HaloScan.com - Comments

There is the Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund:
http://www.fallenheroesfund.org/...eroes/ index.php.
Brian Craig | Homepage | 02.22.07 - 3:41 pm | #

Fischer House is a good charity that helps these men and their families. But you have to be careful reading the Washington Post, especially Dana Priest. Most likely the guys in the story are far less typical of vets at Walter Reed then the story claims. Also in such a large undertaking it is not unlikely that some will not get the care others may think they need, this is typical of large hospitals and nursing homes. By far and away, veteran care is not perfect, but Priest wants to make it look worse than it truely is.
John | 02.22.07 - 3:48 pm | #

Over the years I've spent a fair bit of time at Walter Reed, both as a visitor - we used to attend Mass at the chapel because we live in the neighborhood; as a volunteer - we've brought our crazy dog there as a pet visitor; and for a few days as an in-patient some years ago. Walter Reed, so I was told by an outside physician, has the reputation of being the best hospital in the DC area. If anything, I felt they were too scrupulous and wished they would have let me go home sooner than they did.

I don't know anything, however, about their out-patient program.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 02.22.07 - 4:05 pm | #

http://soldiersangels.com/
Pauli | Homepage | 02.22.07 - 4:17 pm | #

Pauli and Brian:

Thanks for the info!
Mark Shea | Homepage | 02.22.07 - 4:44 pm | #

Military hospitals by and large have very good doctors and top of the line equipment. It saves money to keep soldiers healthy I suppose. They always kept us healthy.
aggiecatholic | Homepage | 02.22.07 - 5:08 pm | #

Maybe I'm dense, but how exactly is the GOP using troops as human shields?

Or is this just another Sullivanesque way of describing our efforts in Iraq? And if so, are all people who support the surge people who support using the troops as human shields?

My, the wonders of language.
Sydney Carton | 02.22.07 - 7:24 pm | #

Syd:

It's not complicated. When the party that says, "If you don't support us, you don't support the troops" doesn't bother to take care of those troops, they show themselves to be using the troops as human shields for their own political gain, not to be sincere about their interest in the troops.

This happened on the GOP's watch.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 02.22.07 - 7:33 pm | #

The lefties also claim to be "for the troops". Literally EVERYBODY "supports the troops".

The dogmatic left is trying to live down the way it treated verterans returned from Vietnam. What they did to CIVILIANS who dared to dissent from their "dissent" is dismissed with the assertion that it didn't happen and we deserved it anyway (as has been exemplified by some in the comboxes.)
Will | Homepage | 02.22.07 - 7:46 pm | #

FWIW, the guy from this post is staying at Bethesda in Washington DC, and was originally supposed to go to Walter Reed. His parents have been out there (at Fisher House, no less) for three weeks and have had nothing but wonderful things to say about the doctors, the nurses, the military personnel who've been by to see him.

Unfortunately he's still in the ICU. Your continued prayers WILL help.

And like Pavel, I know nothing about their outpatient programs. But the rest of their facility seems to be as good as advertised.
BT | Homepage | 02.22.07 - 9:16 pm | #

The poor conditions of VA hospitals like Walter Reed is unfortunately nothing new and is hardly a unique cause of the dreaded "GOP led govt." Michelle Malkin, who provides some commentary on the WaPo article (which apparently was a series), reported on the problems within the VA and military health care system back in 1999. In light of this, I agree with some of the observations that the WaPo article about Walter Reed, while perhaps helpful in shedding more light on a long running bipartisan created problem, is really nothing but a cynical ploy to gin up knee-jerk hostility against the Bush Administration and its Iraq War policy. Looks as though it was successful in at least one instance.
Roger H. | Homepage | 02.23.07 - 1:47 am | #

Following up a bit on my above comments, Malkin provides an insightful collection of Milblogger comments here regarding the series of WaPo articles about Walter Reed.
Roger H. | Homepage | 02.23.07 - 2:06 am | #

Mark,

At least we're not infantalizing them and trying to sabatoge their mission, like you and the Dems are.
John Doman | 02.23.07 - 9:42 am | #

It is worse than using troops as human shields. This administration uses the troops as tools to achieve their quixotic foreign policy goals. To make others sacrifice their lives for such purposes is clearly immoral. I find it hard to believe Christian people even think about joining the military these days. Do they want to give their lives up advancing the culture of death that their government promotes? I cant think of anything worse than willingly becoming a death-bot for mendacious politicians with messiah complexes. We need to rethink this soldier = hero business.
canwetalk? | 02.23.07 - 10:15 am | #

I really hate that expression "I support the troops" especially when appended as a yellow sticker to some monstrous SUV.

I do not support the mission of "the troops". I believe they engaged in an unjust war, are currently illegally occupying a country, and some are complicit in implementing the Bush administration's torture policies.

I do support measures to protect their lives and safety. Chiefly that means getting them out of there.
Morning's Minion | Homepage | 02.23.07 - 10:28 am | #

canwetalk: Soldiers = DEATH-BOTS. You heard it here folks.

Hey, canwetalk, here's an idea! Why don't you SPIT on them when they come home? After all, they're not heroes. Although I'd wager that the reason you find it "hard" to believe a Christian would join the military is because of your pathetically small brain, don't let that stop you from insulting them even further. Yes, you do this country proud by crapping all over our military and pointing out what mindless drones they are.

/sarcasm, in case it's not freaking obvious.
Sydney Carton | 02.23.07 - 11:20 am | #

canwetalk?

Your comments are disgusting. Please read Sydney's comments again.

Wow. Gotta hand it to you, most lefties (I'm assuming you're a classic lefty lib), wouldn't have the guts to post stuff like that.
JCL | 02.23.07 - 12:17 pm | #

I understand the frustration, but how likely is it that the problems at Walter Reed are related AT ALL to Democrat/Republican politics?

