NonViolence

[Orionthehunter]

Part 2

From JimR-OCDS: Not what I said, but that in Iraq, the religious factions of Sunni and Shiites, would not accept democracy as we know it, if at all. BTW, the Sunnis walked out of congress yesterday. Apparently, they didn’t get the oil deal they wanted.

Jim this is what you said: "From JimR-OCDS: Also, besides that, anyone who did a little studying on Islam, prior to the war, would easily understand that there was no way an Islamic nation would accept democracy as we know. " You said nothing about it being limited to the problem of Iraqi Sunni’s and Shia. Why make broad, contrary to the fact, statements? It gives one indication that you are irrational.

It is my prudential judgment that you give Muslims and esp. the Shia too little credit. If the President was so Sunni-focused, I think things would be better.

Regarding the pullout of the Sunni’s from the government, it buttresses my long-standing position-a solution will be found by supporting/listening to the Shia more and the Sunni’s less. It also might help improve relations w/ Iran.

From JimR-OCDS: The UN did not authorize the US invasion of Iraq to enforce the resolutions, but in fact voted against it.

From the Joint Resolution authorizing force from Congress: “Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949”

Resolution 678 was passed in 1990 but never rescinded. Please show evidence that the UN rescinded the authorization.

 

[Orionthehunter]

From JimR-OCDS: Yeah, they don’t say specifically that the war violated the Just War Doctrine, but the above words, state that they did not see the war as defensive, which would be against the Just War Doctrine.

You are intent on misrepresenting the Church aren’t you. At minimum your are substituting your prudential judgment to make an impliction of “they really are saying” despite evidence in the same article to the contrary. At worst, you are persistently and obstinately with intent misrepresenting what the Church teaches which is grave matter.

The headline written by the USCCB is “Vatican official says opposition to war based on political realities”. Read the article. They are quite clear the Church itself is not taking an official position of it being a Just War. Furthermore, the individuals are clear they are talking as individuals.

From JimR-OCDS: Is it just the Pope’s personal oppinion, if it violates the Just War Doctrine?

Please provide a source that says the Pope exercised his official spiritual authority claiming it was against the Just War. All else is just his prudential judgment.

From JimR-OCDS: Not sure what your asking here? You’ve been defending the war in Iraq and occupation, so I presume you’re favor of it.

NO. I opposed the invasion and I am disposed to support plausible ideas for a reduction in force, withdrawal, etc. I’m just arguing against your misrepresentation of the position of the Church, judgment of the interior heart of others, and intentional distortion of the facts. I am only in this because my position (diminish our involvement) is represented by nonsense, my position has no chance to prevail.

From JimR-OCDS: Yeah, we disagree. The evidence presented by George Tenet, and others, show that the president used intel that provided argument for war, and ignored intel that showed otherwise. Read the “One Percent Doctrine,” by Ron Suskind for futher education.

Do you really read anything I write? I specifically said “There is substantial evidence the prism used to make this decision appears to support that all information was not treated equally.” What I argue against is your omniscient assertion that the motives were sinister. To assert w/ only pieces of information that anyone would intentionally put men and women in harms way so callously is a very serious charge. One that I don’t believe any common citizen has enough information to make.

Furthermore to read the quack Suskind for factual unbiased information would be like relying on Cal Thomas on Catholic theology (or any theology for that matter) or David Duke on the truth about the KKK. If it on his intentional deception that we have to rely, I am sure to be on the wrong side.

From JimR-OCDS: We’re talking about our government leaders, in particular George Bush and Mr. Cheney. We have every right to judge their actions and the arguments they provided, to justify war. “There are places reserved in hell, for those who take a position of silence, in the time of moral crises.” Winston Churchill.

I totally agree that we can make judgments about their judgment and their competence. In fact, I said “this is evidence of the President’s judgment and maybe even competence.” However, you are intent on judging their motives and interior heart which is contrary to CC2478.

