I'm not sure I'm getting this attempt to draw a contrast between abortion on the one hand, and war/capitalist economics/death penalty on the other.
There is legitimate diversity of opinion over war, economics, and the death penalty. Agreed.
Stephen Hand vehemently disagrees with the opinions of some Catholic writers and bloggers on these issues. But since diversity of opinion is legitimate in these areas, he's entitled to. And vice-versa. It should all be done charitably and civilly, of course. Combining this with vehemence may be tricky.
But there is ALSO legitimate diversity of opinion over whether a Catholic can in good conscience vote for a political candidate who is prochoice. Cardinal Ratzinger, as he then was, said so, in effect, when responding to the US Bishops, with this sentence:
"When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons."
Since Cardinal Ratzinger did not infallibly and comprehensively declare what would and would not constitute 'proportionate reasons', there is thus room also for legitimate diversity of opinion among Catholics as to whether there are any such reasons, in any given case, such as in last year's presidential election.
Some will vehemently, charitably and civilly argue that there were no possible proportionate reasons that would justify a Kerry vote by a Catholic last year. But I disagree with the notion that a Catholic *couldn't* have sincerely thought that there were. There is in fact legitimate diversity of opinion on this issue as well--not on whether one can support abortion, to be sure; but on whether, disagreeing with a candidate's position on abortion, one has sufficient reasons nevertheless to still vote for that candidate. George H. W. Bush, for instance, was at one time prochoice (when he was Vice-President, I think). I don't remember conservatives saying one couldn't vote for him then.
Hence, try as some might, you really cannot use the abortion issue as a trump-card in an attempt to force Catholics to vote for Bush or the Republicans.
Kerry's record on abortion is not good, and I wouldn't defend it for a moment. But if a Catholic politician sincerely believed, as a prudential judgement, that reversing Roe or banning abortion in the states would have roughly the same long consequences for abortion as the Prohibition Amendment did for the cause of prohibiting alcohol consumption, then he might, I think, legitimately not seek to rely on a legal assault on abortion, and instead concentrate on other social policies that he believed would drastically reduce the actual incidence of abortion.
Since this would be a prudential judgement about the best means to the agreed upon goal of reducing and eliminating abortion, it strikes me that this too MUST be an area in which there can be legitimate diversity of opinion. Ensuring a SCOTUS that overturned Roe might turn out to be a disaster for the prolife cause in the longer political term.
You seem to take your stand on the side of a "legitimate diversity of opinion" in matters other than doctrine. Are you suggesting that certitude comes only from faith, and that apart from the central tenents of faith, everything is reduced to opinion? I would hope not because undeniable truths, i.e., principles, play a central role in all intellectual, moral, and aesthetic judgment.
To defend Novak's position on Iraq because it squares with a "legitimate diversity of opinion" seems quite beside the point. His conclusions may be wrong simply because they rest on a misapplication of universal principles!
Practical judgments are not about opinion. They are still about truth, even though these truths might be suffused with elements of contingency.
I've seen no evidence, from himself or his defenders, that Novak is more cognizant of the full range of American power, or the situation in Iraq, than was the Pope. On what ground does Novak's judgment on the war in Iraq have any credibility? Perhaps, just perhaps, his conclusions are the ramblings of ideological or detached speculation, even though he may be granted the 'right' to conjecture as he pleases.
Precisely where lies the strength of Novak's judgment about Iraq? Precisely where lies the weakness of the Pope's judgment about Iraq? Or vice versa.
To say that Novak has a 'right' to state his opinion is really of no consequence to his judgment. In practical matters, there is still a truth to be discovered. Perhaps Novak has yet to discover it. Perhaps Stephan Hand's rhetorical outrage has some merit. Isn't there some merit in being outraged at carnage? Shouldn't that be a part of the contingencies that cry out for consideration in this practical judgment?
Or is the real issue about paying homage to a "legitimate diversity of opinion?"
Of course, legitimate diversity of opinion does have SOME limits
Vatican Is Said to Force Jesuit Off Magazine
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
An American Jesuit who is a frequent television commentator on Roman Catholic issues resigned yesterday under orders from the Vatican as editor of the Catholic magazine America because he had published articles critical of church positions, several Catholic officials in the United States said.
The order to dismiss the editor, the Rev. Thomas J. Reese, was issued by the Vatican's office of doctrinal enforcement - the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - in mid-March when that office was still headed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on the matter, said. Soon after, Pope John Paul II died and Cardinal Ratzinger was elected pope, taking the name Benedict XVI.
I perhaps need to make the parallel I was seeking to draw a little clearer.
The Church unequivocally condemns causing death by means of unjust war, unjust medical procedures, unjust economic activity, and unjust application of the death penalty.
Hence, there can be no legitimate diversity of opinion about these matters. Unjust killing by any of these means can never be approved.
What there CAN be legitimate diversity of opinion about, inter alia, are:
1) whether having a Constitutional Amendment requiring the US government to abide by the norms of Catholic just war doctrine is a political measure that Catholic legislators ought to introduce, and whether the current war in Iraq satisfies those norms
2) whether seeking a legal ban on abortion is likely to prove an effective way in the long run of reducing the incidence of unjust medical killings, or instead is likely to prove counterproductive in the current circumstances of American society
3) whether conservative free market economic policies tend to ameliorate or exacerbate death-dealing unjust economic activity in general, and whether any particular policy proposal does one or the other
4) whether, in the current social circumstances of the USA, the application of the death penalty is ever, in fact, just. (E.g. one can make the argument that if it is not really necessary to defend the human life of the community, then it is ipso facto unjust).
ETC!
What the argument is really about is, of course, these two facts:
A) politically conservative Catholics are dismayed by Catholics who don't take the unequivocal condemnation of unjust killing by means of abortion to imply that they can never support a prochoice candidate, and hence seem de facto supporters of abortion; and
B) politically liberal Catholics are dismayed by Catholics who don't take the unequivocal condemnation of unjust war, unjust economic activity, and unjust application of the death penalty to imply that they can never support politicians who follow policies which, to the liberal Catholics, seem to support de facto unjust war, death-dealing unjust economic activity, and unjust use of the death penalty.
I'm not sure how to go beyond this impasse.
Stunster states: "Of course, legitimate diversity of opinion does have SOME limits"
Perhaps there should be a delineation of the nature of those limits! What constitutes the intrinsic logic of "legitimacy" insofar as it is associated with a "diversity of opinion?" Why is some opinion "legitimate" and some opinion not "legitimate?" What constitutes the nature of legitimacy? Clearly, one would think there are distinctions to be made here.
As Stunster's post indicates, not all opinions are legitimate. But why is Fr. Reese, SJ's opinion "not legitimate?" Why is Novak's opinion on Iraq considered by some to be "legitimate?" What constitutes "legitimacy?"
Was Fr. Reese, SJ's decision to publish opposing views in "America" a "moral judgment" on the "legitimacy" of "dialogue" between diverse opinions or a "moral judgment" about the "legitimacy" of the diverse opinions themselves? Is dialogue "legitimate?" What is "legitimate dialogue?"
where can a guy get himself a copy of Denzinger's Enchiridion these days?
Santiago,
Check out:
http://www.antiqbook.com/boox/
bb...82_79098A.shtml
Part of what I believe as soured this debate is a lack of distinction of what is the teaching of the Church. There seems to be almost a Protestant current to the discussion following a typical a or b argument:
a) That which is not expressly condemned is permissible.
b) That which is not expressly permitted is condemned.
While there certainly is Catholic freedom of conscience, the America first crowd I believe fails. These issues are not dichotomies where if nothing is defined anything and everything is allowed. I personally no longer read Mr. Novak, because I don't believe he has any respect for Re Rum Novarum. There may indeed be more than acceptable views of the truth at present, but that doesn't mean that some views haven't been condemned. When speaking to "conservative" Catholics, you often find that many simply do not give any credence to Catholic social teaching. As a person that tentatively supported the War in Iraq, I found great discomfort with many Catholic commentators, because I don't believe they could find a war they find unjust.