More like typical results of bureaucracy.
Tim J. | Homepage | 02.23.07 - 1:06 pm | #

Sydney,
If you had lived in Germany in the late 1930's would you have supported the troops? My guess is you would have. It was the patriotic thing ya know. I don't hate our troops, but I do think there are few who have the courage to say no to illegal/unjust orders like Lt. Watada has done. Most dont even ask if war is justified or not. Am I supposed to applaud those so eager to take others lives and possibly lose their own too, on the word of dishonest politicians? Sorry, I would have to give up my humanity to do that. BTW Syd, you are really David Horiwitz aren't you?
canwetalk? | 02.23.07 - 3:19 pm | #

Sorry, I meant Horowitz.
canwetalk? | 02.23.07 - 3:21 pm | #

canwetalk,

What's that Horowitz remark supposed to mean? I interpret it as a sly question, asking if I'm Jewish. I see no other relevance for bringing him up in a discussion about soldiers, other than for you to include a veiled remark that only Jewish people support the war in Iraq because neocons have dual loyalties to Israel.

So now, in addition to your moronic statements about soldiers, you're exposing yourself as an anti-Semite.

I suggest you go to a confessional soon.
Sydney Carton | 02.23.07 - 4:23 pm | #

Sydney's interpretation is seriously deluded. When I think "Horowitz" I don't think "Jewish", I think "far right militaristic nutcase".
Morning's Minion | Homepage | 02.23.07 - 5:24 pm | #

Syd,
I mention Horowitz because he is the exemplar of a neo-con who doesn't live by Catholic moral principles. You and he seem to be on the same page most of the time. So, would you have supported the troops in Germany in the late 1930's, and why do you hate Arabs?
canwetalk? | 02.23.07 - 5:30 pm | #

MM,

Obviously it's not deluded, because canwetalk confirmed he brought him up as a neocon, which, when used by left-wingers of that sort, is a code word for Jew.

canwetalk,

When did you stop beating your wife?
Sydney Carton | 02.23.07 - 5:57 pm | #

Also, a guy who calls soldiers murderous death-bots and throws around veiled anti-Semetic jabs has no credibility in complaining about a failure to live up to Catholic principles.

MM,

I can't believe you're not distancing yourself from this idiot.
Sydney Carton | 02.23.07 - 6:01 pm | #

MM, even if you think the invasion of Iraq was immoral and/or illegal, how can you say the "occupation" is too? We're there at the request of a democratically elected government that expressly wants us to stay.
FdS | 02.23.07 - 6:04 pm | #

Mark -- our own VA hospital here in Seattle is always looking for volunteers. There's a link to the volunteer section from the Health Care menu.
brian | 02.23.07 - 6:10 pm | #

Fds,
Elections held under military occupation are hardly free/valid elections. The Soviets were in Afganistan in the 1980's at the request of the Afgan. government too! That didn't stop the USA from funding Osama and his types to overthrow the government and run the Soviets out. The shoe is on the other foot now.
canwetalk? | 02.23.07 - 6:10 pm | #

canwetalk?: " ...I do think there are few who have the courage to say no to illegal/unjust orders like Lt. Watada has done."

1Lt. Watada's case is a strange one. The war was well under way when he decided to join the Army. I find his display of 'courage' a bit odd since he knew that the Army was there and that by raising his right hand he had made himself eligible to eventually participate in it.

The question has been posed many times already, but I'll ask it again: if he was so opposed to the war, why did he join in the first place?

The cynic in me wonders if he joined specifically to initiate the spectacle that is his current situation.
brian | 02.23.07 - 6:21 pm | #

"If you had lived in Germany in the late 1930's would you have supported the troops? My guess is you would have."

And you know this how? And relevance, please, to Iraq? Invading was ill-advised, but your desire to paint Bush as Hitler is a bit of a stre-e-e-e-e-etch.

"I don't hate our troops... but most dont even ask if war is justified or not."

Again, you know this how?

"Am I supposed to applaud those so eager to take others lives and possibly lose their own too, on the word of dishonest politicians?"

Eager to take others lives? Do you KNOW any soldiers? Veterans? Or will you not associate with people like that?
Tim J. | Homepage | 02.23.07 - 6:21 pm | #

Sydney,

No, "neocon" is not code for "Jew". It is code for a group which claims to be conservative, and yet has no basis for such a claim. Instead, it is based on a Calvinistic notion of American exceptionalism that began with Winthrop, and passed down to Wilson, Dulles, and now Bush. It is a belief that America has a destiny to remake the world in its own image. Nothing could be further from traditional conservatism, hence the "neo".
Morning's Minion | Homepage | 02.23.07 - 6:22 pm | #

My goodness.

canwetalk? sees no diff between us and the Soviets, or us and the SS.

Good luck convincing anyone with this ugly, insulting, and thinly veiled anti-semetic crap you're posting.
JCL | 02.23.07 - 6:24 pm | #

If I could decipher the meaning of "the GOP:Using our troops as human shields," it must be very close to "anything but unilateral immediate withdrawal is evil. All war is unjustifiable. John Paul said somethin like that...I think"

Mark, your animus against the GOP, which I must point out has been officially out of power for four months now, is completely irrational.

Your refusal to admit that faithful Christians can disagree over the legitimate uses of military power, however, is unconscionable. Your otherwise scholarly manner gives the false imprimateur of a church sanction to your personal beliefs on the morality of war.

