NonViolence

[Orionthehunter]

From JimR-OCDS: Orionthehunter

Get off your sanctimonious horse will ya.

In the merits of the issue, I believe the war was imprudent and is proving to be potentially counter-productive.

I just don’t think that my cause is served by claiming things that are not true or presented in half-truth.

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

Now you are getting into asserting a conspiracy that the President/Vice President actually believed that the victory would be protracted needing significant nation-building/civic governing advice, reconstruction, and police action.

From JimR-OCDS: 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?

I find the evidence to be specious and wholly inconvincing. More important, it requires a vision into another’s heart and interior life.

From JimR-OCDS: 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.

If you don’t see the difference by now between speaking out from a political and moral counseling point of view vs. a binding declaration, it is doubtful you ever will.

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

When you invoke the Church to support your claims, you imply that you are on the Church’s side or God’s side. The argument you attempt to make is one I generally agree with. However, I am not the one invoking the Church in a way that impugns the interior state of fellow Catholics.

 

[Ender]

• 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.*

Genocide would pertain to those “whose very survival is threatened” but the statement also includes those “whose basic human rights are seriously violated.” That is a great deal broader than genocide.

The Vatican’s statement to the UN, does not support war in Iraq under the documents you are pointing to.

I am trying to clarify the Just War doctrine by pointing out that nations have not just the right but the moral obligation to come to the aid of the (severely) oppressed in other nations. That is, in contradiction to your claim, just wars do not have to be solely in the defense of one’s own nation.

Once we settle this point we can address the issue of whether or not the oppression in Iraq justified our invasion.

Ender

 

[Amolibri]

Genocide would pertain to those “whose very survival is threatened” but the statement also includes those “whose basic human rights are seriously violated.” That is a great deal broader than genocide.I am trying to clarify the Just War doctrine by pointing out that nations have not just the right but the moral obligation to come to the aid of the (severely) oppressed in other nations. That is, in contradiction to your claim, just wars do not have to be solely in the defense of one’s own nation.

Once we settle this point we can address the issue of whether or not the oppression in Iraq justified our invasion.

Ender

One thing I want to understand is: WHY we shifted our focus to Iraq when we were “defending” against Al Quaida in Afghanistan… and if what you are saying is true…when will our invasion of Darfur/Sudan occur??? (no oil there, perhaps, perhaps???)

 

[Orionthehunter]

One thing I want to understand is: WHY we shifted our focus to Iraq when we were “defending” against Al Quaida in Afghanistan… and if what you are saying is true…when will our invasion of Darfur/Sudan occur??? (no oil there, perhaps, perhaps???)

Personally, I’ve always felt that intervention was more justified on humanitarian grounds in both Afghanistan and Somalia than Iraq.

 

[Amolibri]

Personally, I’ve always felt that intervention was more justified on humanitarian grounds in both Afghanistan and Somalia than Iraq.

:clapping:

 

[Ender]

One thing I want to understand is: WHY we shifted our focus to Iraq when we were “defending” against Al Quaida in Afghanistan

Al Qaida is not the only terrorist threat. There are any number of terrorist organizations and several of them were receiving direct aid from Iraq … just as many still receive aid directly from Iran and Syria.

… and if what you are saying is true…when will our invasion of Darfur/Sudan occur???

IF? Why is it so hard to accept the obvious? The Just War doctrine allows war to defend the severely oppressed in other nations; not just in defense of one’s own nation. You cannot hold that the JWD allows the invasion of the Sudan but forbids the invasion of Iraq. You can claim that the situation in the Sudan meets the criteria while that in Iraq did not, but neither case is a violation of the doctrine.

(no oil there, perhaps, perhaps???)

Every US intervention from Vietnam to Iraq (not excepting even Grenada) has been linked by the left to oil despite the fact that there is no evidence of us ever receiving any oil benefits. The suggestion that we went into Iraq for oil is as baseless as suggesting that we went there for maple syrup.

Ender

 

[Amolibri]

… and if what you are saying is true…when will our invasion of Darfur/Sudan occur??? *
I guess I should have put a little face on that one , so you’d know that “invasion” or “pre-emptive” is what I was questioning.
My point was that … Al Quaida was the enemy…and “just-ified” our invasion of Afghanistan…many* still **don’t know why the Iraq shift was “just”. The “WMD”, as the admin. was desperate for us to believe?
But since you know all the answers, and are the “Ender” …I’m posting it for others who may be reading.

