known here because of the media, I doubt very much that Canadians would come to our aid if attacked by terrorists. Canada as well as the rest of the world offered condolonses when we were attacked 9/11 but when we needed the world to fight terrorism, well, the world suddenly didn’t know us.

End of of response part I

Antonio :crying:

 

[Antonio_B]

“Restraint is a virtue. We do all we can on the international scene. We have not been bad neighbors to you. We prefer to go with international standards and follow UN guidelines rather than deviate from them. That is why we are trusted on the international scene, and as close neighbors and allies (because we remain your allies) that trust benefits you too.”

I know restraint is a virtue but when one confuses restraint with appeasement, one is in deep trouble.

Sorry Antonio, this has not been an issue in Canada, nor a topic of debate, I would not have known about it if it was not for the Internet. I cannot participate in a debate without knowledge of the key players or the uniquely political and cultural aspects of this debate.

It goes to show you that what is important to one nation, is not necessarily important to another nation. You are incredibly honest in stating that you can’t participate in a debate without knowledge of key players. Here in this forum and in other forums some folks jump in to debate about issues they know little about, and sometimes these same folks don’t know the main players in worldwide Catholicism yet they give their opinion as if they knew what they were talking about.

I should not have posted on this topic, please forgive me for my intrusion.
No need to forgive you for anything. You had every right to state your point of view since this is a public forum. You did not intrude at all.

Antonio

 

[Joanna]

Antonio B:

Now, I would love for you to actually wrestle with the church statements I quoted from rather than just simply telling us we must obey the bishops, period. It should be obvious by now to you and any serious reader, that church teaching on these moral areas is a bit more complex and that it requires from us Catholics deeper reflection before adopting a personal position.

Antonio

When reflecting on the Just War and our decision to go to war, I think we need to be realistic about a problem we face in addition to our enemies and the recurse to war.

A problem arises when we take counsel with other nations under the auspices of the United Nations. The problem is the United Nations, itself. When we go to take counsel with other nations we are seeking true counsel not duplicity. In bringing a situation before the UN, it is not as if we are applying to the wisdom of say, the Magisterium, or submitting to same. Here we are seeking to counsel with a body that has historically proven itself ineffective. It fails to act in a timely fashion as it “takes things under advisement”. The Rwandans can testify to that. The Sudanese can testify to that. The Croatians can testify to that. The better informed on the forum can flesh that out better than I. In recent times the United Nations is proving to be more foe than friend. We must prudently consider these things when justly defending ourselves in a world of instant devastations and ever-evolving terrors.

**The UN failed to back up what authority it does have with action. It is a myth in action and a study in inaction. It fails to act on its own indictments and resolutions: to whose benefit we can only guess? And guess and surmise, we must, for our own survival! While the UN pontificates, it stands in the way of meaningful action. That ineffectiveness and unwillingness must be taken into account when we are making a judgment before proceeding to command phase in prudence, for our own self-interest and actually the interest of the free world. **

**As to Just War Theory, and our right to wage war, the theory, itself, must be considered anew in the light of the world we live in today. Since the Just War Theory was formulated before the time of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of non-nation-states and proliferating enemies without national faces, it needs to be revisited and revised to guide us to just and realistic conclusions. So much of the present “did-they exist; didn’t they exist” (WMD-flap) forgets that they do, in fact, exist! We need to reflect on a Just War theory formulated in this century. Some things have changed that effect our theories of what just life considerations should consider. **

Reacting to a War after it has begun to our devastation isn’t prudent.** G.K. Chesterton remarked that “War is not the best way of settling differences; it is the only way of preventing their being settled for you.” **

 

[Antonio_B]

When reflecting on the Just War and our decision to go to war, I think we need to be realistic about a problem we face in addition to our enemies and the recurse to war.

I’ll have to reply to you in two parts because your message is too long and mine will probably be the same.

A problem arises when we take counsel with other nations under the auspices of the United Nations. The problem is the United Nations, itself. When we go to take counsel with other nations we are seeking true counsel not duplicity. In bringing a situation before the UN, it is not as if we are applying to the wisdom of say, the Magisterium, or submitting to same. Here we are seeking to counsel with a body that has historically proven itself ineffective. It fails to act in a timely fashion as it “takes things under advisement”.

You are correct. The key word here is duplicity. That is precisely why we can’t rely on an international body to take seriously the task of resolving world conflicts. Indeed it has proven to be ineffective more than once, yet the Church continues to support such a body. I presume the Church does so thinking it is the best hope we have for an organization that may help international order.