The obvious and glaring truth is that, if the Pope wanted to speak infallibly on the purpose of war, he would immmediately do so in the clearest manner. Stop speaking your personal political views as if it's church policy.
tom | 02.23.07 - 6:29 pm | #

Tim J,
FYI I have a son in the Air Force who has been in the middle east and is now in Germany. I don't hate him, but I do loathe the politicians who are willing to sacrifice his life for their pipe dreams. If my son could go back in time I doubt he would have signed up. Yes, there are soldiers who cant wait to see action and use the high tech stuff they have been trained to use. The pictures of Abu Graib showed troops celebrating the brutalizing of people who had nothing to do with attacking the USA. How do you explain that? The USA is just as capable of evil as any other country. It time we stop pretending otherwise.
canwetalk? | 02.23.07 - 6:52 pm | #

CanWeTalk,

Big difference between the Iraqi government and the Soviet puppet regime in Afghanistan is that Iraq's current government was democratically elected in an election that no one seriously disputes was fair and honest. If, as you suggest, a country can't have a legitimate election as long as foreign troops are on its soil, then I guess most of the 20th Century elections in Western Europe, Japan and South Korea were bogus, too.
FdS | 02.23.07 - 7:36 pm | #

"The Soviets were in Afganistan in the 1980's at the request of the Afgan. government too! "

Soviet special forces came roaring into Kabul, killed the politicians who were in the way, and installed some who were to their liking. Tactically, it was a successful operation. Strategically, it was a catastrophe that helped bring down the Soviet state.

From what I understand the pro-Soviet Kabul regime was fairly competent administratively and not the worst government in that sense that's ever been there. Its fatal problems were that it was a puppet state of an alien power, and not Islamic enough, both of which were unacceptable in Afghanistan. As such it could not command the loyalty of most of the population, and we know the result.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 02.23.07 - 9:22 pm | #

Befor Canwetalk and MM hijacked the thread, it was about how the troops are cared for.

Here's my experience: I'm a disabled vet rated at 50% disabled. I am entitled to full medical coverage from VA and recieve a pension that equals what I would have if I had finished my 20 years. My disability is service connected.

I recently moved.

I cannot get into the local VA system, because they don't seem to be able to get my records. They give me phone numbers to call that either don't answer or ar not in service.

I'm out of meds, and can barely use my right hand--i'm righthanded. I have constant headache, and my body wieght has become unstable.

But even going into someones office and being persistant, nothing happens.

In my experience, the medical personnel are first rate, but the admin folks are low level GS types who couldn't care less.
Ignorant-redneck | 02.23.07 - 10:26 pm | #

if the Pope wanted to speak infallibly on the purpose of war, he would immmediately do so in the clearest manner. Stop speaking your personal political views as if it's church policy.

He has. Both Benedict and John Paul have condemned the Iraq war:

VATICAN CITY -- Pope John Paul has condemned a possible war in Iraq, saying it could still be avoided and that it would be a defeat for humanity.

He made clear his opposition in his yearly "State of the World" address to diplomats accredited to the Vatican on Monday, saying diplomacy is the way forward.

"No to war! War is not always inevitable. It is always a defeat for humanity," the 82-year-old pontiff said. http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/eu...pope/ index.html

"War cannot be decided upon, even when it is a matter of ensuring the common good, except as the very last option." ~ Pope John Paul II

********

As a Cardinal, the new pope [Benedict] was a staunch critic of the U.S. led invasion of Iraq. On one occasion before the war, he was asked whether it would be just. "Certainly not," he said, and explained that the situation led him to conclude that "the damage would be greater than the values one hopes to save."

"All I can do is invite you to read the Catechism, and the conclusion seems obvious to me…" The conclusion is one he gave many times: "the concept of preventive war does not appear in The Catechism of the Catholic Church." http://www.cjd.org/paper/benedict.html

but for some legalistic type Catholics they insist on some kind of irrefutible, infallible "Ex Cathedra" statement in order to believe...
Hislittlelamb | Homepage | 02.23.07 - 11:38 pm | #

1. The statements you quoted by John Paul show only that the pope' recent (as in the last century) statements on war have always left room for judgement as to its appropriateness, although setting the bar high.

2. War is always a defeat for humanity. That does not mean peace at any cost is a victory. Especially if the peace is actually an armistice, and the other side continues to prepare for war. In that case "peace" is merely a rearming period for another, more devastating war to follow.

3. Pacifists have been ecstatic to quote that statement of Cardinal Ratzinger from before he was pope, before his words were guided by the holy spirit in the manner they are now.
Using it as a bludgeon against the Bush administration requires forcing the Iraq war into the sole shape of a preventative war, a task the media has gone to every effort to accomplish--despite the many other complex reasons existing and given for the invasion. The failure of Saddam to live up to his treaty obligations at the close of the 1990 gulf war alone gives legal cause, and considering the clear nature of the Saddam regime, considerable moral cause for it as a necessary, just war.

4. All these arguments leave a gaping hole of logic-- whether or not the 2003 Iraq invasion was justified or not is somewhat immaterial to whether or not the continuation of efforts there is just.

Was the US involvement in the Vietnam war just? Almost 100,000 US and vienamese died in the portion of the war with US involvement.
What about after the US pulled out, cut off support to South Vietnam, and the NVA invaded, killing 200,000 outright, banning the Catholic Church, sending ~500,000 to prison camps where most died? And then the following massacre in Cambodia? Was all that just? Oh yeah, I forgot, those are brown people, they don't matter like US troops do.

Pacifists need to start considering not just the unpleasant effects of action, but the often more unpleasant effects of inaction before their arguments can be taken seriously.
tom | 02.24.07 - 9:27 am | #

I hear you, Ignorant Redneck! I had to deal with the VA bureaucracy and it's a nightmare. Bureaucrats are bureaucrats everywhere (are they born that way or do they become that way?), but in my experience the VA is one of the worst.

