Wow! What a sting in that last paragraph.
Patrick Sweeney | 11.18.02 - 2:15 pm | #

Weak. Very weak. "Just defer to the politicians, whoever they may be, because they must make the final decision for war" is hardly a slam-dunk moral argument. It would justify virtually every war that has ever been fought.
T. Marzen | 11.18.02 - 4:17 pm | #

T. Marzen: Weigel is echoing Catholic teaching as in the Catechism: "The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good." (CCC 2309). It in essence highlights the division of responsibility between civil and ecclesial authority. "Render unto Caesar ..."

In the scandals, the bishops have demonstrated that they are lousy cops. They probably should not try to demonstrate their competence in making military decisions. Theirs is the vocation to teach, to instruct. They can lay down general moral principles, as they did in their last statement. Our civil leaders' responsibility is to lead in worldly matters. It is they who have the competence to decide on the prudential matters: probabililty of success, proportionate impact etc.

And in a democracy, the voters decide if the civil authority made the right, moral decisions. They can reward or punish accordingly. This is what today's leaders must take into account, which puts limits on what kind of war is possible.
Christopher Wong | 11.18.02 - 4:44 pm | #

GW for Pope!
tonymixan | 11.18.02 - 4:54 pm | #

George W Bush for Pope?

George Washington for Pope?

Oh. Took a moment for me to register.
Christopher Wong | 11.18.02 - 5:36 pm | #

Mr. Christopher Wong: I don't (and didn't) dispute the fact that a decision for war finally involves a prudential judgment by political leaders, who are ultimately held accountable. The bishops also acknowledged as much. But I'm one of those "citizens in a democracy" who has to decide if those politicians did or are doing the right thing, and Weigel's advice to defer to the politicians is no help whatever in this regard. Besides, it is clearly self-serving: Weigel (with the reigning politicians) obviously thinks the war is OK, but the bishops think not -- so he argues that the politicians' judgment should prevail. Not coincidentally, this means Weigel's judgment prevails too.
T. Marzen | 11.18.02 - 6:00 pm | #

I don't *ever* want to hear my bishops advocating or justifying war. I want them to urge peace up until the last moment.

States may have practical reasons for going to war, but they seldom if ever have moral ones.

Blessing the cannon means more people giving up on Christianity.

Let the bishops, if they can't urge peace, keep their mouths shut.
Pavel Chichikov | 11.18.02 - 6:47 pm | #

Interesting point Pavel. But what if the peace means turning a blind eye to a grave injustice? What if the peace means letting Hitler take over Europe, as long as he doesn't care about North America and leaves them alone. What about the flock next door - that is fellow Christians who are persecuted under Islam? Hey, it ain't my flock, what do I care? I thought we were supposed to be catholic about our Catholicism.
C. Matt | 11.18.02 - 7:59 pm | #

"Let the bishops, if they can't urge peace, kept their mouths shut."

Isn't that the sorry situation. They can't urge war and they can't urge peace but they can't keep their mouths shut either.


caroline | 11.18.02 - 8:55 pm | #

Actually, if memory serves no Pope in the 20th Century urged war, ever. The Popes during both World Wars struggled desperately to keep it from happening and struggled desperately to shorten it. It's a frequently overlooked fact among Traditionalists who endlessly honk and blat about our "pacifist Pope" as though he were something unusual in the past 100 years.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 11.18.02 - 11:37 pm | #

That's an unfair slam to Weigel. He's not asking us to "defer" to the politicians. He's saying it's within their competence to apply the circumstances that present themselves in Iraq to just war principles and that's not within the competence of the bishops.

The politicians want the debate and it happened and they took a vote, and we the voters have had an election. That's our voice and our own area of competence. Democracy in action.

As I wrote earlier in this blog, you can't find a better example of a preemptive war against Islam better tha n the won that was the waged by that 16th century coalition-building world leader Pope St. Pius V.
Patrick Sweeney | 11.18.02 - 11:37 pm | #

Weigel makes some very incredible claims in this article.

He posits that attacking Iraq may be "morally obligatory", presumably because Iraq can be deeded to be the "aggressor". So much for prudential judgment! However, nowhere does Weigel specify against whom Iraq is supposed to acting aggressively. He seems to realize that he cannot condition an attack on Iraq being aggressive against the US, since he cannot show that Iraq has been aggressive toward the US.

Regardless, Weigel evinces no concern in the article with the issue of self defense. Instead, the just cause Weigel promotes here is the opportunity to create a new world order of "justice and freedom". If war is the means, Weigel seems to say, "So be it." It seems he is using this end (dubious as it is) to justify the means (a war against Iraq).

Even if you accept his moral calculus, it does not seem to jibe very well with Catholic just war teaching.
Bill | 11.19.02 - 12:25 pm | #

Bill: perhaps it is your understanding that does not "jibe very well with Catholic just war teaching". The just war tradition does not restrict war to cases where the state in question is attacked. The Catholic Encyclopedia's entry on war, for example, states that a title of war can come "from the request of another state in peril". Further, the "need of punishing the threatening or infringing power for the security of the future" is a primary title for war. Surely when the "security of the future" is menaced by a "threatening power" seeking WMDs, further action is needed.

Christopher Wong | 11.19.02 - 3:30 pm | #

Christopher,

Nobody has requested that we take action against Iraq. Indeed, all requests have been to the contrary. This is a war we will commence, if at all, on our sole initiative.

As far as "punishing" Iraq to prevent future threats, apparently none of Iraq's neighbors see any possible threat sufficient to warrant an attack and the US has been hardpressed to show any evidence whatsoever of alleged WMD activity or anything resembling a threat to the US (so much so that the administration issues Orwellian statements like "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.")

Weigel sees the Iraq situation as an opportunity for a war to create a new world order of justice and freedom. Where is the just war basis for this extraodinary goal?

Bill | 11.19.02 - 4:48 pm | #

The U.S. has had numerous opportunities to go to war as a means of preventing or ending injustice, violence, oppression etc. and has just as numerously passed them up.

Mobutu's Zaire is just one example. Or much closer to home, for that matter, is Cuba.

So far as Hitler is concerned, it was Germany which declared war on us.

Most of Europe had been occupied and Britain attacked for two years before we entered WWII.
Pavel Chichikov | 11.19.02 - 7:40 pm | #

Bill: as I said elsewhere, the original titles to war remain as long as the original threat to war remains. So the original requests (from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia for example) are valid. Further, the voice of Iraqi dissidents and other escapees in exile does matter, and there is support there. There is also apparently support among the minorities in the north and south of Iraq, with whom US forces are apparently collaborating right now. All these requests are valid under just war theory.

As for the presence of threat, it should be clear that many nations believe as the US does that Saddam Hussein is dangerous. The previous weapons inspection regime did uncover hard evidence of biochemical weapons in progress, and believed that more existed. Other hard evidence may not be so forthcoming to those without a security clearance, but this should not be a surprise. But the decision to wage war under just war theory belongs precisely to those who would have this information.

On punishment: if the purpose of a just war is punishment, there is no need for presence of the original or current threat. Punishment is just that: punitive action against past infringements.

On Weigel: in facing a clear threat, and in defending oneself against that threat, one has sufficient title to work towards world order in that regard. This is because a just world order leads to security of the future, which is a primary title of just war.

Pavel: it is irrelevant whether the US managed to wage all justifiable wars in the past. We cannot change the past. What matters is now, going forward. If the conditions for a just war exists now, then it it is justifiable regardless of whether the US failed to go to war in the past.
Christopher Wong | 11.21.02 - 6:13 pm | #