** The Rwandans can testify to that. The Sudanese can testify to that. The Croatians can testify to that. The better informed on the forum can flesh that out better than I. In recent times the United Nations is proving to be more foe than friend. We must prudently consider these things when justly defending ourselves in a world of instant devastations and ever-evolving terrors.**

Kofi A .going public the other day telling the whole world that we have fought an illegal war was a slap on the face of the President and an interference in the national political campaign obvioulsy favoring one political party over the other. Powell was not happy about that remark and said so clearly on T.V.

**The UN failed to back up what authority it does have with action. It is a myth in action and a study in inaction. It fails to act on its own indictments and resolutions: to whose benefit we can only guess? And guess and surmise, we must, for our own survival! While the UN pontificates, it stands in the way of meaningful action. That ineffectiveness and unwillingness must be taken into account when we are making a judgment before proceeding to command phase in prudence, for our own self-interest and actually the interest of the free world. **

And it is to these ineffective United Nations that some Vatican officials are willing to give them power to decide when sovereign nation can go to war or not. Scary, really scary.

---

End of part 1

---

 

[Antonio_B]

"As to Just War Theory, and our right to wage war, the theory, itself, must be considered anew in the light of the world we live in today. Since the Just War Theory was formulated before the time of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of non-nation-states and proliferating enemies without national faces, it needs to be revisited and revised to guide us to just and realistic conclusions. So much of the present “did-they exist; didn’t they exist” (WMD-flap) forgets that they do, in fact, exist! We need to reflect on a Just War theory formulated in this century. Some things have changed that effect our theories of what just life considerations should consider."

Fine tunig the Just-War-Theory should be one of the main tasks of the next ponticate. The Just-War_Thoery as we know it did not have to face the nuclear age. Notice that the conciliar Fathers duirng Vatican II had to explicitly teach that we can’t bomb entire cities with all civilians in it because that would constitude a grave sin. In the same manner, the Just-War-Theory is going to have to face questions like:

1. Is pre-emptive war ever moral?
2. Can a sovereign nation give up its power to an
   international body that decides when a nation
   may engage itself in war or not?
3. When a Pope speaks against a war, does that
   mean NO Roman Catholic should support a war,
   and if so, are there cases in which a Catholic
   may disagree with the Holy Father and remain a
   faithful Catholic?
4. Does a Pope have to give us his teaching
   regarding war as part of the “ordinary
   Magisterium” or if he wants to bind us in
   obedience should he do so in an encyclical or in an
   Apostolic Exhortation? Which document would
   have more authoritative weight?
5. Can a bishop say in one diocese that Catholics
   who support a given war are in mortal sin while in
   another diocese another bishop can say Catholics
   have prudential judgment on the matter?
6. Is war an intrinsic evil like abortion and
   therefore no Catholic should ever support it
   whether just or unjust?
7. Are abortion, euthanasia, the death penalty and
   war, equal moral evils?

 

[Antonio_B]

1. Whe the Pope pronounces himself against a war,
   do Catholics who use prudential judgement to
   disagree fall into the category of “Cafeteria-
   Catholics?” If so, why?

I think all of these questions and their anwers would be legitimate means to fine tune the Just-War-Theory for the twentieth-first century.

Reacting to a War after it has begun to our devastation isn’t prudent.** G.K. Chesterton remarked that “War is not the best way of settling differences; it is the only way of preventing their being settled for you.” **

Beautifully put!

**Antonio **

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Kofi A .going public the other day telling the whole world that we have fought an illegal war was a slap on the face of the President and an interference in the national political campaign obvioulsy favoring one political party over the other. Powell was not happy about that remark and said so clearly on T.V.

Excuse me if I’m missing something here, but didn’t the UN provide plenty of justification for us to use force, both under the broken terms of surrender from the recapture of Kuwait, then something like seventeen resolutions against Hussein, then specific resolutions authorizing the “new” and “continued” gulf war?

The UN may be ineffective and corrupt, but as I recall even that organization gave the right lip service to justify our going to war. Somebody has to correct me big time if we really did an “end run” around the UN. Could it be the Vatican has been listening to Kerry campaign commercials? (just kidding )

OK I’m probably the one wrong on this so I’m ready for the flak.:bounce:

Alan

 

[Joanna]

AlanFromWichita:

Excuse me if I’m missing something here, but didn’t the UN provide plenty of justification for us to use force, both under the broken terms of surrender from the recapture of Kuwait, then something like seventeen resolutions against Hussein, then specific resolutions authorizing the “new” and “continued” gulf war?

