What was the naval Battle of LePanto all about if not Papal led? And what about the present Pope stating that "the international community must not stand aside," re Kosovo?
tonymixan | 11.20.02 - 7:03 am | #

I don't want the bishops to advocate war, either. After all, they don't know the facts.

But it'd be nice if they'd also shut up about "root causes" and the U.N. Security Council and the sins of unilateralism blah blah blah.
S.F. | Homepage | 11.20.02 - 8:55 am | #

I believe all priests and clerics are personally forbidden to shed blood, even in a just war. I think this IS a powerful witness for peace, similar to celibacy.

But the bishops' statement on Iraq is more than just a personal witness for peace. Clearly they wish to persuade all others to adopt their stance, even if they have refrained from making this morally binding. This could trouble the conscience of Catholic soldiers and legislators, whom I think we both believe are carrying out their proper duties in participating in a US war on Iraq.

Further, I find it hard to see the pacifist policies of the bishops and the Holy See as a "heroic striving for peace" rather than an accomodation with a large, powerful culture that is very capable of wreaking vengeance on Christian communities within its borders. I think protecting the faithful is certainly a proper concern of the hierarchy, and I think many bishops and the Holy Father are bravely acting to ensure the safety of their flocks in very difficult circumstances.

But again, I see the Church's statements on war as the calm, soothing words of the hostage negotiator...and I thank God that if negotiations break down, we have a truly herioc SWAT team in the wings ready to take the bad guys out. The hostage negotiators have their place - but let's make sure they don't destroy the morale of the SWAT team, whom we may need to call on to save us all.
Rick | 11.20.02 - 9:31 am | #

To work for a just and peaceful resolution, and to pray for this even though it be unlikely, is laudable. However, if the Popes had issued a statment saying US in World War II did not satisfy the criterion of a just war, how much respect would they have been accorded?

As for Pope's calling for military conflict, there's a long history of that in the Church. The Vatican used to have its troops, still has the Swiss Guard, and it had the death penalty on its books until recently.

Moreover, the Crusades, Lepanto, liberation of captive pontiffs, fighting the revolutionary forces sweeping against it, all these are examples of Popes urging a just use of military force.

One can advocate that a war is just, and still hope and intercede for a peaceful resolution. Clearly this is not what the bishops have been doing.
Breier | 11.20.02 - 9:49 am | #

In short, this "rooting for war" concept of Mr. Shea's is a straw man, and nothing more. Who has been advocating that? If one isn't publicly against military action, one has to be "rooting for war"? Hardly.

Regards,

Breier
Breier Scheetz | 11.20.02 - 9:50 am | #

I think Pavel and Mark are missing the point.

Weigel made it and I am making it here: there's a big difference between being an advocate of peace and declaring that after evaluating the realworld situation and applying just war principles to it, that the war in Iraq to be fought as the United States intends to would not be just.

I join Mark in saying that the bishops always ought to do the former.
I join George in saying the bishops ought to refrain from the latter.
Patrick Sweeney | 11.20.02 - 9:54 am | #

I expect bishops to identify evil for what it is and not urge passivity in its face. Witnessing for peace should not mean counseling appeasement. The aim should be just peace, and this more often than not requires strength as well as mutual respect. MCNS
Mark Sullivan | Homepage | 11.20.02 - 10:07 am | #

Ever heard of the Crusades?
Anonymous | 11.20.02 - 10:18 am | #

Some of the "more zealous pro-war types" would suggest that war is not necessarily an "awful reality." Thus, Darrell Coles, in the October 2001 _First Things_, argues against such a view (e.g., Karl Barth's view of war as an 'ultima ratio') to write:

"When Thomas Aquinas discusses just war in the Summa Theologiae, he does not do so in the section on justice, but rather in the section on charity, specifically, the love of God. He makes it clear that war is not a vice that is opposed to the love of God. On the contrary, war-making, when just, can be a form of love."

Thus, to such pro-war types, bishops presumably can urge war because war can be "a form of love".

