Defending _Goodbye, Good Men_ possible?

[Fortiterinre]

I think Goodbye, Good Men is a fascinating read but unfortunately not as well documented, footnoted, etc, as one would hope. Rose is obviously emotionally close to the issues he raises, but they still deserve raising.

 

[Swiss_Guard]

otm:

I don’t think Weigel was telling the Pope how to be Catholic. He was engaging in a dialogue that the Church (including the Pope he was disagreeing with) says is necessary. Just War is an issue on which there can be differing opinions by faithful Catholics. And I don’t think Weigel said the Pope was wrong to oppose Bush; he said that he disagreed with the Pope’s conclusion.

There is a significant difference between saying the Pope is wrong to oppose Bush, and saying the Pope came to the wrong conclusion. The former says that the Pope has no right to oppose Bush. The latter says that he has a right to oppose Bush. It says something different: “I respect your right to criticize, but I reach a different conclusion as to the justness of the war.”

The Pope’s opposition is something that a faithful Catholic must listen carefully to, and give great weight to, and I am sure that Weigel, a faithful Catholic, gave it great weight. But giving it great weight doesn’t place it in the area of infallibility. Other issues which the Pope may not have addressed could lead to a different conclusion; so could disagreements as to various aspects of how the war might be fought, or how much emphasis to give on various aspects of the decision making process.

Rather than Weigel telling the Pope how to be Catholic, Weigel, along with the Pope, was being Catholic.

Considering the reasons for going to war in Iraq were proven wrong, I would say John Paul II came to the right conclusion and Weigel is wrong. Weigel still supports Bush’s war in Iraq, even though the evidence for a “pre-emptive strike” isn’t there. Also, I didn’t know a “pre-emptive strike” is covered under a just war.

---

I guess the neo-cons can ignore the pope when he doesn’t agree with them.

 

[otm]

HagiaSophia:

This is one of the reasons I was so impressed with Cozzen’s book; not just informative but with a whole new light on some things; while the second half - the part about “life in the seminary” culture got all the PR the first half to me, was dramatic. He covered how the very definition of priest, how the role of the priesthood had been changed and frankly I could understand why we are attracting not too many of the brightest and best as we used to. All in all he, even if one doesn’t agree with him, he had something to think about.

What’s the name of his book, and is it widely available, or do you know the publsiher?

I should probably add it to my reading list, although I am already so far behind I’ve lost track.

 

[otm]

Considering the reasons for going to war in Iraq were proven wrong, I would say John Paul II came to the right conclusion and Weigel is wrong. Weigel still supports Bush’s war in Iraq, even though the evidence for a “pre-emptive strike” isn’t there. Also, I didn’t know a “pre-emptive strike” is covered under a just war.

---

I guess the neo-cons can ignore the pope when he doesn’t agree with them.

I don’t know that I would agree that the reasons were proven wrong, so much as we didn’t find what we (both the Democrats and the Republicans, if you read the Congressional Record) knew existed in large quantities at one time, and were most definitely in existence at the end of the first Gulf War. Further, for all of the monday morning quaterbacking that has gone on over our intelligence estimates, I believe that the government was acting in a responsible fashion to resolve 17 separate moves by the UN and countermoves by Saddam since the first war, and I am underimpressed that France, Germany and Russia did not back our request to bring it to a head, given their illegal trade with Saddam.

You may be correct that a preemptive strike is not covered by just war theory, but just war theory seems to be slightly behind the times in terms of the ability of a nation to inflict great and serious damage through the use of WMD, almost without warning. Saddam moved way more rapidly into Kuwaith than anyone expected him to, and that was conventional warfare. And the Pope then was saying that we needed to use diplomacy, which not only wasn’t working, but wasn’t going to protect Saudi Arabia, which appeared to be his next target. Given what can be done by stealth, I do not believe that the just war theory adequately addresses the dangers to nation states in quick-strike, devastating use of WMD.

I am still not convinced that Bush was right, and I am still not convinced that the Pope was wrong. But I do have an understanding that the application of the just war theory is in large part a matter of prudential judgement, and I also believe thatt this war was justified not only on what we believed to be true at the time, but also in an issue that reaches beyone the immediacy of Iraq to other nation state; to wit, Syria, Yemen, Iran and Libia, to name a few.

 

[Binney]

I believe Rose is working on a new book similar to Goodbye, Good Men. Let us hope he does write something…no one else is and we need to know collectively what is happening.

For now, all we have are news reports and books like Rose’s to help shed light where it is needed.

I speculate that Rose’s book reveals only the tip of the iceberg.