The UN may be ineffective and corrupt, but as I recall even that organization gave the right lip service to justify our going to war. Somebody has to correct me big time if we really did an “end run” around the UN. Could it be the Vatican has been listening to Kerry campaign commercials? (just kidding )

OK I’m probably the one wrong on this so I’m ready for the flak.:bounce:

Alan

No flak here. I’m in agreement with you. It’s just that nobody seems to remember what happened. I think we were justified, but 1/2 the country and the UN have short memories. Very convenient. They will probably want the release of Sadam and return his country to him, since Kofi Annan thinks it the war is illegal.

 

[Joanna]

8) Whe the Pope pronounces himself against a war,
do Catholics who use prudential judgement to
disagree fall into the category of “Cafeteria-
Catholics?” If so, why?

I think all of these questions and their anwers would be legitimate means to fine tune the Just-War-Theory for the twentieth-first century.

**Antonio **

I’m still working my way through George Weigel"s essay, “Moral Clarity in a Time of War”, but I thought this might get your attention:

“That these are the questions that instinctively emerge in the American national debate suggests that the just war tradition remains alive in our national cultural memory. And that is a very good thing. But it is also a somewhat surprising thing, for the past thirty years have witnessed a great forgetting of the classic just war tradition among those who had long been assumed to be its primary intellectual custodians: the nation’s religious leaders, moral philosophers, and moral theologians. That forgetting has been painfully evident in much of the recent commentary from religious leaders in the matter of U.S. policy toward Iraq, commentary that is often far more dependent on political and strategic intuitions of dubious merit than on solid moral reasoning. The fact of the matter today is that the just war tradition, as a historically informed method of rigorous moral reasoning, is far more alive in our service academies than in our divinity schools and faculties of theology; the just war tradition “lives” more vigorously in the officer corps, in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and at the higher levels of the Pentagon than it does at the National Council of Churches, in certain offices at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, or on the Princeton faculty. (There are different degrees of forgetfulness here, of course, and recent statements by the U.S. Catholic bishops on the question of Iraq were of a higher degree of intellectual seriousness than the effusions of other national religious bodies. But the bishops’ statements did, I would argue, continue a pattern of just war forgetfulness whose origins I shall discuss below.)”

For the rest: firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0301/articles/weigel.html

 

[Antonio_B]

Joanna:

I’m still working my way through George Weigel"s essay, “Moral Clarity in a Time of War”, but I thought this might get your attention:

“That these are the questions that instinctively emerge in the American national debate suggests that the just war tradition remains alive in our national cultural memory. And that is a very good thing. But it is also a somewhat surprising thing, for the past thirty years have witnessed a great forgetting of the classic just war tradition among those who had long been assumed to be its primary intellectual custodians: the nation’s religious leaders, moral philosophers, and moral theologians. That forgetting has been painfully evident in much of the recent commentary from religious leaders in the matter of U.S. policy toward Iraq, commentary that is often far more dependent on political and strategic intuitions of dubious merit than on solid moral reasoning. The fact of the matter today is that the just war tradition, as a historically informed method of rigorous moral reasoning, is far more alive in our service academies than in our divinity schools and faculties of theology; the just war tradition “lives” more vigorously in the officer corps, in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and at the higher levels of the Pentagon than it does at the National Council of Churches, in certain offices at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, or on the Princeton faculty. (There are different degrees of forgetfulness here, of course, and recent statements by the U.S. Catholic bishops on the question of Iraq were of a higher degree of intellectual seriousness than the effusions of other national religious bodies. But the bishops’ statements did, I would argue, continue a pattern of just war forgetfulness whose origins I shall discuss below.)”

For the rest: firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0301/articles/weigel.html

Wow, thank you very much. Indeed as we carry on these conversations about the war here in this forum, it becomes painfully clear we have very little moral clarity on the subject as lay people, but also our church leaders have failed to give us moral clarity, particularly on the issue of war.

Antonio

 

[Joanna]

Antonio B:

Wow, thank you very much. Indeed as we carry on these conversations about the war here in this forum, it becomes painfully clear we have very little moral clarity on the subject as lay people, but also our church leaders have failed to give us moral clarity, particularly on the issue of war.