If you find this somewhat distasteful (as do I), you might want to disagree with George Weigel about there not being a presumption against force. I would think that there is such a presumption because modern warfare (remember, World War II killed more noncombatants than soldiers) is more brutal than its medieval antecedent. This is, of course, the position of the bishops and was argued for in America by Father Drew Christiansen. But not, so far as I can see, the position of our neo-conservatives.

Sorry if I am incorrect - it is hard to keep up with the literature.
Neil Dhingra | 11.20.02 - 10:42 am | #

Rick gets to the root of the War Party's objection to the bishops' statement: "[T]hey wish to persuade all others to adopt their stance, even if they have refrained from making this morally binding. This could trouble the conscience of Catholic soldiers and legislators . . ." So what's wrong with the bishops trying to persuade people? How is that worse than Bush et al. doing the same thing? And Catholic legislators' and soldiers'consciences should darned well be "troubled" by the prospect of any war, and this war in particular when Just War priniciples have to be twisted almost beyond recognition in its service.
T. Marzen | 11.20.02 - 10:44 am | #

C. Matt nailed it: "If you never want your bishops to 'justify' a war, why bother having a JUST WAR doctrine?"


Greg Krehbiel | Homepage | 11.20.02 - 1:18 pm | #

Neil, why is it distasteful to consider war an act of love?

If somone is oppressing Neil by holding Neil hostage in his house and threatening to rape his wife and children and then I come in and shoot him in the head for you, is that not an act of love toward you and your family?

Sure, it is distasteful to have to kill another human being. Certainly I would have wished that things were otherwise. I would certainly hope the Lord would show him mercy. But none of this is to deny that my act would be an act of love.
S.F. | Homepage | 11.20.02 - 1:41 pm | #

I kinda like Mark's post. Puts the actions of the Pope into perspective. I just wish the Cardinals and bishops who stop being knee-jerk supporters of the baby-killing UN.

The Church acts as a moral voice and a conscience. It is good that She urges peace to the last minute, though war is inevitable and ultimately just. It appeals to man's better angels, an appeal that can be lost in the fervor of battle.

BTW, a curious method warrior priests employed to get around the rule of not shedding blood...they used maces, hammers, staffs and other blunt weapons.
Jonathan | Homepage | 11.20.02 - 1:44 pm | #

I am concerned at statements like "World War II killed more noncombatants than soldiers." "World War II" didn't kill a soul. Armies and navies and air forces did. Without knowing which army killed how many, one cannot impute any presumption either for or against force.

Does that numberless comparison include the Holocaust? The battle for Stalingrad? Nanking? In all those cases, it was not a byproduct of the use of force that killed noncombatants, but the calulated and deliberate murder of those people. Such injustices weigh rather heavily in favor of using force by those who would halt them.

The bishops' job, as my friend at Disputations has noted, is not to urge "peace" or "war" but to urge what is right. If a war is right, they ought to urge it. If it is not, they ought to oppose it. At the present, the information they possess points them in a different direction than it points me. But (as CS Lewis noted and I quote all the time) "If war is ever just, then peace is sometimes sinful" and the bishops are obliged to point out what is sinful, even when they prefer not to.

Peace,
Brian
JB the Kairos Guy | Homepage | 11.20.02 - 1:52 pm | #

Mark...if you see bishops or popes *advocating* war as appalling, don't you consider priests in the same category? I am a retired Air Force member who is presently a seminarian. One of the most difficult conversions I have had to undergo is the transition from a 'man of the sword' to a 'man of the cloth.' I am working for a year in a pastoral internship before I return to the seminary studies. It is most frustrating to stifle the expression of my thoughts and feelings with the parishioners (and presbyterate) because I was ecstatic after the Nov. 5th elections, because my ecclesiology is more strident toward traditionalist Church, and because I enthusiastically support President Bush's policy for our national defense regarding Iraq.