See Part 2

 

[Ender]

Yeah, they don’t say specifically that the war violated the Just War Doctrine, but the above words, state that they did not see the war as defensive, which would be against the Just War Doctrine.

If by defensive you mean that a country can only go to war to defend itself then you are mistaken; I already provided a reference that this is not the case. If you can cite something in the Just War doctrine that supports your claim I should like to read it.

Ender

 

[Tiber_Squid]

The problem is that NONE of us I am guessing have the clearance and access to the information necessary to say what the projected threat in Iraq was in 2003 and for the long term. That is why the Catechism says it is ultimately up to the prudential judgment of the government (not that I trust them 100% but it’s a fact of life in national security matters) and thus why you NEVER heard JPII or Benedict XVI make any formal pronouncement that the wars were evil. They seemed to provide somewhat of an ascent to Afghanistan and were less favorable about Iraq. The Bush administration tried to paint the picture to clearly for the American public which is sadly uneducated despite the available education. They failed in the cleanup right after the actual war to topple Hussein. However, that doesn’t mean the war itself was unjust and immoral. Anyone can hold the opinion, but by the highly classified nature of intelligence and war plans, we simply cannot truly have an informed opinion.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Part 2

"

From JimR-OCDS: Also, besides that, anyone who did a little studying on Islam, prior to the war, would easily understand that there was no way an Islamic nation would accept democracy as we know. " You said nothing about it being limited to the problem of Iraqi Sunni’s and Shia. Why make broad, contrary to the fact, statements? It gives one indication that you are irrational.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

If by defensive you mean that a country can only go to war to defend itself then you are mistaken; I already provided a reference that this is not the case. If you can cite something in the Just War doctrine that supports your claim I should like to read it.

Ender

The strict conditions for **legitimate defense **by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
there must be serious prospects of success;
the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
catholic.com/library/Just_war_Doctrine_1.asp

Jim

 

[Orionthehunter]

From JimR-OCDS: I stand by what I said. Iraq is an Islamic nation. Turkey is a mix of Muslims and Christians, so is Lebanon. The Shiriar mandates Islamic rule in government. You do know that the Iraqi is now refered to as the Islamic Republic of Iraq, don’t you?

Just to be clear: You stand by this statement despite it being factually untrue as evidenced by the nations I have listed?

From JimR-OCDS: Also, besides that, anyone who did a little studying on Islam, prior to the war, would easily understand that there was no way an Islamic nation would accept democracy as we know.

Turkey is between 95% and 99% Muslim. The actual number is less than officially reported because of the methodology for collecting the information. “Approximately 99 percent of the population is officially Muslim, the majority of whom are Sunni.” state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2004/35489.htm

In Lebanon, “Muslims make up 70 percent of the population, including Shiites and Sunni as well as smaller religious sects known as the Alawite and the Druze. The remaining 30 percent of the population is Christian, including orthodox Maronites, Catholics and Protestants.” pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/lebanon/facts.html

Iraq is less Muslim than Turkey, a successful democracy. “This survey found 47 percent Shiite Arabs, 35 percent Sunni Arabs, 15 percent Kurds and three percent others.” abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2954886

While you are correct that Islam (especially Sunni Islam) calls for the institutionalization of Shiria law into civil law, it doesn’t preclude governance by a democracy. Additionally, mainstream Islam (of all sects) specifically makes allowance for non-Muslim’s to not be subject to all components of Shiria and it provides for the free exercise of private worship by non-Muslims. Granted, this approach is not endorsed by the more extreme elements of Islam (estimated to be between 15-20% of Muslims).

JimR-OCDS: Meanwhile, Bush has just told Saudi Arabia that he will give them billions in military weapons. Do you think Saudi Arabia, will stand by and watch the Sunni’s be oppressed by the Shiites?

I hope I am clear. I do not endorse the “Sunni-centric” leanings of the Bush administration. This being said, the Saudi’s need to be careful that they don’t incite a counter-reaction from the principal Shia nations including Iran.

From JimR-OCDS: Again, that is the UN, not the USA.

I don’t understand this response.