Antonio

St. Augustine in his teaching on the Just War viewed it as an aspect of love, strange as that may seem. He saw it as laying down one’s life to defend others. He also speaks of it when he speaks of peace, “the tranquility of order” the kind of peace possible on earth flawed by the Fall.

Misunderstanding the Just War term “Last Resort” is part of the current problem. Weigel notes that unfamiliarity with its actual meaning allows it to be interpreted “in an excessively mechanistic way and that that is dangerous” He reminds us that war is a moral undertaking necessary “for in the face of evil the most pressing obligation is to stop it.”

I understand Weigel to mean, that the Last Resort shouldn’t be understood to mean exhausting a,b, c,d,etc, until you come to -war. The Last Resort means realistically recognizing an enemy “that recognizes no other form of power except the use of violence and that is largely immune to international, legal, diplomatic or economic pressures” as in the case of evil states and international terrorism. The Last Resort may actually be the only reasonable resort and thus the moral choice.

 

[Antonio_B]

AlanFromWichita:

Excuse me if I’m missing something here, but didn’t the UN provide plenty of justification for us to use force, both under the broken terms of surrender from the recapture of Kuwait, then something like seventeen resolutions against Hussein, then specific resolutions authorizing the “new” and “continued” gulf war?

The UN may be ineffective and corrupt, but as I recall even that organization gave the right lip service to justify our going to war. Somebody has to correct me big time if we really did an “end run” around the UN. Could it be the Vatican has been listening to Kerry campaign commercials? (just kidding )

OK I’m probably the one wrong on this so I’m ready for the flak.:bounce:

Alan

The corrupt U.N. knew Bush was about to take care of business because of the violation by Saddam of 17 resolutions. Now, Kofi has the nerve to complain about it.

Antonio

 

[Antonio_B]

Joanna:

St. Augustine in his teaching on the Just War viewed it as an aspect of love, strange as that may seem. He saw it as laying down one’s life to defend others. He also speaks of it when he speaks of peace, “the tranquility of order” the kind of peace possible on earth flawed by the Fall.

Misunderstanding the Just War term “Last Resort” is part of the current problem. Weigel notes that unfamiliarity with its actual meaning allows it to be interpreted “in an excessively mechanistic way and that that is dangerous” He reminds us that war is a moral undertaking necessary “for in the face of evil the most pressing obligation is to stop it.”

I understand Weigel to mean, that the Last Resort shouldn’t be understood to mean exhausting a,b, c,d,etc, until you come to -war. The Last Resort means realistically recognizing an enemy “that recognizes no other form of power except the use of violence and that is largely immune to international, legal, diplomatic or economic pressures” as in the case of evil states and international terrorism. The Last Resort may actually be the only reasonable resort and thus the moral choice.

I think you are grasping Augustine’s meaning of the just war theory correctly. However, I’m afraid that some Vatican officials see it as a “last resort” and many of these officials have been pushing hard for a total pacifist position at a time when we are facing radical Islamic terrorism and all sorts of dangers which will translate into armed conflicts.

Antonio

 

[Catholic2003]

Antonio B:

our church leaders have failed to give us moral clarity, particularly on the issue of war.

If you don’t see any moral clarity in Bishop Botean’s statement condemning the Iraqi war, just what would it take to meet your standard of “moral clarity”?
Bishop Botean 2003 Lent Message:

Please be aware that I am not speaking to you as a theologian or as a private Christian voicing his opinion, nor by any means am I speaking to you as a political partisan. I am speaking to you solely as your bishop with the authority and responsibility I, though a sinner, have been given as a successor to the apostles on your behalf.

…

My love for you makes it a moral imperative that I not allow you, by my silence, to fall into grave evil and its incalculable temporal and eternal consequences.

…

Therefore I, by the grace of God and the favor of the Apostolic See Bishop of the Eparchy of St. George in Canton, must declare to you, my people, for the sake of your salvation as well as my own, that any direct participation and support of this war against the people of Iraq is objectively grave evil, a matter of mortal sin. Beyond a reasonable doubt this war is morally incompatible with the Person and Way of Jesus Christ. With moral certainty I say to you it does not meet even the minimal standards of the Catholic just war theory.

Thus, any killing associated with it is unjustified and, in consequence, unequivocally murder. Direct participation in this war is the moral equivalent of direct participation in an abortion. For the Catholics of the Eparchy of St. George, I hereby authoritatively state that such direct participation is intrinsically and gravely evil and therefore absolutely forbidden.