The war in Iraq is not an expression of Christian faith. American freedom cannot be so simply be compared to Christian freedom. Pope Benedict at his installation Mass yesterday said the freedom to kill is tyranny. And this is so, I believe, whether we are talking of abortion or wars of empire. The Pope and his predecessor very wisely rebuke American preemptive assertion of power which is more reminiscent of the interests of imperial Rome than anything the Popes hope for.
I still enjoy reading Novak and Weigel because on many other issues they write the truth. But when it comes to U.S. Foreign Policy and Capitalist Economics, I've found their views at odds with the Popes and their continual and consistent social teaching against the ravages of the free market, global capitalism, and war.
The simple fact is that the Popes for last 100 years have consistently opposed war and did all they could to stop it. Benedict XVI is no exception - he opposed the invasion of Iraq and said that we should be questioning whether a Just War is even licit today.
It's odd that a blog so dedicated to the Holy Father is so at odds with his teaching against war.
Why do you instead launch heated attacks on TCR and Stephen Hand?
Wouldn't it be better to re-examine the legitimacy of the invasion of Iraq in the light of subsequent events ? Cardinal Ratzinger was crystal clear - the invasion did not meet the Catechsim criteria for legitimate defence.
Those who loudly proclaim the existence of Just Wars, while they are unable to produce any evidence that the Church has ever defined that a Just War even exists, do not give much credence to their views when they clearly cannot see that a particular war is unjust.
God Bless
Christopher:
Back to the question of a "legitimate diversity of opinion." Outside the context of doctrine, how would you distinguish between a "legitimate diversity of opinion" -- about moral matters, let's say -- and moral pluralism? Is one reducible to the other? If not reducible, which I suspect is the case, on the basis of what would they be distinguished. If reducible, doesn't that leave a huge gap between Faith and Science that can only be filled by Conventionalism? Wouldn't one be tempted to visualize against this horizon, faint intimations of Protestantism and Modernism?
One further point. Isn't the word "opinion" a rather forced term to be using in conjunction with the word "legitimate", particularly in the context of Catholic philosophical thought? St. Thomas, for instance, never speaks of "opinion". Rather he speaks about true and false judgments, or good and evil judgments, and the like. I don't quite understand how the word "opinion" can be used outside the context of Conventionalism, whatever form it takes.
Background Regarding Shawn's comments about our Tributes section at TCR
Shawn at the time was praising TCR in email and on his blog (why, I wonder,
when our position on the war was exactly the same as it is now?) and so, I
asked him if he wanted to add to the tributes section, out of courtesy.
Of course, he said he did want to, doubtless sincerely. What he sent,
though, was odd with his scholastic imitation which is a constant in his
writing, secoond only to his egoism; I felt an obligation out of courtesy to
print it since he was a later ally against integrist exaggeration---but with
a qualifier, the only qualifier in the section!---though he was hardly on
par with the others writers in that section.
But then, later, in an email he wrongly, and with not a little very strange paranoia, accused TCR of describing his site at our links page as one-dimensional apologetics against integrists, which it was---though we didn't describe it as such (He had read the link wrongly, and when showed this through the Google cached page he did not apologize and instead went into stony odd silence... only to resurface with this bizarre attack against
the Popes under the pretext of aiming at only at TCR.
As I said, I rarely corresponded with Shawn due to the way he writes, but
since, again, he was an ally against integrist exaggeration upon leaving
those circles later, I felt a kind of debt, which I see now was silly.
Those who write regularly for TCR sent kind tributes, for our 5th year of
service. None were forced to and only those who wanted to did. Except for
Shawn and Pete Vere they were asked because they actually contribute to TCR
of their own will and desire on a regular basis.
Alas, Shawn, Dave and Greg do the same kind of "apologetics" (note Shawn's
"Shawn and Greg '1', Stephen '0'" style at his blog) which I frankly find
repugnant since it is all sarcasm of the most immature kind, all arrogance,
and 'win' oriented, rather than pastoral with sensitivity.
So I am convinced that their knowing my convictions about their methods has
played a major role in their launching this latest attack.
The only one who hurts me here, I must confess, frankly, is Christopher. I expected more of
him even though we differed. I never expected he would want to join Shawn's ranks.
Px,
SH
Hey Stephen,
If you thought Shawn's writing was that of a "highschooler trying to sound like a scholastic" then why did you feature one of his essays on your homepage with a link to it?
In Christ,
Stephen,
I stand by Shawn and Greg for this reason: given the longstanding, blatantly skewed and unjust misrepresentation of "the neocons" (by the Zwicks, to which you had given host), along with your treatment of various other figures (Fr. Pavone, Karl Keating), I believe their concern was warranted.
I had briefly commented on this objectionable element of TCRNews in earlier posts.
I "join the ranks" here simply to say: "I concur" with the analysis and critique of Greg's editorial, which remains to be answered.
Under His Mercy,
Christopher
To Jerry, although I don't have time to go into greater detail right now, I would say what constitutes proper areas for "legitimate diversity of opinion" by Catholics would be with specific reference to Pope Benedict and the Magisterium, from which my use of the phrase itself was derived (section 3, "worthiness to recieve communion: general principles").
To Stunster, it would appear that some of the issues Fr. Reese was presenting were simply considered "closed topics" by the Magisterium -- as Mark Brumley notes on Insight Scoop:
"By publishing, say, a pro-homosexual-marriage piece and a pro-Catholic-view-of-marriage piece side-by-side, AMERICA gives the impression that this is a subject up for legitimate debate within Catholicism and that AMERICA is the place to go to participate in that debate. Likewise, by publishing "moderate" proaborts side-by-side with people who embrace Catholic teaching on the right to life, AMERICA grabs the rhetorical middle ground and assumes the guise of defining what is acceptable discussion within Catholicism. By publishing "name" Catholic commentators who are orthodox, AMERICA can draw attention to itself as it says, "See, we give both sides their chance"--as if on many of the issues under discussion there are two legitimate sides within the Catholic Church, when in fact there aren't."
To Chris Sullivan -- for whom I get the sense that we are talking past each other -- the Church has laid out the rational criteria for just war time and again, as well as teaching in the Catechism (at § 2309) that “the evaluation of these [just war] conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good."
Your efforts to conflate the Church's position on war with one of absolute nonviolence and pacifism are simply mistaken. As Lorenzo Albacete has noted, despite his disagreement with the Bush administration over Iraq,
". . . the Holy Father has not rejected the 'just war doctrine." The Catechism of the Catholic Church promulgated by him reaffirms it. Indeed, the Pope and Vatican diplomacy did not mobilize to oppose the war against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, and some of the Pope's remarks at that time appeared to justify it as a just response to the attacks of September 11, 2001. Whereas the Church recognizes that some may be called to pacifism as a personal 'vocation,' John Paul II's opposition to war has nothing to do with pacifism."
The criticism of Karl Keating by Maggie Hall was just that, simply criticism, Christopher. Karl has been very kind and did not take that ***personally***. Karl's apologetics are vastly superior to David Armstrong's abd the other two, in my opinion, and in every way.
As for the Zwicks, they are, in my opinion, most faithful to the ***whole*** Catholic faith, as opposed to cafeteria parts. I am continually astonished by their faithful elucidation of symphonic Catholicism.
As for Fr. Pavone, I love the man for his good works, but his explicit deference to the United States over the Vatican relative to the legitimacy of this war was heartbreaking and unseemly. And tragically, it showed indifference the nearly 100,000 innocent civilian deaths, including children.
Lastly, Christopher, I am no pacifist as you seem to understand the term. We supported a police action against those responsible for the 9/11 attack which you lately noted, as I later learned many pacifists did also. But not war which is a different matter. Even pacifists are not indifferent to rapes in the park and will fight to stop them. But as Tom Cornell said, war ain't no rape in the park. Not to see this is a kind of spiritual blindness.