Considering that it's usually seen as a conservative institution, it's ironic that the US Armed Forces is the US epitome of the "Nanny State"--in all its blessings (which are considerable) and in all its bureacratic inefficiencies. In a way it's surprising that so few of our military folks are socialists, since their institution is a de facto socialist system.
Phil | 02.24.07 - 11:04 am | #

Ignorant-redneck, do you have any reason to believe that "admin folks" in VA institutions are significantly different from "admin folks" in other hospitals? Are civilian institutions immune from the Peter Principle, Parkinson's Laws, and Murphy's?
Will | Homepage | 02.24.07 - 11:45 am | #

"...I have a son in the Air Force who has been in the middle east and is now in Germany. I don't hate him, but I do loathe the politicians who are willing to sacrifice his life for their pipe dreams. If my son could go back in time I doubt he would have signed up."

So, since you seem willing enough to believe the best about your son's motives and cut him some slack, how about doing the same for all the military personnel whom you DON'T know personally? They don't have time machines, either.

I now think the invasion was a mistake, and I made the mistake of giving it my tacit support. Pulling out of Iraq would be piling one huge mistake on top of another one. Ask the Iraqis if they want us to leave. There is more support for the war among the Iraqi people than there is in America.
Tim J. | Homepage | 02.24.07 - 1:47 pm | #

Tim J,
The point I was making about my son in the Air Force is that he is disillusioned about what his government is asking of him and would not join today knowing his life could be sacrificed for a dubious political agenda rather than a real threat to the USA. Those who join today, knowing that this government will use their lives to promote "benevolent global hegemony" are joining for different reasons than defending their country from foreign attacks. These are the ones who must ask themselves if what they are doing on behalf of their government is morally justified.
All the polls I have seen of the Iraqi people conclude that they want the USA to leave. The Iraqi government that hides out in the Green Zone does want the USA to stay. What does that tell you?
canwetalk? | 02.24.07 - 3:14 pm | #

tom,
There is a difference between pacifism and believing war should be the last resort. Bush could have allowed the UN inspections to continue to find no WMD's and therefore prove that Saddam had complied with the UN demands. This was not his purpose. Bush wanted regime change in order to remake the Middle East more to the liking of the USA and Israel. Since Saddam could not be bullied out of office, Bush resorted to war. This is hardly justifyable and why the Vatican had no problem condemning the war. Now that the war is on I have to ask you, what harm would have come from the UN continuing its inspections and working out any complications with Saddams government? Too bad we didn't go the "last resort" route.
canwetalk? | 02.24.07 - 3:42 pm | #

Hey Will!

Fair question--the answer is this--there is often competition for business in civilian hospitals--they run on a business model. VA hospitals core of patients don't have the options.

Moreover, imagine if your insurance company, the DMV and your local county government ran the local hospital--that's pretty much what the VA is like.

It's also harder to fire a government employee than a private sector employee.
Ignorant redneck | 02.24.07 - 5:36 pm | #

Certainly, all our wounded and vets deserve the best care money can buy.

Thank Heaven, the glorious new Dem Congress is now in POWER and here to save us!

This (providing for our wounded and vets) huge priority was accomplished in the Glory First 100 Hours. RIGHT??

And, now I get it. I can't believe I've been so dense. What a dope am I!

Bush has done little to end abortion. He failed to appoint enough pro-life in Fed judges. He could have done better to help gov. fund faith based charities. He's done nothing to end the drug problem, illegitimnacy, divorce, promiscuity, the destruction of the family, etc.

And, Bush is worse than Hitler. America is worse than Nazi Germany (should emulate blessed paradises like the Ottoman Empire, Red Cina and USSR). Cheney and Karl Rove pulled off 9/11 so they could start a war to get oil and kill brown people. Bush is tapping the Dixie Chicks phones so he can put them in concentration camps. They're torturing innocent young Qran scholars and using the harvested blood to make barbecue sauce. They put thru tax cuts for the rich so they could cut off welfare and cut public kool teachers' pay.

We deserve everything bad that's ever happended to us.

Now I get it.
T. Shaw | 02.25.07 - 11:21 am | #

"...These are the ones who must ask themselves if what they are doing on behalf of their government is morally justified."

My question for you is, how do you know they haven't? Perhaps they just disagree with you.

"All the polls I have seen of the Iraqi people conclude that they want the USA to leave."

More precisely, they want the USA to leave... but not just now. They do despise the U.S. (partly due to very poor training in handling cultural differences) but they positively fear those of their countrymen who belong to all the varying Iraqi versions of the KKK.

It is a sticky situation. Pulling out immediately would be the easiest thing to do, of course, if you don't mind the prospect of total anarchy and possible Darfur-like pogroms.

It's our mess. We need to clean it up as best we can.

We will be mostly pulling out, in any case, within the next year or so. This is becoiming clear. This encourages the various enemies of the new Iraqi government, but it might also finally spur this governement to wean itself off U.S. muscle and stand on its own legs.

Iraq was a bad idea, but if we can take measures to make it less bad in the end, I'm for that.

Are you hopeful for the Iraqi government, or would you prefer to see total failure of the Bush policy?There are those who would like to see Iran challenge the West (and especially Israel) with their own brand new shiny nukes... who would enjoy seeing the U.S. taken down a peg, and who wouldn't really mind another 9-11.
Tim J. | Homepage | 02.25.07 - 11:34 am | #

If Bush policy = policing the world through violence and threats, without the consent of the rest of the world, then, yes, I want to see it end in total disaster. I would also have no respect for soldiers who join to fight on Bush's behalf. The USA has no right to impose its will on the rest of the world, and it will bring about more war, death and destruction if it continues on it's present path.
canwetalk? | 02.25.07 - 12:28 pm | #

Ignorant redneck,

I'm a disabled Vet as well. I have a combined service connected rating of 100% from a training accident about 17 years ago.