 

[Amolibri]

vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=11109964

Fr. John Dear’s video on non-violence

 

[Ender]

Fr. John Dear’s video on non-violence

It is depressing to see yet another priest invent his own religion when Catholicism doesn’t live up to his personal code. We can accept either Fr. Dear’s version of the “true” Christian’s obligation to non-violence or the Church’s teaching on the subject - which allows (under certain circumstances) killing both in self defense and in war. That is, the Church sanctions violence where it is necessary.

This is the same objection that was made about Gandhi’s claim that Christians had an obligation to be non-violent: it is incorrect.

Ender

 

[Amolibri]

It is depressing to see yet another priest invent his own religion when Catholicism doesn’t live up to his personal code. We can accept either Fr. Dear’s version of the “true” Christian’s obligation to non-violence or the Church’s teaching on the subject - which allows (under certain circumstances) killing both in self defense and in war. That is, the Church sanctions violence where it is necessary.

This is the same objection that was made about Gandhi’s claim that Christians had an obligation to be non-violent: it is incorrect.

Ender

Why don’t you give it up, Ender? Your know-it-all attitude is off-putting. John Dear has not been sanctioned by his order or by the Church. …only by you!
Standing for peace will always be noble…whether you like it or not.

 

[Ender]

Standing for peace will always be noble…whether you like it or not.

Standing for peace may be noble but distorting the teaching of the Church is not. My “attitude” may be offensive to you but I haven’t seen anything indicating that my comments are incorrect. I would find that a more compelling objection.

Ender

 

[Amolibri]

I couldn’t give a snort if you think my opinion on peacemaking is “incorrect”. Do you turn people in to the ‘correctness police’?? This is no dialogue…this is you determining who is correct or incorrect.

Fr. John is not “inventing his own church” as I see it, and I don’t believe you are obliged to pay him any attention.

Peace be with YOU, Mr. Ender. *over & out *

 

[Orionthehunter]

Why don’t you give it up, Ender? Your know-it-all attitude is off-putting. John Dear has not been sanctioned by his order or by the Church. …only by you!
Standing for peace will always be noble…whether you like it or not.

We are all to stand for peace. Always. But peace is not the absence of war but the presence of Christ. While you and I agree on alot of things in this regard, I’m very uncomfortable with the characterization of Ender who is articulating a more full presentation w/ the nuance that allows for military action to protect and preserve life and liberty of people suffering under various forms of oppresssion and abuse.

 

[Amolibri]

We are all to stand for peace. Always. But peace is not the absence of war but the presence of Christ. While you and I agree on alot of things in this regard, I’m very uncomfortable with the characterization of Ender who is articulating a more full presentation w/ the nuance that allows for military action to protect and preserve life and liberty of people suffering under various forms of oppresssion and abuse.

Very decent of you, Orion, but I was also uncomfortable with Ender’s characterization of Fr. John.
I think we just disagree about our present situation in the Middle East…and I’m uncomfortable with (what I read as) using the “just war doctrine” to justify the actions of this administration. Lest we get into a political quagmire…I’ll leave it at that.

 

[Ender]

We are all to stand for peace. Always. But peace is not the absence of war but the presence of Christ. While you and I agree on a lot of things in this regard, I’m very uncomfortable with the characterization of Ender who is articulating a more full presentation w/ the nuance that allows for military action to protect and preserve life and liberty of people suffering under various forms of oppression and abuse.

Thank you. My objective has been to rebut claims that, as Catholics, we have a responsibility to be non-violent. I think it is important to be very clear about whether or not this claim is true - and it seems pretty obvious that, based on the existence of a just war doctrine and the Catechism’s comments on self defense, this is not the case.

It is one thing for members on this forum to be confused about this; even Gandhi can (possibly) be excused for being mistaken but I can think of no valid excuse for a priest to be wrong about it.

Ender

 

[Amolibri]

Ender: I think I only object to your language *I can think of no valid excuse for a priest to be wrong about it. *

Your pronouncements of who’s right & wrong are just not the type of dialogue I find acceptable. Call me or Fr. John wrong…fine. But I won’t be engaging in this any further.
Thanks, and Peace be with you. (peace and non-violence are not necessarily opposites…think on that.)

 

[Orionthehunter]

Thank you. My objective has been to rebut claims that, as Catholics, we have a responsibility to be non-violent. I think it is important to be very clear about whether or not this claim is true - and it seems pretty obvious that, based on the existence of a just war doctrine and the Catechism’s comments on self defense, this is not the case.