The new Pope has, not for nothing, called into question the very legitimacy of Just War thinking in light of the fact that modern warfare hurts mostly civilians despite all the blather about "smart" bombs, and the like. (See our musings section at TCRNews.com)
Shawn, David and Greg are---it must be said--- reflexive and embarrassing in their hig school like apologetics. It so often amounts to little more than ego jousting and exhibitionism and for you to mingle with that odor is not a good thing. Already many are disappointed to see it. I'd cut the line with them if I were in your place, as I had to. We will always have room at TCR for minds like Fr. James Schall, SJ, though he disagrees with us strongly, but not for these childish ones.
Stephen Hand
BTW, "The criticism of Karl Keating" entioned above was criticism of his position on the death penalty, not of his person.
We were not personally attacking him, as Dave, Shawn and Greg regularly attack their opponents. Of the 3 only Dave has some influence, though mostly with Protestants who like to fight with him.
SH
Greg, which article of Shawn's was at TCR? I forget.
I purposely had to distance TCR from Shawn long ago, though I tried to be polite always in correspondence, but if one article
in all the thousands we have placed over the years squeaked through, that is supposed to be significant? Which one was it, though? I could place an article by you or anyone if it was truly informative, though I would have to hold my nose :-)
SH
I am grateful to Stunster, Jerry (though I do not think I know them) and Chris for their thoughtful input and defence of the Popes on this matter of the war.
Catholicism is universal which is why nation-states are ever suspicious of it and tend to persecute it. Catholicism is not defined or limited by any nation on earth, but seeks the good of ALL---especially the weak. Thus our allergy to war, nukes, sanctions which affect food, water and medical supplies, etc.
War is the antithesis of the teachings of Jesus and unless one is directly attacked there is no excuse for its horrors. It is fought for ego-myths like glory, the homeland, and, always, money, money, money
The callous heart which remains untouched by the unspeakable sufferings of real human beings in war astonishes me. Makes we wonder where the Christian heart is in their chests?
One last thing regarding tributes. As I stated earlier, we don't pat ourselves on the back every day by publishing all the kind email we get (does anyone here really believe TCR, like all sites, does not get a LOT of very kind email? or do they think it's all Shawn /Greg/Dave-like droppings?)
I have a very large folder which stretches back to before the Jubilee year began which if I published would make us look self-congratulatory in the extreme. I suppose I could have published that as Tributes going back years, but I can't stand all this "WE'RE Noticed, aren't we cool???" stuff which you find at the blogs (nausea creeps to think of it....) and prefer saving space for informative material. Is that so hard to understand?
Yeah Stephen,
Leave it to you to forget what you post at your own site. While there may have been some of Shawn's other works featured at your website, I do specifically remember you displaying a link to his "Tradition is Opposed to Novelty Canard" essay.
In Christ,
The criticism of Karl Keating by Maggie Hall was just that, simply criticism, Christopher.
The implicit lesson in Ms. Hall's "criticism" of Keating was that good Catholics were not permitted to support the death penalty. This, as Greg demonstrated in his editorial, was wrong.
As for the Zwicks, they are, in my opinion, most faithful to the ***whole*** Catholic faith, as opposed to cafeteria parts. I am continually astonished by their faithful elucidation of symphonic
Catholicism.
As in dismissing Michael Novak as an "Enron man," misrepresenting his books as an apology for unbridled capitalism completely devoid of morality (it is Novak's contention that liberal democracy and the free market's viability is contingent on its being grounded in Christian morality).
So you have absolutely no objections whatsoever to the manner in which the Zwick's treated Novak, Neuhaus, and Dulles?
http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/...hael-
novak.html
As I've contended, the Zwick's manner of speech is a great impediment to their witness in carrying on the legacy of Dorthy Day -- Fr. Neuhaus came to the same conclusions about their treatment of Cardinal Dulles:
"Fr. Dulles tells me that he remembers meeting the Zwicks at a meeting in Washington and, in private conversation, asked them what they thought of the argument of an acquaintance of his who does business in Latin America and claims that, although the wages he pays are low by North American standards, they are much higher than his workers could otherwise obtain. He says he does not recall how the Zwicks responded to his question, if they did. Since then, however, they have more than once published the claim that Fr. Dulles "defends slave wages" in Latin America. Such libel does nothing to enhance the legacy of Dorothy Day which the Catholic Worker supposedly champions."
As for Fr. Pavone, I love the man for his good works, but his explicit deference to the United States over the Vatican relative to the legitimacy of this war was heartbreaking and unseemly. And tragically, it showed indifference the nearly 100,000 innocent civilian deaths, including
children.
Where do you get the statistic for "100,000 innocent civilian deaths"? -- And would you attribute these casualties to the United States? -- If you're referring to the Lancet study, the methodology used to obtain this figure is highly suspect:
http://www.chicagoboyz.net/archi...ves/
002578.html
http://slate.msn.com/id/2108887/
Lastly, Christopher, I am no pacifist as you seem to understand the term . . .
I've never called you a pacifist nor attributed strict pacifism to your position. If you note I was speaking with regards to Chris Sullivan in an earlier comment, whose comments lead me to believe he considers any use of military force immoral. (Chris, please correct me if I'm wrong).
I do, however, have a question regarding your defense of Afghanistan as a "police action" -- how do you square this with the belief that the just war tradition ought to be abolished on account that "modern warfare hurts mostly civilians" -- considering the same country, same army, same bombs, same weaponry came into play in both scenarios? (Despite the military's efforts to prevent them in both theatres of the war on terrorism, the "police action" in Afghanistan did incur civilian casualties).
We were not personally attacking [Keating], as Dave, Shawn and Greg regularly attack their opponents. . . .
"many of whom are glued to their keyboards and do not even hold real jobs---seem not to care about
real human beings dying, bleeding, blown away. . . . They prefer to pontificate above their competence and side with the powerful . . . the bloggers, who daily traffic in inconsequential
debate, don't care ---like the Popes do--- about the victims of the money imperialists . . ."
Should I assume this is what you mean by objective criticism of another's person?
Again, take a look at Greg's editorial, because as Greg says, it's not your right to criticize he takes issue with, but rather your questionable presentation of others' positions.
Shawn at the time was praising TCR in email and on his blog (why, I wonder, when our position on the war was exactly the same as it is now?)
Simple, (i) TCR used to be a very diverse site and (ii) it was not until (strangely after) the tributes stuff was posted that your site really began veering into crazyville on the war subject. Some people emailed me asking if my tribute to TCR was an endorsement of your war position and I made it clear it was not. (The reason I wrote the tribute as I did was to provide the space needed for that fact but apparently some people did not get it.)
We were not personally attacking him, as Dave, Shawn and Greg regularly attack their opponents.
This comment betrays your ignorance of Rerum Novarum Stephen. I so very rarely go after anyone that I am able to dialogue with people that many cannot dialogue with. I do not make a habit of saving the mail I get from people who notice this stuff so unfortunately I cannot post much in the way of actual reader feedback on it.
Of the 3 only Dave has some influence
You wish it was that way Stephen.
What he sent, though, was odd with his scholastic imitation which is a constant in his writing, secoond only to his egoism
What was printed was intended in part to be humoruous. You certainly recognized this at the time -even noting it in an email which I happen to have on file. Apparently you have a short memory though when it is convenient for you to have.
Shawn, David and Greg are---it must be said--- reflexive and embarrassing in their hig school like apologetics. It so often amounts to little more than ego jousting and exhibitionism and for you to mingle with that odor is not a good thing. Already many are disappointed to see it.
Uh huh. You apparently have not looked into your archives at TCR then because there are about ten of my pieces which are linked at TCR -including my last essay on novelty and tradition.
in an email he wrongly, and with not a little very strange paranoia, accused TCR of describing his site at our links page as one-dimensional apologetics against integrists, which it was
No it was not. So-called "integrism" is maybe 3% of what has been covered at Rerum Novarum since its founding. You were utilizing the same kind of typecasting of Rerum Novarum that I abhor -albeit you were not doing so unintentionally.
That is why I reacted as I did -having fought typecasting for five years I was not about to stand by and let people do it again -even unintentionally as you (at the time) were doing.