I've become adept at adherring to the model of St. Paul who admits in 1 Cor 9:19-23 that he is all things to all people. But, sometimes I just feel like 'telling it like it is!'
Doug | 11.20.02 - 2:53 pm | #

Doug:

I think I'm just a natural born contrarian. If my readers were primarily composed of T. Marzens I would probably be arguing all the reasons I think war with Iraq is sensible and necessary (and I do, in fact, think it is sensible and necessary). But since I don't have to convince many of my readers of *that*, I find that I do have to argue that there *is* a case to be made by those opposed to the war which is not simply cowardice or (as one of my readers has put it) due to "pride in one's own virtues". Whatever may be the case with John Paul, I don't for a moment believe that his opposition to the war is due to his lofty opinion of his own virtue. I think there are principled people who just don't think the war meets just war criteria. I disagree with them, but I don't think them the evil idiots that so many of my tribe of conservative Catholics do. Now, there *are* evil idiots opposed to the war, of course. Albert Gore, Prince of Dorkness, for example, is an evil idiot who opposes the war, not due to any principles (he pissed those away years ago). But there are people who oppose the war out of their honest reading of Just War tradition. I can respect that, though I disagree.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 11.20.02 - 3:06 pm | #

I don't think many of those who disagree with the B's or JPII's take on the justness of war w/ Iraq believe the B's or JPII are acting out of cowardice or some ulterior motive. At least, I don't. I just don't think the B's latest letter is very well reasoned or persuasive. It seems to ignore a lot of inconvenient facts, or at least gloss over / belittle them (like SH's actions against his own people, and whether war to "liberate oppression" itself is enough - they seem to skirt that issue altogether). And this topic, specifically, was whether you want B's or the Pope to EVER justify a war. As pointed out above by several folks, I thought that was why we have a just war doctrine.
C. Matt | 11.20.02 - 3:18 pm | #

Regarding some of the responses to my earlier letter, I must first express gratitude and then a clarification. I am uneasy at regarding 'MODERN WARFARE' as an act of love because the logic of 'modern warfare' seems to make the commission of sin somewhere along the way almost inevitable. For instance, even if one supported the reasons behind the First Gulf War, one has to consider that it led very directly to various phenomena, including the dropping of 660,000 pounds of depleted uranium onto Iraq, to postwar massacres of the abandoned Kurds and Shiites, to the stalemate of the present day sanctions regime. Thus, 'modern warfare' is never the controlled situation that S.F. describes, or the somewhat controlled situations that St Thomas was familiar with.

Regarding Brian's statement that "'World War II' didn't kill a soul. Armies and navies and air forces did," he is a sense is absolutely correct. But I'd like to keep my formulation, because I'd like to suggest that war tends to bring about a condition of structural sin. The Holy Father, in Evangelium Vitae 12, says that structual sin exists with the coming to be of "powerful cultural, economic and political currents which encourage an idea of society excessively concerned with efficiency." He's talking about the sin of abortion, but surely during warfare "efficiency" tends to be valued more than morality, not only because of a single decision here or there, but also because of the game, the "even larger reality", that the decision makers find themselves immmersed in. It is a fearful thing to contemplate that the only (Church of England) bishop to speak out against obliteration bombing in the House of Lords was George Bell, who was later denied preferment by Churchill because of his stance. In time of warfare, perhaps even holy men can find themselves justifying the firebombing of Dresden.

Thank you so much. These are just exploratory thoughts from someone who very much is aware of his lack of learning.

Peace,
Neil
Neil Dhingra | 11.20.02 - 4:14 pm | #

Neil, just a couple of exploratory responses for you to chew on.

1) A cursory glance at military history (which is about as much as I can offer, corrections welcome) suggests that "modern warfare" is not incredibly different from warfare in any other era. Technological advancements through history pushed the balance back and forth between offense and defense, but warfare itself has changed about as much as nature of the humans who wage it(read: not at all).

2) Your list of "phenomena" following the Gulf War have often been used to argue that we should have deposed the Iraqi regime in the Gulf War. You would have to show some causal link between the war and these events, as well as arguing that a successful annexation of Kuwait and the increase in the regime's confidence would not have wrought even worse evil.