About five years after I was injured I developed gall stones (at the age of 27). My doctor told me that I needed to have my gallbladder removed before it became a problem. It seems that people with my type of injuries have a 10 times greater chance of having these type of GI problems. I said, "No problem. When can you operate?" Well, because I wasn't having sypmtoms at the time my surgery was classified as an elective procedure. They admitted me to the hospital and I stayed there for one week waiting to be fit into the surgery schedule. On the sixth day I was told that I had to go NPO because my surgery would be the next morning. So they starved me all day until about 7:30 p.m. when the doc came in and told me to go ahead and eat because something had come up. My surgery would be postponed again and there was no definate time when he would be able to do it.

I calmly (I don't know how I managed to do it, but I did) asked him if I could go home for the weekend. At the time I had three small children under the age of 4. My wife had been home all week with no help whatsoever. The doc said sure. No problem. So I left the hospital and I drove to my congressman's office. I went inside. I told the aide that I was a disabled vet. I showed her my voter ID card. I then proceded to tell her how much I would really like to vote for Congressman X in the next election, but I was having a small problem with the VA. My story did get her attention. I filled out a form explaining my problem. The aide told me that the Congressman would call the hospital and try to resolve my problem. Whether or not the Congressman called personally I don't know. Probably not.

However, I went back to the VA on Monday. I was immediately put on NPO. My gallbladder was out the next day and I was home by Wednesday.

I don't know if that tactic will work in your situation, but I found that Congressmen don't like to hear that the VA is jerking Veterans around. It might be worth a shot. If you can't stop by his/her office I'm sure your Congressman would take your phone call.
George Lower | 02.25.07 - 8:14 pm | #

"If Bush policy = policing the world through violence and threats, without the consent of the rest of the world, then, yes, I want to see it end in total disaster."

So, to hell with the Iraqi people if it helps prove your point? Nice.

Just so we're clear.

See, this is the problem with idiotic measures like the Senate Resolution against the troop surge; it puts the Dems and the Left in the position of actually HOPING for disaster. If the surge actually works, it would be bad, politically, for the president's enemies, so thay have to hope for total failure in Iraq. God forbid things should go well!
Tim J. | Homepage | 02.26.07 - 9:55 am | #

Tim,

using your logic, then you have to argue that the Catholic church is anti-American and the Pope wanted things to go like this so that his point of war being a failure would come true.

I think everyone really wants things to go well, but it doesn't appear to be so. Does that make me anti-American by suggesting that a surge may not work and likely will fail?

hardly

Pax
Dale | 02.26.07 - 12:13 pm | #

"Does that make me anti-American by suggesting that a surge may not work and likely will fail?"

Certainly not. But the Senate Resolution is not a "suggestion" that the surge "may not" work.

The Dems in Congress voted for the war when it was politically popular, and now vocally protest when it is not. It is a bit of bald political posturing with no substance. I can see no real effect coming from it except perhaps to demoralize our troops to some extent and to encourage the enemy.

I have said that the war was a mistake, but we are there NOW. We owe it to the Iraqi people to make the best that can be made of it.

The question is, can Bush's loyal opposition bring themselves to pray for the success of the surge and the Iraqi government, even if it would mean Bush getting a mark in the "win" column?
Tim J. | Homepage | 02.26.07 - 12:45 pm | #

Or

maybe they think that surging will not work and they feel that we should "bring the boys (and girls) back home"

if we are to surge anywhere, why not in the war that we should be fighting?
Dale | 02.26.07 - 1:54 pm | #

"...maybe they think that surging will not work and they feel that we should "bring the boys (and girls) back home" ".

Well, that would certainly be the easiest thing.
Tim J. | Homepage | 02.26.07 - 2:45 pm | #

a couple of other things

The war I mentioned above is the one in the fragile Afgan state. We really ought to be surging there and not trusting a tin pot dictator next door to combat the Taliban.

The state of OHio (Where I live) has an option that allows taxpapers to donate some of their tax refund to help vets with medical bills. While that it is quite nice, should not our gov't be fully funding these expenses? Imagine, one joins up to go protect freedom, gets seriously hurt and then gets stuck with medical bills for going and fighting a war?!?!?!?!?!?!

What exactly is our military spending money on? What should be the bigger deal here?

Also, the remarks of T SHaw border on stupid and avoid the real issue here. How is comparing BUsh to Hitler? Some Hollywood clown? If that is even true, who even cares? No thinking person believes that the USA is worse then the mentioned regimes, but since when is that our standard of conduct? Land of the free and home of the brave, not the land of fear and the home of the vengeful. American foreign policy has just been horrible and only a buffoon would think that the world is any safer now then it was before 9/11

pax
Dale | 02.26.07 - 6:21 pm | #

Ignorant Redneck- the suggestion that you go to your congressman/senator is a good one. You might also try your regional Va office, the IG or the Director. Also, check with the VA hospital you were being seen at before, ask if your records are still there, and if they are get them sent to a specific individual at the new hospital. The patients rep at the new hospital should also be able to help. Also, again, try a local service officer. Ask at a local VFW or Amer Legion who a good one might be.

Canwetalk? (and Mark too) your prejudices against this war and this president makie you very difficult to address on the subject. For what it's worth, the problems at Walter Reed go back to at least the early years of the Clinton Admin., when the whole Army budget was slashed, and we still had multiple deployments. Building maintenance was "deferred" repeatedly, and probably especially at Walter Reed, which was, and I think still is, scheduled for BRAC closure, and meger with the Navy hosp in DC, with many functions to be sent elsewhere- I think to San Antonio. The Medical Corps generally got slashed in those years.