Alas, Shawn, Dave and Greg do the same kind of "apologetics" (note Shawn's "Shawn and Greg '1', Stephen '0'" style at his blog) which I frankly find repugnant since it is all sarcasm of the most immature kind, all arrogance, and 'win' oriented, rather than pastoral with sensitivity.
I was tallying the number of major points Greg and I made in our writings that you completely misrepresented in your responses. Frankly, if I were you I would be embarrassed at how you missed such simple and elementary stuff. A word of advice: it helps to READ something before you respond to it.
Though more could be noted, this suffices to deal with certain key points in Mr. Hand's above postings. As for the rest, I will deal with it at Rerum Novarum.
Christopher,
I don't consider any use of military force immoral.
I accept the Catechism criteria for the Legitimate Use of Military Force in Defence.
However, the Cathecism does not say that any wars are Just. It does not say that there exist any Just Wars. As far as I can tell, no papal encyclical or council decision has ever defined that a Just War exists ie that a war can be just.
To use military force in defence is one thing. To go so far as to say that a war can be just is quite another, and outside what the Church teaches.
I (very reluctantly) supported the U.S. intervention in Afghanistan to arrest Bin Laden. But solely as an international policing excercise. When it became a sensless and futile war killing and slaughtering innocent Afhghans I joined the New Zealand Bishops in opposing it and oppsing the bombing of Afghan civilians.
I think both sides in the heated debate above probably need to cool off, forgive each other, and show some understanding and compassion.
What unites us is infinitely more than what divides us.
God Bless you all
Edited By Siteowner
....And so, dear friends, this is how it went on, with Christopher opting to become the soliloquist, Sean ever the rascal, Dave the boxer and Greg the mocker, all siding against the Popes and for Mr. Bush's war.
A fair trial thou canst expect here, albeit after sentence has been passed (protocol here).
Anything thou sayest, alas, will be used against thee in this court of Four, with three far gone and one loosing his footing at breakneck speed for reasons unfathomable.
Anyone in ages hence who is interested to see the other side of the story---and some context so thou canst see for thyself if this gang of four sees aright or awry--- is welcome to visit TCRNews.com for themselves (http://tcrnews.com/).
Otherwise Adieu. I will be busy looking for Sean's articles to burn (10 he saith, eh? musta been on Integrism) from ancient times at the wacky site which only one year ago he lavishly praised (my email telleth), though positions then were the same as our positions now. Go figure.
Adieu! :-)
SH
"However, the Cathecism does not say that any wars are Just. It does not say that there exist any Just Wars. As far as I can tell, no papal encyclical or council decision has ever defined that a Just War exists ie that a war can be just."
The reason the Catechism doesn't say that any particular war is just (or unjust for that matter) is that deciding such a question is outside the realm of the Church's competence.
Now if the Catechism did not believe that a war could be just, as you seem to believe, then why does it go to the pains of bringing the subject up?
In Christ,
PS Police action: We asked for one, we did not get one.
Stephen:
Your "Greg the Mocker" epithet of my last name ain't fresh dude. Now, my "Hand Jive", teaser was fresher, but I digress!
To offend me, your going to have to do better than that. I'm pretty thick-skinned about stuff like that!:-D
In Christ,
Shawn's "reiteration":
PPS: From Shawn's website to TCR
last year...
"Part of the reason it is customary to celebrate anniversaries is because they are a good time to look back on what has transpired over the course of a given period of time. Having noted that, it has come to the attention of Us at Rerum Novarum that TCR is on the verge of their fifth anniversary as a faithful contributor to the New Evangelization.
"At this time it seems appropriate therefore to reiterate anew Our appreciation for what they do and wish them many continued years of faithful service to the Church. Much as We do, they strive for loyalty at all times to the Magisterium of the Church. For that reason above all else, they are to be commended.
"Lest there is any question on the matter, it is noted here that there is no hesitation on Our part to exhort the readers of this humble weblog to check out their site -situated as it has long been amongst the recommended websites at Rerum Novarum. We recommend TCR very highly and have for a long time.
"In closing, thankyou Stephen (and the other contributors to TCR) for all that you have done.{2} May you and TCR have many successful years ahead. Also know that despite disagreements that we may have (even some significant ones at times) that you have Our support here at Rerum Novarum for the work that you do -which in some areas{3} is better than anyone else out there. You have our prayers, our support, and also our thanks. Hopefully, this entry is adequate enough to declare where Rerum Novarum and your weblog host stand viz. Our view of TCR.
Notes:
{1} There is (We believe) a healthy respect between TCR and Rerum Novarum despite some (occasionally) significant theological differences in viewpoint or emphasis. (In areas where such differentiation in views is viewed as acceptable by the Magisterium.)
{2} Readers of this weblog are not unaware of the admiration that We have for TCR -particularly in the area of social justice where they are arguably the most eloquent expounders of Catholic doctrine and principles in cyberspace.
{3} See footnote two.
:: I. Shawn McElhinney 7:21 PM [+] ::
Greg,
You seem to indicate that deciding whether a war is just or unjust is outside the Church's realm of competance, including Pope John Paul II' competance. To be sure, the war in Iraq is not a matter of Faith. But the Church has a competance that ranges far beyond Faith.
Philosophy -- which has a home in Catholicism -- is about universal truths. I realize these truths do not necessarily rest on Faith, but clearly some of them do, e.g., the nature of the person and Freedom. Why do I hear little mention about philosophy as a measure of competance? Why do I hear little mention about such truth in moral matters, like the war in Iraq. Instead I hear phrases that echo the "legitimate diversity of opinion," as though the latter means anything.
You might recall that JPII has been described as one of the great geostategists of the last century. I would argue the greatest. One would think his view would amount to more than the rebuke: "You are outside your area of competance. We Catholics don't have to follow your judgment."
A simple question: WHY would JPII lose his competance when it comes to speaking on Iraq when shortly before he was hailed as politically and strategically brilliant? He was a master at employing all elements of Power.
And then, why would Novak have more competance than the Pope among activist Catholics in America, particularly those who support the war. Why would Novak have more competance on issues of war and peace -- even more competance than those Catholics who served in high level positions in the Reagan Administration and watched in horror as they began to contemplate where the decision to invade Iraq was taking this country?
Novak is not a strategists, not even around the edges. Nor does he claim to be such. He clearly didn't have the competance to speak as it did.
Why? -- that is the question I'm looking to have answered. But all I hear is that "deciding such a question is outside the realm of the Church's competence."
But let me reiterate emphatically: That is simply not true. The Catholic has a competance that ranges across the full breadth of human knowledge. There is a distinct Catholic way of thinking on all matters. And the Pope, with his accumulated experience on strategic matters, was in a unique position to speak.
Finally, I want to underscore the vapid nature of phrases like the "legitimate diversity of opinion!" What does that mean, when it comes to war and peace?
Frankly, I detect in this phrase the outlines of an intellectual relativism -- something very much akin to Luther and Calvin, but certainly not akin to Catholicism.
Are you certain about which you speak? Or are your statements merely opinions as are those of JPII? If so, I can see in the faint distance the emergence of a politics that is nothing more than a Darwinian struggle where the powerful hold sway over the weak through the exercise of utilitarian means.
Finally, in the thread above, there seems to be an inordinate degree of passion expressed in the defense of this so-called "legitimate diversity of opinion." I wondered: what is that all about. But now, I'm not so sure. Has it been personal all along? Has this thread been a struggle for power? If so, where has been the struggle for truth and humility?
Greg Mockeridge,
Jerry has dealt well with the question of the Magisterium's competence to judge the unjustness of particular wars. It has that competence. Cardinal Ratzinger clearly excercised that competence in ruling that the invasion of Iraq did not meet the Catechism conditions for legitimate military defence.
But my point about the Catechism isn't whether or not any particular war is or isn't just, but that the Catechism doesn't say that any war is just.
From what I can tell, the Church simply doesn't teach that a war can ever be Just. All that is taught is that there are legitimate uses of military force in defence.
If you want to say that the Church teaches that a war can be Just, then you need to show the papal document or council decision which defines this.
