AmericanPapist Comments
I like much of what you write, but why mock those who campaign for non-violance as a Gospel principle? The Vatican was louder on the war in Iraq than the U.S. bishops!
Thanks for posting the pictures.
The bishops' statement seems more concerned with saying 'I told you so' rather than with proclaiming the Gospel of Peace. The irony is that have no right to a 'I told you so'. They never told American soldiers that it would be wrong to fight in an unjust war.
In fact, as I am an eyewitness to it, they told us that it was our duty to fight in an unjust war.
If you want to mock something, mock that.
The Vatican's interventions about the Iraq war were personal opinions and carry little authority over the prudential decision of the U.S. government and military to invade.
I'd like someone who claims the Iraq war was an "unjust war" (I prefer the term "unjustified war") to back that up.
In any case, there's no doubt in my mind that U.S. soldiers could (and can) in good conscience participate in the war effort.
All this talk about a gospel of nonviolence is a poor way to respond to the offenses being done to Christians the world over.
... and I'm not going to get involved in a combox flame war on this issue. Thanks for the comments.
These pics should be captioned, "People with not much to do in their lives."
Fr. Philip, OP
I'm sorry that one of my first comments here has to be negative, but I have to agree with Michael. I like a lot of what you write here, but this post (as well as your follow-up comment) is really disappointing. Since when does one presume a war is just unless proven otherwise? I know that's not what your saying, but that's what it sounds like. As for the comment "... and I'm not going to get involved in a combox flame war on this issue" - although I understand the desire to avoid the acrimonious debate that is all-too common in the comboxes, this sure is a convenient way to duck criticism and stifle constructive discussion.
American Papist,
So the opinions of John Paul II and Benedict XVI were just "personal opinions"? I'd like to see YOU back that one up. It appears you have become far more "American" than a "papist".
In one weak comment, you have effectively minimized the role of officials of the Vatican--popes and cardinals--and cut-and-run without defending your conservative ideology that clearly holds primacy over Catholic social and political teaching. Your true colors (red) have been coming out since the week before the election...Republican, first, American second, Catholic third.
The situation has radically changed, and the Church has to accept that just being against the war is not going to help. The War in Iraq cannot be made unjust by one leaders inability to properly express the need for such a venture.
By the way, Did the Church ever officially declare the war unjust?
The situation has radically changed, and the Church has to accept that just being against the war is not going to help.
No matter how radical the change may be, this does not negate the Holy See's and the U.S. bishops' original criticism. And no matter how radical the change may be, it does not suddenly make the war just or right.
By the way, Did the Church ever officially declare the war unjust?
If the constant words of Pope John Paul II can count as "official" for you, then, yes, the war was and is unjust. Are you waiting for an Ecumenical Council or an Apostolic Constitution?
I am waiting for our catholic soldiers to be told that they should discontinue fighting in an unjust war. Anything short of that is just criticism and I have tons of criticism about how this war has been waged.
I agreed with JP2 about how this war was began. It is too late now to withdraw without serious consequences. If the Church advocates pulling out now, then we must accept the responsibility for our advice.
When our Catholic soldiers are told to no longer fight in this unjust war, then I shall bow my head in assent.
So the Church has no role in determining what wars are just and what wars are unjust?
As a Catholic soldier, I was told by our archbishop that I wasn't required to listen to the Pope's opinion. Rather, I was required to obey my oaths to the United States government and wage war if so ordered - regardless of whether the war was just or unjust. That was the President's prudential judgment - not mine, not the Church's.
So I reformulate my question: what use are Catholic teachings on war if Catholic soldiers are prohibited from following those teachings?
Behind all these words of 'prudential judgment' lies an idolatry of state. 'Prudential judgment' is taken to mean 'infallible judgment', isn't it?
Have any of you considered that the government's prudential judgment could have been wrong, and therefore the war could have been unjust, and therefore all the soldiers who invaded Iraq were not participating in some sort of holy slaughter, but were participating in unjust murder?
Or are soldiers absolved of all personal responsibility in deciding whether or not to go to war?