The Va budget mess goes back to both parties, and years of budgetary compromises with other pet programs that also needed(?) funding from the discretionary budget.
Dave J | 02.27.07 - 3:17 am | #

Pacifists have been ecstatic to quote that statement of Cardinal Ratzinger from before he was pope, before his words were guided by the holy spirit in the manner they are now.

Tom, this is a false argument on a number of accounts (a strawman fallacy) but I am personally offended that you would basically call me a Pacifist for quoting Cardinal Ratzinger.

I am a proud Air Force Brat.
My father was a decorated war hero, having received the honor of the Soldier's Medal in WWII, then served in Vietnam as well. My father taught me to place my alliegance in the order of God/Church then Country then family. Most people place their alliegance as God/Church then family then Country, but since we were in the Military we put Country before family but NEVER Country before God.

My quoting Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope John Paul on Just War is simply my placing Church before Country.

Like I said, some people require an "ex cathedra" statement before they will believe IMHO doing so is placing Country before God.
hislittlelamb | 02.27.07 - 4:06 am | #

"3. 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."

hislittlelamb,

This from Cardinal Ratzinger before the last election. Perhaps there is no ex cathedra statement on the Iraq war because there is no ex cathedra position on the Iraq War.
JohnA | 02.27.07 - 10:57 am | #

That should read before the 2004 elecion.
JohnA | 02.27.07 - 10:57 am | #

Does there have to be an ex cathedra statement on the war before Catholics will listen?

I went against the prudential judgement of the Pope on the Iraq war - to my shame - and thought I knew better than he did what a Just War might look like in the 21st century. After all, THIS enemy was unlike any other we had ever faced, etc...

I was wrong. He was right. I will never again look at the prudential Judgement of a Pope in such a glib, dismissive way.

I owe Bush an apology for being (along with millions of my countrymen and fellow Catholics) an enabler. In reality, we gave bad counsel. Had public sentiment been decidedly against the Iraq war, it likely would not have happened. I forgot Vietnam.

That said, pulling out of Iraq because we have reached the limits of our National Attention Deficit would be irresponsible. I remember Cambodia.

I would like to paint the people of Iraq (I'm an artist). I hope to go there, one day. If I do, I would much prefer not to be associated with a nation known for abandoning its allies when things get dicey.
Tim J. | Homepage | 02.27.07 - 12:08 pm | #

Tim J,

Just to point out that Catholics may disagree in prudential judgements. That's all.

Should a Catholic listen with due respect to bishops and the Pope? Yes. Does he have to do everything they say in regards to prudential judgements? No.
JohnA | 02.27.07 - 1:32 pm | #

JohnA,

I don't have a clue as to why you would paste from "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion; General Principles" by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in response to my response to Tom's response. I was responding to Tom's statement that the Pope could end this debate by speaking infallibly.

The whole he wasn't speaking infallibly argument ignores the fact that all Catholics are still obligated to ascend to the Holy Father's "prudential" judgment (in this hijacked discussion that the Iraq invasion is unjust).

The Holy Fathers are not speaking on a doctrine pertaining to faith and morals(Vatican Council II, Vol. 1, p.380) and so arguably are not speaking infallibly. But infallible pronouncements are not the only pronouncements that the Catholic must accept. Vatican Council II ( Vol.1, p.379,) declares that , "Bishops who teach in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be revered by all as witnesses of divine and Catholic truth. The faithful for their part are obliged to submit to their bishop's decision made in the name of Christ in matters of faith and morals and to adhere to it with ready and respectful allegiance of mind. This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given in a special way to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff even when he does not speak ex cathedra in such a way that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect and sincere assent be given to decisions made by him . . ."

"When the Magisterium proposes "in a definitive way" truths concerning faith and morals, which, even if not divinely revealed are nevertheless strictly and intimately connected with Revelation, these must be firmly accepted and held. When the Magisterium, not intending to act "definitively," teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of the faith or finally to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths, the response called for is that of the religious submission of will and intellect [footnote referring to Lumen Gentium n. 25]. This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary, but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith.11"

http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Peri...l96/ page30.html
hislittlelamb | 02.27.07 - 3:21 pm | #

sorry about the confusing italics and the continuation of the hijack
hislittlelamb | 02.27.07 - 3:22 pm | #

"The whole he wasn't speaking infallibly argument ignores the fact that all Catholics are still obligated to ascend to the Holy Father's "prudential" judgment"

Ah no one isn't obligated in matters of prudential judgement. Thus Cardinal Ratzinger's letter in referring to worthiness to receive communion. Note that there can be legitimate differences in matters of capital punishment and war but not abortion and euthanasia.

Sorry, but I think this has been discussed extensively here and on other blogs. In prudential judgements, one may even disagree with the Pope.
JohnA | 02.27.07 - 4:06 pm | #

JohnA,

Although it is noted that 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

The fact that it does not carry the penalty of being unworthy to receive Holy Communion does not release the faithful from the obligation thus stated in the Vatican II Council documents:

"The faithful for their part are obliged to submit to their bishop's decision made in the name of Christ in matters of faith and morals and to adhere to it with ready and respectful allegiance of mind. This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given in a special way to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff even when he does not speak ex cathedra"

I could quote more documents and articles from the CCC on the faithful's obligation to properly form their conscience if you need.
Hislittlelamb | 02.27.07 - 9:49 pm | #

"The role of conscience. While we have warned of the potential moral dangers of embarking on this war, we have also been clear that there are no easy answers. War has serious consequences, so could the failure to act. People of good will may and do disagree on how to interpret just war teaching and how to apply just war norms to the controverted facts of this case. We understand and respect the difficult moral choices that must be made by our President and others who bear the responsibility of making these grave decisions involving our nation's and the world's security (Catechism #2309).