Can you please do so ?
God Bless
Jerry:
Because philosophy has to do with intrinsic truths (i.e. natural law), that IS within the Church's competence. The issue of whether or not it was just for the U.S.to go to war or not is something as CCC 2309 makes clear, left to the prudential judgment of the civil authorities involved.
Furthemore, then Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, prefaced his clealry expressed disagreement with the war by saying it is matter that is not within his competence to speak on authoritatively.
He also makes clear in his note to the U.S. bishops "On the Worthiness to Receive Communion" the following:
"Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about WAGING WAR and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia."
The reason there is so much passion expressed about this legitimate diversity is because it is something (as the quote from then-Cardinal Ratzinger points out)that is to be respected and that Mr. Hand, along with his allies, has repeatedly DISrespected it and won't own up to it.
Nobody ever said that the JPII was some great "geo-strategist" at least in terms of determining whether or not military action is appropriate in a given instance. Because such decision rests on factors proper only to civil authorities (cf. CCC 2309) including military expertise. I don't know of anyone who thinks JPII had any military expert. JPII himself would have denied having such...and vehemently.
In Christ,
Mr. Sullivan:
"Cardinal Ratzinger clearly excercised that competence in ruling that the invasion of Iraq did not meet the Catechism conditions for legitimate military defence."
He RULED NOTHING of the sort! Ratzinger (BenedictXVI) stated his opposition as a private opinion in which he explicitly admitted that he had not the competence to rule these matters.
Furthermore, he said the exact opposite of what you assert above in his magisterial capacity:
"Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about WAGING WAR and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia."
In Christ,
Jerry: Finally, I want to underscore the vapid nature of phrases like the "legitimate diversity of opinion!" What does that mean, when it comes to war and peace?
As to the meaning of "legitimate diversity of opinion" -- to borrow from Shawn, the opinions of the Vatican curia on the morality of the war and capital punishment do not rise to the level of Magisterial teaching.
Again, with respect to the issue of war, the Catechism of the Catholic Church reserves responsibility for the evaluation of the conditions of just war to those who bear responsibility for the common good.
The Catechism itself does not imbue the Holy Father with the responsibility that it (rightly, I think) ascribes to our nation's leaders. Quoting from Archbishop Myers: " a final judgment of prudence as to the necessity of military force rests with statesmen, not with ecclesiastical leaders. Catholics may, in good conscience, support the use of force in Iraq or oppose it."
If Shawn or Greg or I speak out with passion in defence of U.S. action, I submit it is precisely because we are conscience bound on this matter, given our assessment of the situation based on our reading of the situation. (Stephen Hand might be inclined to say that we were motivated by indifference, revenge, or simply bloodlust in our doing so, but I beg to differ).
Concerning whether JPII's "accumulated experience on strategic matters" -- you place more faith in the Pope's capability for rendering judgement on this matter than I do. In light of the history of militant Islamic violence against the West it is, in my judgement (and I venture in Greg & Shawn's as well) that we are dealing with an enemy for whom dialogue and diplomacy are no longer options (if they ever were). I find Neuhaus' observation, posted today on Shawn's blog, far more compelling:
". . . It would be an exquisite irony of history if, when war is declared on the Christian West by those inspired by a possibly perverse but undeniably Islamic ideology, the Vatican refused to take sides; thus, willy-nilly, taking the other side. The Curia's cosmopolitanism, sophistication, devotion to dialogue, and long-term perspective shaped by centuries of diplomacy can all be assets. They can also induce a blindness to the fact that an enemy has declared war and sides must be taken. The Europeans who run the Vatican are right in believing that the Vatican must not be a chaplain to American hegemony; a critical distance is required. When that distance becomes disdain, however, the credibility of the Church's political guidance and the defense of our common civilization are gravely weakened."
[continued]
To touch briefly on Novak, whom you seem to have a preoccupation -- personally, I think Novak's far more qualified to speak on matters of economics and the social teachings of the Church, just war and international relations are not exactly his forte. So I'm in agreement with you on his competence in presenting a case for the war to an "international jury" in Rome -- he was out of his league.
Weigel and James Turner Johnson, on the other hand, are well-versed in this subject, and their discussion of the various reasons to go to war, of which there were many, are compelling. "Preemption" was probably the most flimsy and indefensible, as Johnson notes here. I'm in agreement with Jeane Bethke Elshtain that the Bush Administration got the proportions wrong in their emphasis on WMD's -- on the other hand, it must likewise be noted that Senator Barbara Boxer was flat out wrong in asserting that "it was WMD, period" on which Bush made his case.
I lament the fact that Weigel's Tranquillitas Ordinis: The Present Failure and Future Promise of American Catholic Thought on War and Peace is out of print, as it would provide considerable background on his argument and is in itself an immensely rich study of Catholic thought on war and peace, with a specific focus on the U.S. from the revolutionary war to the present (well, at least the 1980's).
We could go into all kinds of tangents here --
* how the intelligence of the leading nations of the world concurred with the Bush Administration on the existence of WMD's at the time of the war -- see Kenneth Pollack's "Spies, Lies and Weapons: What Went Wrong" (Atlantic Monthly January 2004): "this conviction was held by not only the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), the organization established for overseeing the removal of WMD's in Iraq, but "Germany, Israel, Russia, Britain, China, and even France . . . In sum, no one doubted that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction."
* the questionable advice from the Vatican curia to -- quoting Weigel -- "ascribe to the U.N. capacities it doesn't have and a moral authority it has rarely demonstrated in practice", and whether the capacity of the U.N. Security Council to render an objective judgement on U.S. action was compromised (see the "Oil for Food" scandal and this report on Who Benefits From Keeping Saddam Hussein In Power)
* The understated role of humanitarian intervention in the discussions leading up to the war.
(although all this has been covered before and some would question the merits of kicking a dead horse).
[continued]
Jerry asks:
Has it been personal all along? Has this thread been a struggle for power? If so, where has been the struggle for truth and humility?
I confess that I'm a bit sore about the fact that even after I protested the Zwick's hatchet job on Novak, Neuhaus and Avery Dulles several years ago, Stephen Hand not only didn't apologize but maintained his unreserved support for the Zwicks and their tactics. (Perhaps I should have emailed him privately -- then again, from what I understand he was reading my blog at the time and it'd be hard to miss that particular post given my frequent mention of it). So, I'm still hoping for that apology with regard past treatment of "the neocons," who I consider unfairly represented.
Unlike Shawn or David, I have very little contact and no prior personal history with Stephen, apart from responding to his letter for a personal tribute and occasional corresponence concerning his early criticisms of the SSPX/"traditionalists", for which I remain indebted.
So, that's about as "personal" as it gets.
Sorry about the length of the response. =)
Chris Sullivan: "Cardinal Ratzinger clearly excercised that competence in ruling that the invasion of Iraq did not meet the Catechism conditions for legitimate military defence."
Greg: "He RULED NOTHING of the sort! Ratzinger (BenedictXVI) stated his opposition as a private opinion in which he explicitly admitted that he had not the competence to rule these matters."
Heh. Chris, meet Greg. Greg, meet Chris.
Mr. Sullivan is a regular on this blog, as he was on Mark Shea's prior to his hiatus, and displays a penchant for elevating private opinion [incorrectly] to the level of magisterial teaching -- I'm not sure you'll have any luck reasoning with him about such matters, but you'll find him easy to get along with, . . . that is, if you don't mind repeating yourself in your interaction. =)
Yes, I quite understand and agree. Whether or not the US goes to war should be "left to the prudential judgment of the civil authorities involved." I have never argued otherwise. It is elementary to any practitioner of national power, Catholic or otherwise.
Clearly, God did not reveal whether the US should go to war against Iraq in 2002. And if he did, it was stamped in bold relief -- Top Secret!
Going further, "there may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about WAGING WAR and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia." I quite agree, and do so easily. There are obvious intellectual distinctions at work here, transparent even to an undergraduate philosophy student.