You seem to have skipped responding to the following. I respectfully request a response as these are from a Catholic practice standpoint the more serious as they go to issues of Catholic theology and not issues of prudential judgment.

• My assertion that you misrepresented the Church and Pope by claiming that either determined using the charism of the Church/Pontificate to declare the Iraq War contrary to the Just War Doctrine.
• My assertion that their announced positions were only expressions of their personal prudential judgment on the matter.
• That criticism of the proponents of the war should be centered on what is our perogative: judgment on their decisions and competancy. To assert sinister motive without direct evidence is rash judgment, calumny and or detraction which are all grave matter.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Orionthehunter

Turkey is between 95% and 99% Muslim. The actual number is less than officially reported because of the methodology for collecting the information. “Approximately 99 percent of the population is officially Muslim, the majority of whom are Sunni.” state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2004/35489.htm

Even so, the Turkish government is not Islamic. However, even there, they are not fully democratic, especially with non Muslims. Turkey’s problems with non-Muslims, is one of the reasons the Vatican has not favored allowing Turkey into the EU.

In Lebanon, "Muslims make up 70 percent of the population, including Shiites and Sunni as well as smaller religious sects known as the Alawite and the Druze.

Hardly a stable democracy and Hezbollah currently threatens the nation right now. Non-Muslims are hanging on by a thread in Lebanon.

Iraq is less Muslim than Turkey, a successful democracy. “This survey found 47 percent Shiite Arabs, 35 percent Sunni Arabs, 15 percent Kurds and three percent others.” abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2954886

While you are correct that Islam (especially Sunni Islam) calls for the institutionalization of Shiria law into civil law, it doesn’t preclude governance by a democracy.

It does if the democracy is not in line with Sharia. If the democracy is not in line, the democracy is rejected. Iran is the example of democracy under Sharia. Imams choose the candidates who can be placed on the ballot. Its not a free election that true democracy would have.

Additionally, mainstream Islam (of all sects) specifically makes allowance for non-Muslim’s to not be subject to all components of Shiria and it provides for the free exercise of private worship by non-Muslims. Granted, this approach is not endorsed by the more extreme elements of Islam (estimated to be between 15-20% of Muslims).

And hence you have the conflicts in Iraq that were predicted before the invasion. Which again supports my case that the administration ignored the culture and religion issues of Iraq.

I hope I am clear. I do not endorse the “Sunni-centric” leanings of the Bush administration. This being said, the Saudis need to be careful that they don’t incite a counter-reaction from the principal Shia nations including Iran.

Whats not clear is why you’re arguing in support of US occupation of Iraq.

You seem to have skipped responding to the following. I respectfully request a response as these are from a Catholic practice standpoint the more serious as they go to issues of Catholic theology and not issues of prudential judgment.

I’m not going through your list, the questions are loaded anyway.

What I’ll say is;

The Pope’s and the Vatican were very clear on their opposition to the war in Iraq and their stated reasons, are in line with the Just War Doctrine and those reasons show why the war was not in line with it.

cathnews.com/news/210/27.php
The Vatican renewed its opposition to war in Iraq on Wednesday, saying military action would only make matters worse and that a pre-emptive strike raised serious ethical and legal problems.

“It’s unilateralism, pure and simple,” the Vatican’s UN observer, Archbishop Renato Martino, said in comments published in the Italian newsweekly Famiglia Christiana.

You can continue to dance all around this all you want, but the fact is, the Vatican opposed the war from the beginning. They did not come out and state that Catholics are not to participate in it. I don’t recall where they’ve ever done that. None the less, the Vatican did oppose the war on moral grounds. I agree with the Vatican, you don’t.

Jim

 

[Orionthehunter]

Part 2

From JimR-OCDS: Whats not clear is why you’re arguing in support of US occupation of Iraq.

I opposed going there. I also oppose not trying to find the best means to reduce/eliminate our commitment. I just refuse to gloat that my initial opposition gives me a right to then demand something that doesn’t give Iraqi’s a chance or would further destabalize the region.