3) Warfare has never been, could never be, as cut-and-dried as S.F.'s example, nor do I think would he argue that. That is why we need Just War Theory, because extensions of just personal self-defense to the nation-state could not begin to suffice. As to "war as an act of love," consider that Christ taught us to love even our enemies. If war cannot be reconciled with love, then no war is just, and the theory is pointless. Is it an emotional love? Does the sniper (in legitimate wartime folks, not taking out civilians in downtown DC) love his target? Decidedly a bizarre concept, but then, every time I write or read about this lately, I find myself praying for Saddam and his regime. Hasta be good for something.

4) Yes, it is true that inordinate desire for victory can blind soldiers in war, just as inordinate desire for efficiency and utility can blind those who craft and interpret laws, just as inordinate fear of having her life sidetracked and made dependent on a young child can blind a young woman whose decisions resulted in an unwanted pregnancy... all of which is to say that temptation tempts sinners. In reference to #1, there is nothing new about atrocity and perfidy, and these have been long acknowledged as sinful, but to suppose war can't be waged justly is to contradict any belief in the validity of Just War.

This brings me to a critique of Mark's post: Mark, you took a step too far when you went from acknowledging that the bishops may disagee with you in their opinion about this war, to saying they should never "advocate or justify war." Obviously for the tautological reason (thanks, C. Matt)but also for the reason that they and their priests (and military chaplains!) have a responsibility to advocate war fought justly. This action erodes their ability to advocate for this, much as their (in)action towards their own sexually abusive priests (and subsequent abuse of already abused families) erodes their teaching authority as regards sexual morality.

It has been long held that the decision to go to war lies solely in the hands of the state. The bishops have the luxury of an opinion; the President of the United States has our lives in his hands. Okay, that's not entirely accurate: the bishops are responsible for our souls. But it seems strangely oblivious to offer the thoughts of so weighty an authority on so weighty a subject, only to leave it aside with a but-right-minded-people-may-disagree. No doubt there will be Catholic soldiers going to war (and even some plainly Christian or Agnostic soldiers whose still might see some authority in the office of Roman Catholic Bishop) and this seems to do nothing but alienate or disillusion those men (or again the chaplain that must stand in front of them and bless them). Then again, perhaps I attribute more sway to the bishops than they actually hold over these men. And then yet again, perhaps they would
hold that sway, if they could begin to act like they rightly deserve it... but that's a topic too far.

I'm a conservative who sees a just need for this war, but I do not despise the bishops. I will, however, confess a mild confusion at them.
Marc Lewandowski | 11.20.02 - 9:32 pm | #

If you never want your bishops to "justify" a war, why bother having a JUST WAR doctrine? If Pavel's point is that the Bishops shouldn't throw a parade on the way to the loading docks of the destroyers, I agree. But a well reasoned and fully analyzed justification for military action, while strongly urging all parties to do their best to find a peaceful solution, would not be unseemly. And in fact, if the action is justified under the doctrine, they should say so. Being a peacemaker is not the same as being a pacifist.
C. Matt | 11.21.02 - 12:27 am | #

What is the official, documented evidence for cleaning Saddam's Clock?

(This is a question with no implied ideological bent. I just wanna know.)
Paul Scheibmeir | 11.21.02 - 12:28 am | #

I may very well be outside the bounds of Catholic teaching in the question of war. I'm not learned enough to say. If so -
I don't like being outside those bounds - if I am - but conscience brings me here.
Personally, I believe that anyone who starts a war which is not purely defensive ought to be put on trial.

I took part in another kind of war - the Cold one.

Except for proxy wars, we didn't have to fight the USSR. Is anyone sorry?

I remember sitting in a room in Moscow during the 80s, listening to a Soviet colonel, who had been a commander of a unit of SS -18s (doomsday weapons aimed at us), deliver a diatribe against the United States which accused it of planning to destroy Moscow.