But, caution is advised. This statement is not an argument for or against anything. It certainly doesn't disqualify JPII from having a profound grasp of the issue. Nor should it be used to discredit his strategic judgment and influence.
Yet the thrust of this quote was raised repeatedly throughout the debate leading up to the war as though it meant something relevant to the situation at hand. The simple truth is that it did not. How could matters of Faith and Doctrine have anything to do with going to war? To raise the issue as it was raised had the singular impact of confusing the dynamics of the debate. It was obfuscation through and through, whether done so intentionally or not.
And yet, one would find it difficult not to conclude that there was a concerted effort to neutralize the Pope in matters of US foreign policy. Indeed, it seemed almost palpable that certain Catholics were deliberately driving a wedge between the Papacy and the US decision-making process so as to neutralize potential Catholic opposition to the war. If true, this is a very, very serious matter.
If you read what I posted earlier, you'll find that I raised two questions. What constitutes the nature of "legitimacy" and what is meant by "opinon," particularly in matters pertaining to war and peace? Herein lies the philosophical crux of the issue. As for the material elements of prudential judgment, these are too numerous to discuss here.
Benedict XVI: A New Peace Pope, by Michael Griffin.
[Moderator's note: I don't permit copy and pasting of entire articles in my comments box; feel free to post a link to the source -- I've made the appropriate corrections to this post - Christopher].
Edited By Siteowner
Greg,
CCC2309 doesn't say the decision to use military force lies withthe "civil authorities" but with "those who have responsibility for the common good". The later include the Church and the international authorities.
God Bless
Greg,
Cardinal Ratzinger said :-
"The concept of preventive war does not appear in the Catechism"
Can you quote your source for believing this to be his private opinion rather than an authoritative interpretation ?
Thnaks and God Bless
Chris:
Why don't you actually read the article where he makes that statement, not just snippets. In it, he explicitly states that authoritatively speaking on political matters such as this one are NOT within his competence.
Geeeeeessssssshhhhhhh, how many times do I have to repeat that fact before you'll get it? ;-P
In Christ,
Greg,
Could you please link to the original article? I've looked for it and can only find the snippets.
Thanks and God Bless
Chris,
Good point. The decision to exercise military force lies with "those who have responsibility for the common good." Nonetheless, in the case of war and peace, responsible officials ARE the "civil authorities."
But, and perhaps this needs to be explored further, one should not overlook the role of proportionality. The "prudential judgment of civil authorities" in the determination of means and ends must always be guided by a direct responsibility to the common good.
It is here that the waters get very muddy. Very muddy indeed! How could a purely utilitarian approach to war and peace lead to the common good? Indeed, could it do so at all? In the long run, can American pragmatism fare any better? Perhaps not.
History offers some guidance. At the level of principle, what was the failing of Detente? What principles insured the successof Reagan's strategy of "constructive dialogue?" Each strategy played a role in US/Soviet relations. But only one was decisive.
Going further, what intellectual principles should have should have supported US policy leading up to the war in Iraq? For example, what view of the person should have been employed? What view of human purpose? What kind of leadership should have been exhibited?
It's easy to forget that the quality of a nation's leadership is always a window into the principles employed by the state. What was revealed about our policy through the exercise of American leadership?
Looking outward, what message was conveyed to us by the outrage of the world's populations? Here it is easy to misconstrue what happened. The roar of outrage came not from states but from ordinary people -- men, women, and children. Does the collapse of US stature among the world's populations mean anything strategically? Does it mean anything in terms of intellectual principles? Or is it just a problem to be solved?
What vision of th world is driving America forward? Are we trying to CREATE that world or are we trying to INSPIRE a vision of the world? Should we be a CATALYST to unleash the energies inherent in the dignity and freedom of the human person? Or should we see ourselves as an "army of professionals" willing to do the job for the world.
These are very different courses of action? Very different indeed. Reflect for a moment. How would we want Rwanda to treat us? And then reflect: How should we want America to treat us if we were Rwandans? What are the demands of the "dignity and freedom of the human person" on America in the exercise of power?
How was the vision of that "shining city on the hill" reflected in the kind of leadership exhibited by the US Administration leading up to the war? Important question, I would think? Should we "go abroad, seeking dragons to destroy?" Should we Create the world in our image? Or should we Inspire others AND ourselves to move towards a vision etched only in the human heart and the stars?
Was there an "open and honest" debate in the US leading up to the war? Or was the objective -- on both sides I might add -- merely to win? Perhaps winning was the key. Americans, after all, don't like losers.
In the larger scheme, there seems to be little dialogue in this country at the level of intellectual principle. Most individuals seem to view questions of war and peace -- not to mention issues such as poverty and surplus, health, education, and the dynamics of personal relationships -- primarily as a win or loose issue. These struggles are seen as a contest where each has an agenda, where each fits somewhere within an ethos of moral pluralism, where each seeks to be the victor, and where the victor is decided by a ruthless Darwinian calculus.
Today, ideology runs rampant. But ideology is a mindless calling. Perhaps because it is mindless, it tends to suffuse our best efforts and intentions.
And so, it matters greatly what intellectual underpinnings support moral judgment. Prudential judgments involve an INTELLECTUAL determination of the proper proportionality between means and ends. An INTELLECTUAL judgment affirms that such principles have been satisfied. In short, intellectual activity stands PRIOR to the consent of the will. The will always SEEKS the good but it must be PRESENTED the good by practical REASON.
One further point. When one realizes the magnitude of material considerations involved in making war or peace -- and the vast array of human factors involved in the exercise of practical reason -- it is no wonder that subsidiarity plays such an enormous role. It is for this reason, primarily, that Faith and Doctrine play only an ancilliary role in such decisions.
Clearly, extreme caution is the better course of action when it comes to war and peace! What seems urgent today may have less to do with the exigencies of the threat than with the nature of the principles employed in determining a course of action. Such was the case with the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Doesn't it seem that Nominalism and Voluntarism -- anti-intellectualism -- are too much in the wind these days, especially among Catholics?
Greg: Send us the Ratzinger quote in its entire context and let us look at it.
"The concept of preventive war does not appear in the Catechism"
Cardinal Ratzinger Says Unilateral Attack on Iraq Not Justified: Gives Personal Opinion; Favors Decision from U.N.
Zenit News Agency
TRIESTE, Italy, SEPT. 22, 2002 (www.Zenit.org).- Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger does not believe that a unilateral military attack by the United States against Iraq would be morally justifiable, under the current circumstances.
According to the prefect of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith -- who acknowledged that political questions are not within his competence -- "the United Nations is the [institution] that should make the final decision."
"It is necessary that the community of nations makes the decision, not a particular power," the cardinal said, after receiving the 2002 Trieste Liberal Award. His statements were published Saturday in the Italian newspaper Avvenire.
"The fact that the United Nations is seeking the way to avoid war, seems to me to demonstrate with enough evidence that the damage would be greater than the values one hopes to save," the cardinal said.
He said that "the U.N. can be criticized" from several points of view, but "it is the instrument created after the war for the coordination -- including moral -- of politics."
The "concept of a 'preventive war' does not appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church," Cardinal Ratzinger noted.
"One cannot simply say that the catechism does not legitimize the war," he continued. "But it is true that the catechism has developed a doctrine that, on one hand, does not exclude the fact that there are values and peoples that must be defended in some circumstances; on the other hand, it offers a very precise doctrine on the limits of these possibilities."
The Vatican official appealed to the three religions derived from Abraham to offer the Ten Commandments as the means to dissuade terrorists.
"The Decalogue is not the private property of Christians or Jews," Cardinal Ratzinger said. "It is a lofty expression of moral reason that, as such, is also found in the wisdom of other cultures. To refer again to the Decalogue might be essential precisely to restore reason."
Note in the Zenit report above that the command to attack or not to attack cannot be implemented ****by the CDF**** but by the UN (with input doubtless from the Vatican regarding that judgement)
Thus Ratzinger gives his judgement---as did JPII--- in the same piece breath but urges the proper authorities to implement it.