We affirm the words of the Catechism: "[t]hose who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace" (#2310). We also affirm that "[p]ublic authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms" (#2311). We support those who have accepted the call to serve their country in a conscientious way in the armed services and we reiterate our long-standing support for those who pursue conscientious objection and selective conscientious objection."

Please inform your conscience in regards to the above statement of the USCCB prior to the war. Note that it also recognizes that one can licitly disagree with a prudential judgement.
JohnA | 02.28.07 - 9:09 am | #

Note, that adherence to matters of faith in morals inplies in this case that one accepts the Church's teaching on just war. The application thereof is what is subject to prudential judgement. The final judgement of which is left to those with legitimate authority (i.e. state leaders) and not the Pope or bishops. As the Catechism teaches:

"The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good." CCC 2309
JohnA | 02.28.07 - 9:14 am | #

JohnA,

what a confusing post. I'm not sure where you got the quote at the top of your post but it certainly wasn't from the CCC as you noted in parenthesis.

It's fairly obvious that the actual CCC:

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

- there must be serious prospects of success;

- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

2310 Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense.

it's obvious this is referring to who has the moral legitimacy to make judgments about going to war, that would be referring to our Commander In Chief and Our Congress wouldn't it? I, personally, don't make these decisions.

BUT, when it comes to forming my "conscience" as to whether this decision of my Commander In Chief is moral or legitimate in light of my faith that is another story entirely.

This is what the CCC tells me, a Catholic, on how to "form MY conscience":

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ca...sm/ p3s1c1a6.htm

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
II. THE FORMATION OF CONSCIENCE
1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.

1785 In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path,54 we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord's Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.55

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one's passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church's authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

87 Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me",49 the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.

DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM
Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(40*) This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.(41*) http://www.cin.org/v2church.html

A "loyal submission of the will and intellect" does not mean, as some dissenters suggest, that we merely consider what the pope has said before making up our own mind. It means rather that we accept what the pope teaches in this manner as the truth. Why? Because his teaching, as a result of the promises of Christ, is the most likely source of truth on faith and morals. (Non-infallible, it should be remembered, should not be equated with "probably wrong.")http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/ Homiletic/april96/page30.html
Hislittlelamb | 03.01.07 - 4:39 am | #

Yes I know it is difficult for you to understand but, faith and morals teaches us the conditions under which it is just to go to war. Most people posting on this blog accept as moral those conditions Many people on this blog have applied these conditions to the Iraq war and found it just.

That is assent in faith in morals as applied to prudential judgement. Got it now?
JohnA | 03.01.07 - 9:01 am | #

JohnA,

I am still quite confused if you could just bear with me a little longer.

I thought that the CCC says:

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

so that would mean Our Commander In Chief, Our Congress, and most of all Our Holy Father & Bishops. They are the ones "who have responsibility for the common good" and the CIC/Congress are the ones deciding on whether to go to war or not.

How does this citation of the CCC apply to those of us who do not "have responsibility for the common good"?

In addition, how do these "people on this blog have applied these conditions to the Iraq war and found it just." reconcile this opinion with it's direct opposition to the Holy Father's opposition of the Iraq war in favor of their Commander In Cheif's decision about the war? Wouldn't it seem they are dissenting from their Church in favor of a politician?

Especially given the fact that Catholics are to "accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will." as stated in Lumen Gentium.

1783 ... The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.
Hislittlelamb | 03.01.07 - 3:28 pm | #

Because the phrase "...those responsible for the common good" refers to the public authorities charged with ordering the state and not the bishops or pope.

The ordering of the secular order belongs to the laity who give assent to the faith and morals as the church teaches and then apply this teaching to the world. It is this application that is prudential judgement.

In this case we assent to the conditions for just war and then decide, in conscience with these criteria, if the conditions are met. As there is no perfect foreknowledge in men, there is always the likelihood of judging wrongly. However, there remains a freedom of opinion as long as the principles are followed.

Thus the referece to Cardinal Ratzinger's letter on communion. Some things like abortion do not allow of opinion. Abortion is intrinsically evil and always wrong. War is not intrinsically evil but men of good faith may disagree on whether the conditions that make it licit are met.
JohnA | 03.01.07 - 4:47 pm | #

1783 ... The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.

Again, the laity forms their conscience as to the criteria for just war. Then, according to their formed conscience, decide if the criteria is met. The one's who have the ultimate responsibility to judging are the proper authorities (i.e. state authorities.)
JohnA | 03.01.07 - 4:48 pm | #

getting closer to an understanding I believe, or at least where our views differ.

I submit that the faithful are obligated (as I've posted ref's above to Lumen Gentium and the CCC) to form their conscience through the teachings of the Church, and the clarifications of these teachings given by the Pope and Bishops.

So that if the Pope, even if he's not speaking ex-cathedra, says that the war in Iraq does not meet "Just War" criteria, or condemns it as an immoral war then the faithful are obligated to believe the Pope is speaking the truth.

Although in his private letter to Bishops then Cardinal Ratzinger said something about having legitimate disagreements that would not impede one from receiving communion, this "private letter" would not release the faithful from their obligations as stated in Lumen Gentium.

The references about disagreements or legitimate disagreements referring to the CCC I've quoted in the past apply to those "responsible for the common good". Since you and I as far as I can tell are not "responsible for the common good" then what business do we have making a determination based our own judgment? we are too dependent on the truth being told us by our leaders. We don't have all the data & facts at our disposal the way the CIC does.