I think we have made a mess and have a moral obligation to try to clean it up. I don’t advocate a carte blanche withdrawal nor a permanent police action. I’m hungry for a plan and solution.

From JimR-OCDS: I’m not going through your list, the questions are loaded anyway.

Facts are a persistent thing aren’t they.

From JimR-OCDS: What I’ll say is;

From JimR-OCDS: The Pope’s and the Vatican were very clear on their opposition to the war in Iraq and their stated reasons, are in line with the Just War Doctrine

and those reasons show why the war was not in line with it. They raised the issue of not being defensive. I and you reach the same prudential judgment. However, they never went so far as to claim that this was beyond other Catholics reaching a different prudential judgment. You misrepresented them by saying the Church “declared” it unjust.

From JimR-OCDS: You can continue to dance all around this all you want, but the fact is, the Vatican opposed the war from the beginning. They did not come out and state that Catholics are not to participate in it. I don’t recall where they’ve ever done that. None the less, the Vatican did oppose the war on moral grounds.

I’m not dancing. Whether it was Just or Just to were left to individual Catholics to discern using their own conscience and make their own prudential judgment. My primary opposition to your entire comments center on your attempt to claim it was “declared” unjust (which is specific term that has meaning to Catholics) as opposed to one where they gave guidance but left it to the prudential judgment of each discerning Catholic.

From JimR-OCDS: I agree with the Vatican, you don’t.

I am so tempted to respond w/o charity. I agreed with the Vatican at the time, I agree with them now. However, I agree with them because my prudential judgment came to the same conclusion. In defense of good Catholics who reached a different conclusion, I too stand with the Church in respecting their prudential judgment. I oppose the attempt to misrepresent and mischaracterize what they said in an attempt to brow-beat people who disagree with me.

But most importantly, I will stand up for the right of good Catholics to exercise their prudential judgment where allowed by the Church. I don’t claim to be omniscient and I refuse to abuse the Church for my own prudential beliefs.

 

[Orionthehunter]

From Jim R-OCDS: Even so, the Turkish government is not Islamic. However, even there, they are not fully democratic, especially with non Muslims. Turkey’s problems with non-Muslims, is one of the reasons the Vatican has not favored allowing Turkey into the EU.

First, it was you who said the following and all I wanted to point out is it is both not backed up by facts and IMO, it does a disservice to Islam and the majority of Muslims. I has the appearance of bigotry. Even if this was not the case, I didn’t want to appear to condone calumny by being silent.

From JimR-OCDS: Also, besides that, anyone who did a little studying on Islam, prior to the war, would easily understand that there was no way an Islamic nation would accept democracy as we know.

This is a nation that is over 90% Muslim and democratic. They have free elections. They also have legal protection for non-Muslims and their freedom to worship, vote, and can run for office. Do you have support that their EU application is opposed by the Vatican and the reasons? Also, Democracies are not guarantors of all civil liberties. The issue of slavery, the subsequent poll tax, Jim Crow laws shows how laborious it is for a democracy to fully develop.

JimR-OCDS: Hardly a stable democracy and Hezbollah currently threatens the nation right now. Non-Muslims are hanging on by a thread in Lebanon.

Absolutely correct it isn’t stable. You make it sound as though it is inherent in Muslim’s and Lebanese when the facts are different. The lack of stability is not because of the average Lebanese person (Muslim or Christian) but because of intervention by Syria and Hezbollah which is significantly Palestinian and itinerant radicals from Iran.

From JimR-OCDS: It does if the democracy is not in line with Sharia. If the democracy is not in line, the democracy is rejected. Iran is the example of democracy under Sharia. Imams choose the candidates who can be placed on the ballot. Its not a free election that true democracy would have.

This is true in some but not in Lebanon, Turkey, Indonesia, Afghanistan and the former Soviet “stans.” You make it appear that Muslim’s are incapable of a democracy. Many are proud of their democratic tradition. To accuse all appears to be calumny: “by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.” From the CC and this is grave matter.