Chris:
The Zenit article posted above by Rick and Martha states, "According to the prefect of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith -- who acknowledged that political questions are not within his competence -- "the United Nations is the [institution] that should make the final decision>"
Does that satisfy you?
In Christ,
Greg.
No. Because whether or not "preventive war" is in the Catechism is not a "political question", but a doctrinal question.
The "concept of a 'preventive war' does not appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church," Cardinal Ratzinger noted
God Bless
The Cardinal's comments are perfectly consistent with all his other antiwar statements. He condemns preemptive war (just as he raises the question of the dubious relevance of Just war theory in a nuclear age later) and yet knows that the Church can only pass prudential judgement based on doctrinal certitudes. Cardinal Ratzinger's suggestion (against Weigel and the neocons) that the Catechism section on the Just War theory must be changed is another powerful indication.
The Church does not start wars anymore. She has learned. But she can and does condemn them prudentially.
If the Church ALLOWS Catholics to have different opinons regarding the War in Iraq (& both Shawn & Greg have made that case from then Cardinal Ratzingers writings IMO) then logically how can Stephen Hand bind the rest of us to what the Church has loosed even if the Popes in their prudent judgements condemned the war?
If the Popes tolerate my differing opinon from them on the War why does Stephen not follow their example & extend the same tolerance?
Stephen differs with the Pope on Priestly celebacy? Why is he allowed to have different views with the Pope but the rest of us must tow the party as difined by him.
Come on Stephen surely you see the illogic here?
BenYachov,
Good point.
But I don't think Stephen is trying to bind anyone. He's just putting a somewhat overheated case against the war.
God Bless
Then Stepehn needs to change his retoric so that it reflects his tolerance of other views. Tolerance in the sense a Molinist will tolerate the views of a Thomist on grace & free will (& vice versa) without having to agree with him.
Hey, I am for the War in Iraq but I was P.O.ed at a certain conservative Catholic who in a comments box on a certain blog called the Pope "morally abtuse" for not supporting the War. I was insensed & scandalized. Especially since it made those Catholics like myself who supported the War & respectfully disagreed with the Pope look bad.
So Stephen has my support if he is against Catholics who are Conservatives First & Catholic second.
OTOH if Stephen wants to claim with a straight face Shawn or Greg or Karl fall in that catagory. Well that is just plain wrong.
I don't want this odor at TCR, so I guess here's the place?
Rascal War Flamers
A bunch of cyber flamers, one in particular who bills himself "Your humble Servant," warranting himself as some kind of self-called Catholic "apologist" charged recently that I volleyed "about 7" "irrational" emails (or some such adjective; they were mostly very brief replies to his hitmen's flames) regarding a dispute with TCR which drives them up the wall (they JPII and Benedict XVI have no competence to judge the Iraqi war as unjust, except as good old boys). The one fellow especially obsesses on this website, combs it daily for things to twist, and finds TCR's editor "incoherent" because we don't agree with him on the Church's position regarding this war and because we refuse his factional simplistics and polemics. The truth is, not a few say, he is bored in his cyber outpost and needed to stir up some excitement for attention, and, if such a thing were possible, ingratiate himself with pro-Bush advocates of a higher quality (he forgets that Fr. James Schall, S.J., put his case before us at TCR more than once, at length, like the true scholar he is). How better to do this than to attack TCR, since he considers us traitors to the conservative Catholic cause because we don't support Mr. Bush in this and other matters? His hit men attacked Mark and Louise Zwick in the same way. This war they defend like a religion ( See http://www.tcrnews2.com/
ideology...gyreligion.html ).
Hell hath no fury like Flamers with way too much time on their hands...
Incessant debaters and lovers of disputes, they are not content to state their opinion. Many of them hardly work real jobs, preferring the keyboards. It's all very old Flamer stuff: anything you say WILL be used against you and spun by the flamer. Even things one doesn't say.
I told the unhappy fellow that I did not want him and the others to flame, as I have enough email and do not do email debate; but, being on fire by nature...he flames wherever he can...Same old, same old.
It is understandable that some who have war in their hearts want war in the world too. This appears one instance of that.
Flamers (from the right esp, but also from the left) attack us all the time. I keep telling them it has the unintended effect of bringing even more people to TCR to see and compare for themselves.
Note to All such Flamers: We address all the issues in dispute at TCR---nowhere else. And from every angle we think necessary. But we have no time for email or blogshots.
Apropos: Pat Buchanan on the American empire. No political liberal he.
http://www.tcrnews2.com/Buchanan.html
:-)
Ah, Jim Scott...another old "friend".
What is this, homecoming week? :-)
Px,
SH
That line should be:
(they believe JPII and Benedict XVI have no competence to judge the Iraqi war as unjust, except as good old boys).
PS.....
Now look, fellas, I'm busy. You have had your say. We'll be publishing articles at TCR (not anywhere else) on the war and its issues as long as it continues.
Chris, you write:
"May I be so bold, then, as to request that Stephen extend to Greg, Shawn and David ("the warbloggers," I presume?); to Weigel, Novak and Neuhaus ("the neocons"), to Fr. Pavone and Karl Keating, and to anybody else who disagrees with his particular political platform, the same charity, civility, and respect that he presently affords Fr. Schall?"
Now, to place Shawn, Dave and Greg in the same league with the others is a bit much. But I will let you or Karl write an apologia for the war---despite your (Chris') aiding and abetting the flamers---if you wish and we may very well answer you. How's that? All fair and square as we do at TCR, even if we are advocates of a position with respect to this war.
If Karl wanted to answer Maggie Hall on the death penalty we would surely have afforded him the space. That offer remains open.
It's up to you.
SH
Chris, If you or Karl or Fr. Pavone want to do the apologia for the war, just paste it to email and send it to my attention. We'll examine and answer it shortly thereafter, if appropriate (i.e., if you raise new issues we haven't already answered), and put up both perspectives at once. You already know where we stand---our archives are plentiful--- so you are at no disadvantage. All I ask is no ad hominem. Write as Fr. Schall does.
By the way, I can't believe you actually read John Allen's bio of Cardinal Ratzinger ***carefully***. Even he now says he made him out to be a "villain" (did you mention that bias in your review? I do not recall it. If not, why not?)
SH
SH
>Ah, Jim Scott...another old "friend".
I reply: So because I disagree with you on certain issues I now get quotation Marks around the word friend?
BTW Mr. Hand the issue is NOT the war.
The issue is the Church & the Pope CLEARLY tolerates persons who have a respectfully different view from them on the war.
Having a different view on the war IS NOT against either the Pope or the Church.
You by your own admission differ with the Pope on Priestly celebacy. Would it be fair if some Radtrad slob said "Stephen Hand believes JPII and Benedict XVI have no compidence to judge Clerical celebacy".
I think not.
Come on man! Your better than this. Really you are.
. . . regarding a dispute with TCR which drives them up the wall (they [say] JPII and Benedict XVI have no competence to judge the Iraqi war as unjust, except as good old boys) . . . How better to do this than to attack TCR,
since he considers us traitors to the conservative Catholic cause because we don't support Mr. Bush in this and other matters?
The crux of their editorial, Stephen, was with your portrayal and presentation of those Catholics who disagree on certain issues -- capital punishment, the use of military force in the war on terrorism, and advocacy of economic positions counter to those proposed by the Catholic Workers.
The discussion of the issues themselves is secondary.
Greg/Shawn had consistently and sufficiently made the case, as many others (clergy and laity, including Ratzinger himself), that Catholics can in fact disagree on these matters and remain solidly within the bounds of orthodoxy. That is a fact. Now, what is clearly apparent in the original editorial what they were objecting to was your dishonest portrayal of these Catholics who disagree with you as somehow less orthodox, and your misrepresentation of their positions.
There are many bloggers and Catholic pundits who have laid out their disagreement with the war (Russel Shaw, for instance) in a respectable fashion without resorting to your tactics.
Question: I would consider George Weigel and Fr. Neuhaus to be as 'scholarly' on these issues as Fr. Schall. Cardinal Dulles as well, I would say, is entitled to some degree of respect. Yet TCRNews.com has played gratuitious host to polemical screeds against "the neocons" which simply do not rise to the level of rational argument or civil discussion (as you would find in the pages of, say, First Things).
