AmericanPapist Comments
I think that the US bishops are foolishly wrong about the war in Iraq.
A rapid retreat in Iraq would cause a bloodbath in the region and give AlQaeda another win.
That the US bishops don't recognize that Muslim terrorists are killing, kidnapping and driving out Christians in the region is very troubling, indeed.
Islamic terror is not caused by poverty, powerlessness or injustice. It is caused by Islam. Those that flock to it are most often wealthy, highly educated and live in democracies and authocracies, alike.
Their statement sounds more like the pandering of democratic committee staffers rather than a bold proclation of the successors to the apostles.
I've studied their pre-war letter trail extensively. Apart from ASSERTING their OPINION, neither the Bishops, nor prominent Cardinals NOR the Pope ever made a Catholic theological or ethical ARGUMENT to back up their assertions that "this is bad".
And Consequentialism is a heresy. Not doing something solely on the fear of what 'might' happen is not Catholic ethics. Hoping for the best is also not a moral argument. Nor is vague "let's let diplomacy work its course" a concrete plan. Yet that's what we got in 2002 and 2003: vague calls for "more diplomacy" without spelling out exactly what that would consist of (other than lifting the UN embargo of Iraq) and calls for Saddam "to behave" as though dictators have a long track record of listening to the feckless and toothless "international community" (which seems to consist of the G7 minus the USA).
As for "pre-emptive war" the Church has preached crusades in the past which were definately pre-emptive. The Naval armada that was assembled and ultimately scored a victory over the Turkish navy at the battle of LePanto, was promoted by the Pope YEARS before the battle took place.
LePanto IS NOT a port in Italy - it's a bay off the coast of Greece - then held by the Turks...so the combined Christian navies were going on the offense, not fighting a defensive action.
The point was to attack the Turks in their home port BEFORE their numerically superior force was ready to set sail, because it was understood that waiting for the attack to be imminent (as in, sails sighted off the coast of Italy) would be to wait too long.
As for more modern examples, Pope John Paul II's discourse on the anniversary of the WW2 battle of Monte Casino where a Polish division suffered heavy losses is very germane to the subject. He praised the fallen Poles for "their defense of their homeland". But they were NOT fighting IN POLAND, they were strictly speaking ATTACKING German forces IN ITALY over 1,000 miles from Poland.
Harking back to the 16th century Seige of Vienna's victorious Polish forces who rode to the rescue of their fellow Christians in far off Vienna....again in a situation where Poles where fighting on foreign ground against a foe that was a POTENTIAL threat to their kingdom, the Pope made the point that by winning at the gates of Vienna, they helped save Europe from further war.
Finally, when it comes to Catholic ethical arguments one needs specific facts not generalities and bumper sticker slogans.
Claiming the US invasion was injust is not to prove it so.
Indiscriminate force was never a part of the battle plan and rules of engagement in the actual war - at least on our side.
Nor did we use disproportionate force in defeating Saddam's armies - Shock and Awe was more a psych-ops campaign than a real bombing campaign. And subsequent to the May 2003 "end of major combat operations" all the bloodshed of Iraqi civilians has come from foreign and domestic terrorists targetting civilians not US forces doing the killing of innocents.
Yet we hear nothing about this from those "against the war" as though all the violence and all the destruction is solely the big-bad US going around killing unarmed civilians.
I 'get' that the Pope and bishops can't be "for" war. But merely being "against" it does not automatically make the war "unjust" according to Catholic just war theory and ethical teaching.
Perhaps the US should have allowed the Nazis to destroy the Vatican and gas all of the curia while the US pursued "peaceful negotiations" with the the Nazis. Although, like Joe, I fully appreciate that the Church cannot advocate for war and should advocate for peace, the Church sometimes displays a shocking naivete. Saddam (Mr. Human Shredder), like Hitler, had the morals of a brutal gangster. I'm not sure "negotiations" with him would have proved very meaningful. I think the Church should focus instead on the evils of Castro, Chavez, the Chinese, etc. where the Church would truly be putting itself and its members at risk rather than focusing on a benign power like the US. After all, they risk nothing with their musings about the US government.But with the left-wing loon press that activity wouldn't get them any press coverage. Tom
Joe - Thank you for the refresher course - I agree with you, Gil and TJM completely, by the way. It is easy to be critical of the government's actions in the USA. No risk involved. Fire away bishops, it costs you nothing.
Really, when the bishops pontificate on issues where they have no practical expertise, they embarrass themselves and the Church. But if Europe (and the Vatican in particular) is attacked by Islamist fascists I will demand that the US stay out of the fray and demand that the UN (the highest moral authority in lefty world) handle it in their usual manner. Tom
Commenting by HaloScan
