If It's Good For One, Then Why Not The Other?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Elaine_s_Cross
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Elaine_s_Cross

Guest
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger is now His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. I believe in my heart that his elevation to the papacy is a good thing in that he is just what the Church needs at this time.

However, this topic is not about Pope Benedict at this point in time, but rather, in his past.

As I understand it, Pope Benedict was conscripted into the Werhmacht when he was 16 and served for awhile on an anti-aircraft battery. However, at some point, he laid down his weapon and deserted, later to be captured by our army.

I believe, and I would think many others on this forum would agree, that the Holy Father’s desertion from the German army and its war of aggression, was the correct thing to do.

I ask then, if it was correct for the Holy Father to desert the German army and its war of aggression, then why is it not correct for members of our armed forces to desert our army and Marines and our president’s war of aggression in Iraq? After all, when, as Cardinal Ratzinger, His Holiness was asked by Michael Novak(?) or someone else why the war was not just he said to the effect, “consult the Catechism.”
 
Just a veiled comparison of President Bush to Hitler and the US Government to the Nazis.

Nice.
 
No comparison to the individuals or what’s in their hearts, but yes, a comparison regarding the eventual acts of aggression.

Besides, Mr. Bush is not as competent as Hitler and that is probably good for this country, IMO.
 
I believe we can all agree that Germany’s aggression was not only unjust, but evil. As a boy, Pope Benedict XVI was forced into the military. He did not have a choice. He was willing to pay the ultimate price for his desertion.

Many good, faithful Catholic disagree on whether or not the Iraq war is just. Your premise that that the Iraq war is “our president’s war of aggression” is not accepted by many people. We have a volunteer military who understood what they were committing to do. If an individual truly believes, with his whole head, heart and soul, that the American actions are on par with Nazi Germany’s, then he should be willing to lay down his weapons and accept the resulting consequences.

Our men and women in uniform are a very committed, principled group who have demonstrated their willingness to sacrifice their lives for what they believe. The lack of deserters in Iraq demonstrates to me that those on the front lines believe this is a just war.
 
Elaine's Cross:
I ask then, if it was correct for the Holy Father to desert the German army and its war of aggression, then why is it not correct for members of our armed forces to desert our army and Marines and our president’s war of aggression in Iraq?
Click to expand...
  1. The Iraqi liberation was voted on and passed by the US Congress. The President of the United States doesn’t go to war without congress telling him to (see the US Constitution). We all elect our congress, we are a Republic. So this isn’t “Bush’s war” no matter what highly political retoric you have heard.
  2. The Holy Father was conscripted into the Wehrmacht against his will (his entire class was conscripted). The US armed forces are voluntary. Everyone knows what they are getting into when they sign up. They know they might have to fight in a war and they know that once in, they don’t get a vote on which war to fight.
 
Elizabeth B.:
The lack of deserters in Iraq demonstrates to me that those on the front lines believe this is a just war.
Click to expand...
Actually, in view of what JPII & Benedict XVI have said, I think the lack of deserters reflects a lack of understanding of our Catholic Catechism.
 
Elaine's Cross:
Actually, in view of what JPII & Benedict XVI have said, I think the lack of deserters reflects a lack of understanding of our Catholic Catechism.
Click to expand...
Where in our Catechism does it say they should desert? Doesn’t really matter anyway, because both the Holy Father and the Vatican are now in favor of us saying in Iraq until the job is done, so your litmas test is false.
 
gilliam said:
1) The Iraqi liberation was voted on and passed by the US Congress. The President of the United States doesn’t go to war without congress telling him to (see the US Constitution).
Click to expand...

It’s supposed to be that way. Congress did not vote to go to war. They abrogated their duties by voting to “allow” the president to go to war if and when he saw fit, IMO a very dangerous concept. Even if it is construed that Congress approved it, that doesn’t make it right.
 
gilliam said:
1) Everyone knows what they are getting into when they sign up.
Click to expand...

When people sign up for the military, they don’t expect us to be aggressors.
 
40.png
gilliam:
Where in our Catechism does it say they should desert?
Click to expand...
In our Catechism, it says we are not supposed to sin, which participating in an unjust war would be.
 
Elaine's Cross:
In our Catechism, it says we are not supposed to sin, which participating in an unjust war would be.
Click to expand...
As Scott Hahn has said “Proof text is pretext.”

Our catechism presents criteria for a just war. The analysis of how well this war meets the criteria is open for discussion and many well-informed, faithful Catholics disagree on the analysis.
You have not demonstrated that this war is unjust.
 