As for my 'attack' on Mark and Louise Zwick, I trust my readers can read the post in question and judge for themselves whether it was such.
Incessant debaters and lovers of disputes, they are not content to state their opinion. Many of them hardly work real jobs, preferring the keyboards.
Not that this had any relevance whatsoever to the discussion at hand, but I think those individuals who were challenged on this matter have established the fact that they are employed.
Note to All such Flamers: We address all the issues in dispute at TCR---nowhere else. And from every angle we think necessary.
If that's the case, then I look forward to a point-by-point refutation of Greg Mockeridge's original editorial, which was substantially written and hardly a "blogshot."
Now, to place Shawn, Dave and Greg in the same league with the others is a bit much. But I will let you or Karl write an apologia for the war---despite your (Chris') aiding and abetting the flamers---if you wish and we may very well answer you. How's that? All fair and square as we do at TCR, even if we are advocates of a position with respect
to this war.
See above, Shawn -- I'm not looking for a platform to host my opinions (I receive a fair amount of readers myself), and any dispute over the war or capital punishment or economics itself is, as I said, secondary to the original criticism of Greg Mockeridge.
The chief point of Greg Mockeridge's editorial is not about the war, or capital punishment, but the manner in which you portray and misrepresent the positions of those who disagree with you, or present the statements by the Holy Father and Vatican curia as if they were on the level of authoriative/Magisterial rulings -- such that loyal Catholics could not disagree in conscience, and remain in good standing with the Church.
Can you acknowledge that?
Flamers Eat Fire for Breakfast
________
The issue is human lives, Gospel mercy, the wisdom and authority of the Popes to examine and implicitly or explicitly declare a war unjust, versus American jingoism.
I don't "know" any of you, "BenYachov the 4th," except as names. I have read only Chris and Dave in depth (the others are unreadable) and disagree with him much. He's under the spell of the neo-cons, but I will let him write on the war though I believe I know his position already quite well. That's up to him.
Your particular name(s) kept cropping up over the years where flames abound---and you're better than that, you really are.
There are two kinds of people who disagree with me: smart, good ones / and flamers.
Every 1st Wednesday of the month I have an integrist friend sleep over for years. What joy we have together. I have agnostic friends, and one atheist friend who are as close to me as relatives. I work with people of all different faiths (some hostile to Catholicism or hurt by her) and ideologies. None know me as intolerant. (Imagine flamers calle ME intolerant! Huh!)
So this new "intolerance" meme is your most laugable ruse, a flamers provocation which no one but flamers believe because people who know or read us know what we do and how we do it.
Flamers eat fire for breakfast. How the coal?
SH
Christopher becomes a Curiosity
______
Chris, you are becoming an interesting curiosity, where before I thought you simply a good thinker. (Could it be you were only imitating the writing of the neo-cons?) Another 'you' appears in association with these flamers.
Stange you fellows think I portray war hawks in unfriendly terms. I only portray flamers as unfriendly and with some satire.
Your attack on the Zwicks was not the article mentioned, but your blog quips especially in this context. Blinders off please.
I am under no obligation to write endlessly on Mr. Greg's undousable flames , or anyone's, especially since we have answered those charges quite sufficiently.
All our email, save you happy fellows, say I made my case in a few words quite sufficiently.
Don't you see, fine man, that your ideological presuppositions color your receptivity to positions, just as our do? Yours are American goals, the markets, puritan ethics, the "light shining upon a hill" supposedly liberating the Iraqis by killing civilians and generating terrorists like pinworms under false pretexts (WMD's, etc) and making the future unstable for decades to come at least.
Ours are the teachings of the Beatitudes, the teachings of the Popes, etc.
Catholics who disagree on the war are not less Catholic, only tragic. That's all I've said, intended to say, and will say again and again.
SH
Stephen:
You are not man enough to even mention Shawn and myself by name, refute our points, and link to our essay and commentary on your website so the reader can deicde for himself.
How dare you speak of upholding the beatitudes when you you have sought to smear good Catholic figures with your vicious screeds!
You have used the deaths of former President Reagan, Terri Schiavo, and Pope John Paul II to launch some of your more disgusting drivel.
Even your own former assistant Jack Benedict left TCR because he could no longer tolerate your hatred for America and your disregard for journalistic ethics.
BTW, Reagan did more to help the poor than any of your class envy-inspired crap ever will!
>The issue is human lives, Gospel mercy, the wisdom and authority of the Popes to examine and implicitly or explicitly declare a war unjust, versus American jingoism.
I reply: No Mr. Hand the issue is in fact QUOTE "your portrayal and presentation of those Catholics who disagree on certain issues -- capital punishment, the use of military force in the war on terrorism, and advocacy of economic positions counter to those proposed by the Catholic Workers."END QUOTE
As a Catholic I have no problem with your views on these matters Stephen but YOU CLEARLY have a problem with mine.
Indeed I always thought it would be bad (if not beyond boring) if all orthodox Catholics endorced the same political views.
Orthodox Catholics DO NOT have to become fembots in service of the Republican Party (or the Democrats either) & knee-jerk defenders of it's entire agenda. Nor should they confuse their loyalty to Party with their greater loyalty to the Holy Church (this also goes for orthodox Catholic Democrats, semi-liberals, or Catholic Paleo-Conservatives).
Anyway I do not agree with some of your political ideas BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THOSE SECULAR INDIVIDUALS who hold some of them to rise to the level of a Mr. Hand & express them within the Ark of Salvation the Church.
In short I want to see orthodox Catholic democrats, republicans, neo-conservatives & paleo-conservatives. Unity & diversity.
I have NO PROBLEM with Stephen being against the War or arguing against the War. I DO have a problem with him questioning the orthodoxy & loyalty of those who disagree with him on the War.
I also have a problem with you misrepresenting other people's views.
The Holy Church allows us to have disagreement in these areas. I can respectfully (it must ALWAYS be respectful, slugs who disagree with the Pope & are DISRESPECTFUL aka THE REMNANT, CAI, APOSTATE FAMILY NEWS, NOVUS ORDO WATCH etc...will get the back of my hand!) disagree with the Pope on the war JUST AS YOU STEPHEN can respectfully disagree with him on Priestly celebacy.
Why this double standard?
Your allowed to disagree we are not?
What gives?
Greg Mockeridge,
Stephen's alleged lack of manhood is not reliavent to this discuss & you only give him an excuse to leave the conversation (I understand your anger believe me & I'm not one too talk I realize that).
Also speaking as a Pro-Reagan conservative your DEFENSE OF REAGAN IS as irrelevant as Stephen's critcism of the War.
Pointing out without mercy our Brother's illogic is more productive IMHO. Keep the politics out of it or you are as guilty as Stephen.
Sorry to be hard on you publically but you know I'm right.
Jim:
I understand what you are saying. But Stephen's illogic is directly tied to his cowardice and lack of charity. They are part and parcel of one another. He will not substantively enter the conversation simply because of that.
In Christ,
>I understand what you are saying.
I reply: That's good to know.
>But Stephen's illogic is directly tied to his cowardice and lack of charity.
I reply: In the end ultimately only God can judge who has a lack of charity & who is a coward. Thus I can't know that thus it is none of my affair but God's.
That Stephen logic is defective is all that I can & will deal with I suggest YOU MUST do the same (I can't force you but I can point it out & you make the decision. Decide well.)
>They are part and parcel of one another. He will not substantively enter the conversation simply because of that.
I reply: Well he has been responding to Chris' posts & mine. At least the dialog is kept up. But insulting him (no matter how much you personnely think he deserves it EVEN IF you where right & I AM NOT say you are) will hurt your cause.
Granted I know I'm not one to lecture anybody on insults. God forgive me!
God Bless Greg.
Ah, well, I tried, folks.
I tried.
Chris, the invitation remains open.
Peace in Christ,
Stephen Hand
http://tcrnews.com/