From JimR-OCDS: And hence you have the conflicts in Iraq that were predicted before the invasion. Which again supports my case that the administration ignored the culture and religion issues of Iraq.

I’ve always agreed w/ this point.

See Part 2 below

 

[Tiber_Squid]

I opposed going there… I think we have made a mess and have a moral obligation to try to clean it up. I don’t advocate a carte blanche withdrawal nor a permanent police action. I’m hungry for a plan and solution.

You and I would have disagreed at the onset – in fact I think we waited much too long to act on Iraq, but we knew Clinton didn’t have the stomach for anything but killing camels with Tomahawks. We would agree now that some things have been botched and we have to fight through this or it will get MUCH worse. Unfortunately, the military is very good at breaking things and we always find it harder to help rebuild and fight insurgencies to achieve stability.

However, they never went so far as to claim that this was beyond other Catholics reaching a different prudential judgment. You misrepresented them by saying the Church “declared” it unjust…
My primary opposition to your entire comments center on your attempt to claim it was “declared” unjust (which is specific term that has meaning to Catholics) as opposed to one where they gave guidance but left it to the prudential judgment of each discerning Catholic.

IMHO, the Vatican needs to caveat what they say to avoid this kind of confusion. The Catechism clearly states the principles for Just War and then says it us ultimately up to the governments to determine the prudence for going to war since they are the only ones who have the full information necessary to make such decisions – i.e. intelligence data and analysis of the threat.

But most importantly, I will stand up for the right of good Catholics to exercise their prudential judgment where allowed by the Church. I don’t claim to be omniscient and I refuse to abuse the Church for my own prudential beliefs.

Thanks again – sometimes I feel in this forum and in my parish that I’m seen as some warmongerer for making the hard arguments. Somebody has to do it and it is within the bounds of Catholic teaching. Denying that violence is sometimes required to be used to defend against evil is naive. You can be called to complete non-violence as an individual which is easy if you live in a safe neighborhood in the US of A; however, not every place in the world has it so good. You cannot make such calls for a country itself to completely become non-violent; they must follow Just War and use violence only as a last resort when it meets the other criteria but sometimes that violence is necessary. To neglect defense of the nation is an abdication of responsibility and itself can become immoral.

 

[Orionthehunter]

From Tiber Squid: You and I would have disagreed at the onset – in fact I think we waited much too long to act on Iraq, but we knew Clinton didn’t have the stomach for anything but killing camels with Tomahawks. We would agree now that some things have been botched and we have to fight through this or it will get MUCH worse. Unfortunately, the military is very good at breaking things and we always find it harder to help rebuild and fight insurgencies to achieve stability.

There is much that we still disagree about. However, I do respect that you have the fortitude (fine line between fortitude and stubborn stupidity . Just kidding), to stand for your position in the face of so much destruction and negative results. The easy thing is to cut and run and it is very hard for me not to advocate it.

While I think that the President failed in so many ways and I hunger for an alternative to our current plan/solution/strategy (if it can even be called that), I am equally disappointed that not a single Presidential candidate (Republican or Democrat) has proposed anything between the two extremes.

From TiberSquid: IMHO, the Vatican needs to caveat what they say to avoid this kind of confusion. The Catechism clearly states the principles for Just War and then says it us ultimately up to the governments to determine the prudence for going to war since they are the only ones who have the full information necessary to make such decisions – i.e. intelligence data and analysis of the threat.

Frankly, I don’t know how much clearer they could have been. The headline that JimR gave us said “Vatican official says opposition to war based on political realities” and the article was quite clear. Unfortunately, the drum beat to war was so loud, it didn’t IMHO get sufficient consideration.

And most unfortunately, we can’t go back. We have find a solution based on where we are. Not where we wish we were.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Its obvious that we can argue about the war in Iraq all we want. However, it will be another ten years before history plays itself out and shows us whether it was a bad idea, or whether it merely produced more violence overall. My study of history says it will end up producing more violence and hatred. I pray that I’m wrong.