It is one thing for members on this forum to be confused about this; even Gandhi can (possibly) be excused for being mistaken but I can think of no valid excuse for a priest to be wrong about it.

Ender

Ender, I think you are being too hard on Father John. One of the purposes of our Spiritual Leaders are to pique our conscience. I don’t think he is saying “this is what the Church teaches” as much as he is saying “this is what we need to aspire to”. Fr. John, while using Teaching and Scripture as a basis, was trying to appeal our conscience to effect a more peaceful world through policies he has determined in his prudential judgment are the answer.

Whether it being a Dorothy Day (Poor and economicly disenfranchised), Fr. John (peace), anti-death penalty advocate, the Priests & Bishops from the Chaldean Rite advocating Iraqi intervention, Fr. Sirico (pro-capitalism), they are teaching us the Gospel throught different prisms.

While they are advocating policies formed by their prudential judgment and they often conflict, there is a common thread-- they all are calling us to remember our call to engage in this temporal world to make it more Christ-like and conducive to leading people to Christ.

I think the pro-capitalist would be well served to periodically read Dorothy Day and vice versa. I think the anti-Iraqi war would be well served to read various rationale’s for intervening and vice versa. I think a pro-death penalty person would be well served to read the other side and vice versa. These are not issues like abortion or the divinity of Christ where it is a matter of Truth but are matters of prudential judgment. But for us to properly exercise our prudential judgment it must be well formed and well informed.

Remember, we are not to change Christ but allow Him to change us. This requires us to constantly open ourself up to the possibility our prudential judgment might have made errors or is at least excessively closed to alternatives.

Ender, you and others have done a great service in this thread to not allow our personal “aspirations or inclinations” to be substituted for actual Church Teaching. Despite disagreeing w/ your prudential judgment on this matter, I personally think you and the others gave a more full explanation of the teaching. But, in my mind, your criticism of Fr. John has started sliding into the realm which you and I tried to prevent.

God Bless and thank you for you aid in this thread. I couldn’t have done it without you.

 

[Ender]

Ender, I think you are being too hard on Father John.

Welllll … I’ll certainly grant that I was hard on him.

One of the purposes of our Spiritual Leaders are to pique our conscience. I don’t think he is saying “this is what the Church teaches” as much as he is saying “this is what we need to aspire to”.

I believe him to be saying that Jesus teaches (Gandhian style) non-violence and I disagree with that characterization. Your comments caused me to go back to his video to see precisely what he did say. Early on in the video he remarks that the desert is a good place “to slow down and follow in the footsteps of Jesus and the path of non-violence”. According to Martin Sheen, his first words as a priest included “and the love of the non-violent Jesus be with you all”. You are correct in that he never specifically states that the Church teaches non-violence but he clearly implies that Jesus did. I don’t mind having my conscience piqued but I find no way to square what Fr. Dear is saying re non-violence with what the Church teaches - and if the Church doesn’t teach non-violence I don’t know why I would aspire to it.

Fr. John, while using Teaching and Scripture as a basis, was trying to appeal our conscience to effect a more peaceful world through policies he has determined in his prudential judgment are the answer.

But since the Church doesn’t teach non-violence his appeal was not based on what the Church teaches. It might seem self-evident that a peaceful world could be achieved only by renouncing violence, but the Church doesn’t define peace as merely the absence of violence but it also requires the presence of justice.

they are teaching us the Gospel through different prisms.

I don’t think his position is simply looking at an old problem from a new perspective; I believe it is a distortion of our Catholic responsibilities.

I appreciate your comments and if you can cite something he said that would mitigate my view of his position I would be interested in knowing what I missed.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Despite disagreeing w/ your prudential judgment on this matter…

I missed this in my previous response: what prudential judgment are you referring to? My view of Fr. Dear or my comments on the position of the Church with regard to non-violence? If it is the latter can you explain what the Church teaches on the subject? That’s the point that needs to be cleary defined. If it’s the former, well … you say po-tay-to, I say po-tot-o.

Ender

 

[JimR-OCDS]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church;

2307 The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war.

So, when George Bush launched cruise missiles in an attempt to kill Saddam Hussein, knowing that innocent people would and were in fact killed, was he justified? Is the blowing up of an entire block of people, in order to kill one man, moral?

I think not.

Jim