Elaine's Cross:
Actually, in view of what JPII & Benedict XVI have said, I think the lack of deserters reflects a lack of understanding of our Catholic Catechism.
Click to expand...
In my experience, our Catholic brothers and sisters in uniform are well-informed on the implications of their faith upon their chosen profession. They have prayerfully considered this situation. I find it illuminating that you have stooped to insulting their understanding to support the lack of evidence for your argument.

I would be willing to accept that your intentions are honorable if you did not rely on name-calling and insults to make your point.
 
Elaine's Cross:
In our Catechism, it says we are not supposed to sin, which participating in an unjust war would be.
Click to expand...
Quotes are from the Catechism:
  1. It is up to the civil authorities to determine if a war is just or not. ("The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.") If they are wrong, it is their immortal soul that is at risk, not yours nor the troops. *Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense. *
  2. The troops simply need to make sure they are not participating in any war crimes.
"Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace."

Again, the Vatican and the Holy Father now wants us to stay until there is peace in Iraq, so your arguement is mute.
 
With respect to Iraq, the conditions in the country under Hussein were certainly not “peaceful.” I don’t think we were acting as “aggressors” in ending a regime which was a threat to its own people, its neighbors and the international world community.

The funny thing is, if the UN had sanctioned the action it wouldn’t be objectionable, in the minds of many people. Yet the UN members making the decisions act, as all nations do, in their own interests. The conflicts inherent in that regard made UN approval impossible. Just as it will make UN action in Korea, China or almost anyplace else impossible.
 
Actually, the original poster is reversing the roles. Saddam and his regime would be the parallel to Hitler and the Nazis. The difference is we learned our lesson from the Hitler situation and instead of appeasing Saddam we took him out before he could do more damage.
 
40.png
gilliam:
Quotes are from the Catechism:
  1. It is up to the civil authorities to determine if a war is just or not. ("The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.") If they are wrong, it is their immortal soul that is at risk, not yours nor the troops. *Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense. *
  2. The troops simply need to make sure they are not participating in any war crimes.
"Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace."

Again, the Vatican and the Holy Father now wants us to stay until there is peace in Iraq, so your arguement is mute.
Click to expand...
:blessyou:

Wish folks would get over it…the War on Terror is a just war…and by the way, peace is breaking out all over the Middle East.
 
saw this on another site, seems to fit this discussion:

Lets compare Saddam (who like Hitler was a fascist) and Bush shall we?

Sadam
Turtured hundred of thousands or more, maybe millions in Acid baths, hangings, quarterings, limb chopping, and hundreds of other ways. Look it up on the web… there are plenty of videos.
Sadam is equal to hitler in his evil ways… gasing the kurds with VX, mass executions. He even had his own secret police running arounds like the SS. No wonder the iraqies stomped on his statue.

Much much more…

Hmmm lets roll on to Bush
Um… Takes out this evil dictatorship, and restores a democracy.
Gives power back to the people of Iraq.
Is rebuilding schools, hospitals and towns. Making clean water for them to drink. Everyday we spend 1,000,000’s on rebuilding Iraq.

We are training their own military (155,000 so far) to take care of themselves so when that it finished, we can pull out and they can govern themselves in Democracy, not a fascist dictatorship.

Much much more…

If you care about the Iraqi people, you would care about what we are doing for them.

Soldiers help to load a truck with tools and materials donated by Home Depot that will help the rebuilding effort in Iraq.
http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/uploads/medium/HomeDepotDonation.jpg ]
 
I heard Deal Hudson mention in a talk once that the Bush administration actually had serious internal discussions about just war theory and how to apply it to specific cases. It seemed that this may have been a rarity or unique in the history of American policy making.
 
There are so many people here in CA against the war in Iraq that want to label Bush as a war criminal or tyrant or some such thing.

I do not hear these people complain abut the thousands Saddam killed - or those killed by Castro, or Che, or Mugabe.

Political leaders are elected to do a job and that is to serve the nation in which they live. Inherent in that is to preserve the safety, security and rights of those citizens.

The Catechism and the Just War Theory should be updated because they apparently do not deal with the warfare conducted by terrorist states. Iran, Saddam’s Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc. would never build up a military force to take on the United States, but you can bet they were all hip deep in aiding and abetting terrorist organizations that have specialized in killing innocent people.

Syria and Iran have long backed Hezbollah, an evil organization if there has ever been one. Talking to nations such as this to bring peace is a waste of time. They understand only one thing - power.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top