In light of all that has gone on in the past, and the teachings of Lumen Gentium it is clear that I must defer to my Holy Father in all matters.
Anonymous | 03.01.07 - 5:29 pm | #

oops. forgot to sign the above post
Hislittlelamb | 03.01.07 - 5:29 pm | #

Of course the decision to go to war rests with those political leaders with the ultimate power to declare war. What does that have to do with me? I want to know if my leaders are making morally just decisions. Since these leaders speak of preemptive war and unilateral enforcement of UN resolutions, I doubt they have the correct understanding of just war principles. So how can I trust their judgement? The Catholics who supported this war were the same people who swallowed all the propaganda the war mongers dished out, and tried to sell the Vatican on the preemptive war business. It didn't convince anyone. So I dont think they really accept the just war principles as understood by the Church. They ignored Church leaders and favored the war.
canwetalk? | 03.01.07 - 8:58 pm | #

Hislittlelamb,

The church defines matters of faith and morals. In the matter of just war, it has given us the criteria for judging if a war is just or not. Now it is up to those who are tasked with making the decision to make it.

If the decision was purely a matter of the Pope or bishop's, Cardinal Ratzinger would have written before the elections in 2004 "...the Pope has decided that the War in Iraq is unjust and those who support it should not receive communion." But he did not. Why? Because he recognizes that such a judgement if a prudential one in which Catholics in good conscience can disagree. This is not to say we disagree on the Church teaching on just war. Rather, we can disagree if the conditions for a just war taught by the Church are met. This is not the case in the situations of abortion and euthanasia where there are no situations where such is licit.

To further support this point, this from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops prior to the war starting in 2003:

"As pastors and teachers, we understand that there are no easy answers. People of good will may differ on how traditional norms apply in this situation. The gravity of the threat and whether force would be preemptive are matters of debate, as are the potential consequences of using or failing to use military force. We urge Catholics, especially lay men and women who are called to be "leaven" in society, to continue to think deeply about the choices we face, to review carefully the teaching of our Church and to speak out strongly in accord with their conscience. Our hearts and prayers go out especially to those who may bear the burden of these terrible choices -- the men and women of our armed forces and their families, the people of Iraq, and the leaders of our nation and world who face momentous decisions of life and death, of war and peace."

Such a statement would be immoral in the least, if morality were reducible to what the Pope said. In matters of faith and morals yes. In matters of prudential judgment, Catholics may disagree.
JohnA | 03.02.07 - 1:26 pm | #

JohnA,

The church defines matters of faith and morals. In the matter of just war, it has given us the criteria for judging if a war is just or not. Now it is up to those who are tasked with making the decision to make it.

how are you reading the words "the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good."? The church is giving criteria for "Just War" not for you and I to make a decision of whether the war is just or not.

Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope John Paul DID come out before the war in Iraq and condemn it. Cardinal Ratzinger, as head of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith said when he was asked whether it would be just. "Certainly not," he said, and he explained that the situation led him to conclude that "the damage would be greater than the values one hopes to save."

"All I can do is invite you to read the Catechism, and the conclusion seems obvious to me…" The conclusion is one he gave many times: "the concept of preventive war does not appear in The Catechism of the Catholic Church." http://www.cjd.org/paper/benedict.html

now since you & I are not responsible for the common good, are not privy to top secret info that even the Vatican may not be aware of, then you and I are to defer to the Holy Father's judgment EVEN IF IT IS NOT MADE EX-CATHEDRA. at least according to Lumen Gentium.

Doesn't make any sense to me that a Catholic would think they are to place their Commander In Chief's judgment ABOVE their Pope, especially when it comes to understanding Catholic moral teaching.

Doesn't make any sense to me that a Catholic would think the Cardinal's "private letter written to Bishops" you are quoting would 1) apply to the faithful rather than the Bishops to whom he was addressing and 2)make null and void and supercede the dogmatically defined teaching of Lumen Gentium I've been quoting.

It's really looking to me like an ego/pride issue. Individual Catholics wanting to make the "judgment" for themselves whether the War in Iraq is a Just War, when it's really not up to them to decide is it? Nowhere in the Catechism does it say the determination of whether a war is just or not is up to the faithful.
Hislittlelamb | 03.02.07 - 2:57 pm | #

Mark,

I was disgusted to read this too.
To Bush's credit, though (and I am not
a knee-jerk Bush defender; as I
wrote once before, your posts about
torture were one factor in persuading
me to withhold my vote from the
Stupid Party last November), it looks as if he has now woken up about this problem and has ordered that conditions be examined (see the link below). The Secretary of the Army, furthermore, has resigned. I hope and pray that disabled veterans will soon be getting better care.

Daniel

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ 20070...qgbnHChtFGyFz4D
Daniel Kirkwood | 03.02.07 - 9:35 pm | #

"Doesn't make any sense to me that a Catholic would think they are to place their Commander In Chief's judgment ABOVE their Pope, especially when it comes to understanding Catholic moral teaching."

It does as he is the one Catholic teaching is determining is responsible for the common good.JohnA | 03.02.07

going around in circles. The CIC is responsible for the "evaluation of these conditions" as opposed to you and I.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

2310 Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense.
"

Those responsible for the common good are to "evaluate" the conditions the Church defines as Just War for moral legitimacy of any given war. Those responsible for the common good do not define moral legitimacy, the Church does. The gov't can and most often does distort or outright reject these conditions.

We need to look to our Church for moral legitimacy not our political leaders. Both of our Holy Father's have condemned this war. John Paul during his Pontificate, and Pope Benedict as then Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith.

That's not to say that we too must condemn the war. We simply need to acknowledge in our hearts that according to Our Holy Father, who is responsible for the common good of the faithful, the war in Iraq does not meet the Church's criteria for Just War. That our CIC has chosen to put this country in to a war that is not morally legitimate by the standards of our Church, for reasons known only to him and his staff.
Hislittlelamb | Homepage | 03.04.07 - 5:40 pm | #

Commenting by HaloScan