And now we beging to see the idolatry. See who absolves sin now? It is not the Church who absolves the sins of its soldiers who wage unjust war. It is the state, whose 'prudential judgment' has become 'infallible judgment', who tells us that personal morality doesn't apply to warfare, who tells us that it is our moral duty to kill for it.
I tell you that it won't be the soldiers who are held to account for the horrors they commit. It will be those who sent them, those who convinced them that they didn't have to listen to their Pope, those who told them their oaths to the United State government trumped those to Christ, who told them it was good to kill.
Your words and sermons have a real effect on real people - both in Iraq and in America. At least recognize what you are saying when you call a Pope's words his 'opinion', when you throw away all the Church's teachings by relying upon the 'prudential judgment' of heretics and unbelievers, and by spending all your time and energy counteracting the guidance of those Christ has appointed to shepherd you.
Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, give to God what is God's. But what will happen if we give ourselves to Caesar? Will there be anything left for God?
"Or are soldiers absolved of all personal responsibility in deciding whether or not to go to war?"
"I tell you that it won't be the soldiers who are held to account for the horrors they commit."
Can you even see the internal contradictions in your argument?
As to proving the unjust nature of the Iraq War, it is simple enough, and I'll rely upon the Pope's words:
You will not find the idea of preventive war in the Catechism.
No matter how hard you twist the words, the Iraq war was clearly not pre-emptive. Iraq was not about to attack us. Nor were terrorists inside Iraq.
Now, many other reasons will be used to justify the Iraq war, but that doesn't matter. If you violate one aspect of the just-war theory, it doesn't matter how noble the rest of your intentions or reasons are. It's still unjust. You have to fulfill *all* the requirements.
Neocon catholics are struggling to have the just-war theory expanded to support preventive war, but it isn't going to happen. They don't seem to realize that when the Vatican says that we've got to take another look at the just-war theory and re-evaluate it, they don't mean that it ought to be expanded to include more wars. They mean that the just-war theory has been useless to the Church. It's been twisted to make every American war a just war.
Just think on that for a moment, Americans. Has America ever fought an unjust war? Ever? There's such a clear example, but I wonder if most American's could pick it out. And even if they picked it out, I wonder if they would be able to condemn the General who led that unjust war.
That's right - the Civil War. But maybe in examining the Civil War, we get to the heart of the warmongering neocon crowd. I bet they would have the gall to attempt to rationalize both sides of that war, to say that both Lee and Grant were heroes of sorts, that it was possible for both sides to be fighting a just war.
But if the just war theory is to be believed, in one side of a war one must be wrong - because the war must be one of self-defense.
So who sinned mortally by waging war in the Civil War? Lee or Grant? The entire southern army, or the entire northern army? Anyone? No one?
In the Iraq war, America waged a preventive war against something it was afraid of. But that's not good enough.
Internal contradictions:
I noticed it, but the question isn't entirely rhetorical. The question is difficult, right? Did Nazi soldiers sin by killing in an unjust war? Did Confederate soldiers? Do our soldiers?
I don't know.
I know that many of them will suffer for waging this war, that much is certain. But it's also clear to me that those who sent them will suffer more, and will surely be held more accountable.
Think of Jesus' parable about the servant who knew his master's wishes and didn't carry it out, as opposed to the servant who was disobedient out of ignorance. Or the Church's teaching about mortal sin - that you have to know that it is wrong, and that you have to commit that wrong with freedom.
Think about the children suicide bombers. Are they any more or less guilty than the boy nazis who killed for Hitler's army? And what of American troops? If the war was unjust, would our troops be any more or less guilty for destroying Iraq?
I left the Army because I had to take personal responsibility for what I was doing. Even so, I cannot find it in myself to condemn soldiers who wage unjust wars. If that is inconsistent, I admit it. But I tend to think that soldiers have been deceived, as the terrorist suicide bombers have, as the nazis were. And those who deceived them will bear the brunt of the sorrow for that (though not all).
Commenting by HaloScan