A few years later we had another meeting in Moscow, in which, now an advisor to the Russian government on nuclear weapons, he outlined how tenuous
control over some of those weapons could be, especially road mobiles.

I know some other things, which I won't mention here, about the fragility of peace during that period.

A few years earlier a message was conveyed to the S.U. at the Pentagon which assured it that the United States would never pre-emptively attack the Soviet Union.

Is anyone sorry that we didn't?

Conditions are far different now, and the threat we face is not from another powerful state, but from an amorphous, ideologically driven enemy who can cross borders and cause terrible damage without possessing a state structure.

What is the correct way of fighting that enemy? Do we pre-emptively attack another state?

I've mentioned two things here: my own personal viewpoint about war, and about the present situation concerning Iraq.

One more thing - I don't personally confuse a state with a moral being. States may or may not be composed of moral beings, but the state itself is an administrative machine, the most complex machine ever devised by human beings, constructed to accomplish tasks which may or may not be moral. The state can be a good and faithful machine, in a mechanical way, or it can be an idol. It is never a 'person.' It can, more or less, do the job for which it was designed, or it can take on a spurious, pseudo-life of its own. I'm not so confident that such a stupendously complex and massive machine is always controllable, even by those who theoretically have their hands on the levers.


Pavel Chichikov | 11.21.02 - 1:06 am | #

Dear Marc Lewandowski,

Thank you for your kind response to my rambling thoughts; you have indeed given me much to think about.

1) I think that our disagreement largely concerns your view that modern warfare "is not incredibly different than warfare in any other era." I maintain that it is. The following excerpt from Eric Hobsbawm gives one example of the difference:

"More familiar is the erosion of the distinction between combatants and non-combatants. The two world wars of the first half of the century involved the entire populations of belligerent countries; both combatants and non-combatants suffered. In the course of the century, however, the burden of war shifted increasingly from armed forces to civilians, who were not only its victims, but increasingly the object of military or military-political operations. The contrast between the first world war and the second is dramatic: only 5% of those who died in the first were civilians; in the second, the figure increased to 66%. It is generally supposed that 80 to 90% of those affected by war today are civilians. The proportion has increased since the end of the cold war because most military operations since then have been conducted not by conscript armies, but by small bodies of regular or irregular troops, in many cases operating high-technology weapons and protected against the risk of incurring casualties. There is no reason to doubt that the main victims of war will continue to be civilians."

It strikes me that the logic of modern warfare makes it quite likely that civilians will be targeted, following the precedent of the Second World War. Civilians were also targeted in the Gulf War: the Jesuit peace activist G. Simon Harak has written: "the US and Britain used depleted uranium - 660,000 pounds of the stuff - in weapons such as rocket propelled grenades (RPGs) to attack Iraq. The residue which has a half-life of 4.5 billion years contaminates the air, land and water, and causes chromosomal radiation damage especially to soft tissue, and pregnant mothers and their fetuses." Some civilian infrastructures also seem to have been deliberately targeted during the Gulf War. The peril of this I think forces us to consider a presumption against force itself.


2) The modern world is less stable that the European world of the last couple of centuries. Charles Tilly has pointed out that this is partly because of a plethora of weak countries, an increased availability of weapons, the possibilities of funding from the international drug trade, and emigrant support for various movements. This means that the potential for one war to cause smaller wars and civil disturbances is extremely high (and perhaps even unpredictable). Thus the chance for a war to be 'successful' is much lower than in a more stable world where a peace definitively ended a conflict that itself was between defined states. Again, reason for a presumption against force.

4) I believe that there are just wars (like the war against Afghanistan). However, you do state that "temptation tempts sinners". I merely want to suggest that that temptation is more perilous at this time than another for some of the reasons sketched above. The lack of attention presently paid by our nation's leaders to our religious leaders (there is a story in _Commonweal_ about this) makes it unlikely that, in the event of a violation of the practice of just warfare during actual conflict, our religious leaders will have the ability to aid us in resisting "temptation."