Jim

 

[Tiber_Squid]

Its obvious that we can argue about the war in Iraq all we want. However, it will be another ten years before history plays itself out and shows us whether it was a bad idea, or whether it merely produced more violence overall. My study of history says it will end up producing more violence and hatred. I pray that I’m wrong.

10 years? We got Hussein, much of Iraq is actually doing better than most of the papers want to admit, and maybe we’ll actually get somewhere with this surge in containing the violence around Baghdad. What does all of this have to do with the argument that we’re called always to non-violence individually and collectively. Are we simply to stand by and watch these people try to tear apart the world? I can lay down my life as God calls me but I cannot if I am in charge of this country sit back and watch. We have the moral duty to protect our citizens and to use our power to help others in the world. We can argue over specific actions, whether they are justified or not, but doom and gloom predictions combined with misinterpretations of Catholic teaching is dangerous. We’ve botched a lot of things in the last few years, but don’t go proclaiming defeat too early.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

10 years? We got Hussein, much of Iraq is actually doing better than most of the papers want to admit, and maybe we’ll actually get somewhere with this surge in containing the violence around Baghdad. What does all of this have to do with the argument that we’re called always to non-violence individually and collectively. Are we simply to stand by and watch these people try to tear apart the world? I can lay down my life as God calls me but I cannot if I am in charge of this country sit back and watch. We have the moral duty to protect our citizens and to use our power to help others in the world. We can argue over specific actions, whether they are justified or not, but doom and gloom predictions combined with misinterpretations of Catholic teaching is dangerous. We’ve botched a lot of things in the last few years, but don’t go proclaiming defeat too early.

There was no misinterpretation on Catholic teaching, unless it was your own. There is a difference of opinion.

Iraq was not a threat to the United States. Iraq, did not attack the United States.

Use these facts when looking at the Just War Doctrine and see if the war was justified.

The part that the Doctrine states "The responsibility for determining whether these conditions are met belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good., gives leeway to abuse. Our government has not been prudential in their judgement on this issue, in my opinion.

This part is also in the Catechism,

In the end it is not enough to wage war to achieve justice without treating the underlying causes. “Injustice, excessive economic or social inequalities, envy, distrust, and pride raging among men and nations constantly threaten peace and cause wars. Everything done to overcome these disorders contributes to building up peace and avoiding war”

It is my opinion, that this was a war to secure oil supplies and to protect and create oil contracts for Mr. Cheney’s associates.

I will stand by my statements that this was an unjust war, and the Vatican shares this view.

In the weeks and months before the U.S. attacked Iraq, not only the Holy Father, but also one Cardinal and Archbishop after another at the Vatican spoke out against a “preemptive” or “preventive” strike. They declared that the just war theory could not justify such a war. Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran said that such a “war of aggression” is a crime against peace. Archbishop Renato Martino, who used the same words in calling the possible military intervention a “crime against peace that cries out vengeance before God,” also criticized the pressure that the most powerful nations exerted on the less powerful ones on the U.N. Security Council to support the war. The Pope spoke out almost every day against war and in support of diplomatic efforts for peace. cjd.org/paper/jp2war.html

Also;

“To Resort to Force Would Not Be Just,” Vatican Says at U.N. zenit.org/article-6589?l=english

Jim

 

[Orionthehunter]

From JimR-OCDS: It is my opinion, that this was a war to secure oil supplies and to protect and create oil contracts for Mr. Cheney’s associates.

This is a serious charge with which opinion is insufficient. It must be backed up with sufficient foundation.
From the Catechism:
2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:

of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor.

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way.

From JimR-OCDS: I will stand by my statements that this was an unjust war, and the Vatican shares this view.

Why do you keep trying to expand the statements of the Vatican to serve and support your own views?

For Catholics, we look to statements of the “Vatican” to have binding meaning. We look to individuals in Church leadership to provide moral guidance and counsel. All the quotes were expressions of prudential judgment of various leaders who work in the Vatican. We are to take them under serious consideration when we form our prudential judgment but are allowed to reach a different conclusion.

“The Vatican” does not share this view. August leaders in the Vatican personally share this view. This is a big difference.

When you continue to factually overstate the position of “The Vatican” you attempt to imply that Catholics who reach a different conclusion are not as good a Catholic as yourself.

CC 2477 also says one must not commit calumny: “who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.”

Jim, this is a very serious charge to level against fellow Catholics struggling like you to discern the Wisdom of the Holy Spirit in their personal lives.

And, for your information, it is grave matter.

Finally, for one aspiring to practice non-violence, words can also be instruments of violence.

 

[Tiber_Squid]

There was no misinterpretation on Catholic teaching, unless it was your own. There is a difference of opinion.
…"The responsibility for determining whether these conditions are met belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good., gives leeway to abuse. Our government has not been prudential in their judgement on this issue, in my opinion.

I agree there is a difference in opinion whether or not the war was justified or prudential. Your reference to the Catechism makes my point. Your previous statements and later in this statement show you think this war was declared an unjust war–infallibly, or at least something requiring our ascent to their authority. The very quote from the Catechism contradicts that statement. Let’s look at what else they said in the Zenit news article: This was a statement made by the Vatican Observer at the UN presenting what might be interpreted as more of a political statement. I do not see wording that indicates it is an absolute position that all Catholics must adhere to. In fact that contradicts the statement that essentially it is up to the prudential judgment of the government – since they alone are the only ones likely to have the necessary information to make this determination.

Consider the quote from the zenit news article (zenit.org/article-6589?l=english): “The Vatican believes that if the U.N. inspectors are given the support of the international community, this could lead to an ‘agreed and honorable resolution to the problem’.” Hussein expelled the inspectors and when they were in the country we had evidence he was playing games with them. He was required to demonstrate compliance with the UN and never did it. Where was the global community when Hussein was violating the requirements and bribing UN officials, taking oil-for-food money not for food but in preparations for rebuilding his military and WMDs?

It is my opinion, that this was a war to secure oil supplies and to protect and create oil contracts for Mr. Cheney’s associates.

This statement is very old and tired, lacking in substance and merit with regard to oil contracts. However, our overall interest in the Middle East is partly due to ensuring stability for availability of oil which is vital to not just personal transportation, but manufacturing of all plastics and other products, movement of food and other goods, etc. Significant shortages in oil would cripple not just the US but much of the world – that goes beyond greed to national security and stability. Don’t start throwing out the tired slogans of no blood for oil then going to the gas station and griping when it goes over $3 a gallon, and when everything else you buy and the plane tickets you buy jump in price. I hear too much of that which shows a complete ignorance – I don’t know you specifically and won’t make that connection necessarily. However, many people I hear throwing out the issue of wars for oil seem to not understand the facts.

I will stand by my statements that this was an unjust war, and the Vatican shares this view.

You’re fine when you claim this is your opinion and perhaps a concern of the Vatican. When you purport this to be the final absolute infallible teaching of the church, then you stray from the very teachings of the church. If it’s opinion, then it’s opinion and we can agree to disagree – it it’s their absolute position, well it can’t be – based on the very quote you gave from the Catechism.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Orionthehunter

This is a serious charge with which opinion is insufficient. It must be backed up with sufficient foundation.
From the Catechism:
2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:

of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor.

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way.

Get off your sanctimonious horse will ya.

Vice-president **** Cheney, who chairs the White House Energy Policy Development Group, commissioned a report on ‘energy security’ from the Baker Institute for Public Policy, a think-tank set up by James Baker, the former US secretary of state under George Bush Sr.

The report, Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century, concludes: 'The United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a de- stabilizing influence to … the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export program to manipulate oil markets. Therefore the US should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq including military, energy, economic and political/ diplomatic assessments.

‘The United States should then develop an integrated strategy with key allies in Europe and Asia, and with key countries in the Middle East, to restate goals with respect to Iraqi policy and to restore a cohesive coalition of key allies.’ commondreams.org/headlines02/1006-03.htm

Also keep in mind, Haliburton, who Cheney worked for and has many friends, received non-bid contracts in the billions.

There is plenty of evidence to make one believe that the war was geared toward oil contracts and business dealings. Heck, most wars are fought for this reason, why would Iraq be different?

Why do you keep trying to expand the statements of the Vatican to serve and support your own views?

“The Vatican” does not share this view. August leaders in the Vatican personally share this view. This is a big difference.

When you continue to factually overstate the position of “The Vatican” you attempt to imply that Catholics who reach a different conclusion are not as good a Catholic as yourself.

My last post had the link to the Vatican’s statements to the UN, that the war in Iraq would be unjust. I can’t help it if you ignored it.

Here it is again.

“To Resort to Force Would Not Be Just,” Vatican Says at U.N. zenit.org/article-6589?l=english

CC 2477 also says one must not commit calumny: “who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.”

Jim, this is a very serious charge to level against fellow Catholics struggling like you to discern the Wisdom of the Holy Spirit in their personal lives.

I’m not making any charge against fellow Catholics, please get off your sanctimonious horse and stop making false claims against me.

I posted the Vatican statements on the non-justification for the war in Iraq, which I share. You have to follow your own conscience.

Jim

 

[Ender]

                          The strict conditions for **legitimate defense **by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
there must be serious prospects of success;
the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.

I don’t dispute this definition but I will point out that the phrase “legitimate defense” doesn’t mean what you think it does. I consider the definition in the Catechism not wrong but deficient in that it doesn’t make sufficiently clear what the Church’s position on war really is. The following is from section 506 of the Compendium on the Social Doctrine of the Church prepared by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace:

“* The international community as a whole has the moral obligation to intervene on behalf of those groups whose very survival is threatened or whose basic human rights are seriously violated. * As members of an international community, States cannot remain indifferent; on the contrary, if all other available means should prove ineffective, it is “legitimate and even obligatory to take concrete measures to disarm the aggressor”.[1063] The principle of national sovereignty cannot be claimed as a motive for preventing an intervention in defense of innocent victims.[1064]”

The parenthetical numbers refer to sections of the Catechism. As you can see, the Church holds it “legitimate and even obligatory” to use armed force in the “defense of innocent victims.”

Defense of the innocent is part of the meaning of the term “legitimate defense.”

Ender

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Ender;

I don’t dispute this definition but I will point out that the phrase “legitimate defense” doesn’t mean what you think it does. I consider the definition in the Catechism not wrong but deficient in that it doesn’t make sufficiently clear what the Church’s position on war really is. The following is from section 506 of the Compendium on the Social Doctrine of the Church prepared by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace:

“* The international community as a whole has the moral obligation to intervene on behalf of those groups whose very survival is threatened or whose basic human rights are seriously violated. * As members of an international community, States cannot remain indifferent; on the contrary, if all other available means should prove ineffective, it is “legitimate and even obligatory to take concrete measures to disarm the aggressor”.[1063] The principle of national sovereignty cannot be claimed as a motive for preventing an intervention in defense of innocent victims.[1064]”

The parenthetical numbers refer to sections of the Catechism. As you can see, the Church holds it “legitimate and even obligatory” to use armed force in the “defense of innocent victims.”

Defense of the innocent is part of the meaning of the term “legitimate defense.”

Here I believe the Church is addressing genocide. The Vatican’s statement to the UN, does not support war in Iraq under the documents you are pointing to.
“To Resort to Force Would Not Be Just,” Vatican Says at U.N. zenit.org/article-6589?l=english

Also, the Vatican opposed the sanctions that were being used against Iraq, after the 1st Gulf war. More innocent people died because of the sanctions, than could be morally justified. We also knew that the oil for food program was being abused. Many point to Germany and France on this, but it was private corporations who were involved and yes, there were even American corporations involved.

Jim