I am not sure how I would formulate a response to 3) exactly - I do believe in the possibility of a just war, while at the same time feel the force of the calls of Paul VI and John Paul II for an end to war. I would want to search for some sense of the tragic, but am not sure right now.

Thank you again. I see myself as basically in agreement with the US Bishops.

Peace,
Neil
Anonymous | 11.21.02 - 1:59 am | #

Neil, a couple of further responses:

1) I'm not familiar with Eric Hobsbawm, but Without specifics, I'm disinclined to take those numbers very seriously. I don't have the casualty statistics in front me, but that "66%" would seem to include atrocities such as the 6 million killed in German death camps. As has been pointed out earlier by JB (whose own blog contains a lot of sense on these issues) this number cannot be considered in the usual "collateral damage" column, since this was an action taken by the state against its own people. As an example in the Pacific, Okinawa was a bloodbath of said collateral damage, but that is partly because Japan herself considered every Japanese man, woman and child (even those living in America) a combatant, and ordered early and often that they would have to defend against invasion with their lives.

I don't know where that 80-90% number comes from, but I would guess has to do with the present increases of both guerilla warfare and the the use of "human shields". This refusal of any enemy combatant to "come out into the open" naturally results in an increase in civilian casualties, but the fault for this increase lies with the practitioners (especially users of human shields).

At any rate, these numbers are too vague to make any judgements. Is "affected by" war the same as dying in one? That's implied but not stated.

I can't speak to those specifics of the Gulf War, but the situation appears exaggerated, and is hardly the specific targeting of civilians. I would pose that the situation of civilians under the present Iraqi regime is far more perilous than when threatened by depleted uranium.

2) Your logic is missing some steps. You would have to show that resulting instability is somehow worse than what would have occurred had the situation been allowed to fester.

4) I'm not sure that I see the link between your previous points and "temptation." At any rate, one would hope that our forces are capable of avoiding it without the express wishes of "religious leaders." Do you have a link to that Commonweal story?


Pavel - With all due respect to your experience, does it not seem that the very purpose of this war is to avoid a Mutually Assured Destruction stalemate with another even more unpredictable power, that we now have the chance to depose a nascent Stalin before he gains unconfrontable power?
Marc Lewandowski | 11.21.02 - 7:32 am | #

Marc,

We're talking about Iraq, not China or a resurgent Russia of the future. I've never thought of Iraq as a 'power.'

Syria has missiles and perhaps some wmd potential. Israel is a nuclear power.
We work informally with the Syrians, and Israel is an ally. Saddam was also an ally of sorts for a while, until he mis-read signals about Kuwait.

Was Saddam a nicer guy in the eighties than he is now?

I'm in no sort of loop whatsoever, and there's always the possibility that there's information of which I, as a member of the general public am not aware. But one can't form practical opinions based on a vague hypothetical like that.

I am assuming that the main enemy is Osama bin Laden and militant, radical Islam.

Whatever else he is - and he is certainly not the most savory of dictators - Saddam is not a militant Islamist.

If Saddam meditates about his worst enemies, bin Laden is likely to be on the short list. If true, then we're in the bizarre situation of being de facto allies of our own worst enemy.

I wish someone could disabuse me of this grotesque paradox.


Pavel Chichikov | 11.21.02 - 9:52 am | #

I'll say one thing for you, Neil: your analysis of the just war implications is light years ahead of what the Bishops stated in their letter. I wish they would have addressed things as you did.
C. Matt | 11.21.02 - 10:16 am | #

There is only one moral standard.
Either the bishops are wrong,
or you are.
Anonymous | 11.21.02 - 11:48 am | #

Dear Marc,

Thank you again. I will try to respond, but also to try and find some common ground. I must also thank C. Matt for his kind comments. Perhaps it should also be said that, although the US Bishops have lost a great deal of moral credibility in recent months, they (I think) are in basic agreement with Catholic bishops elsewhere and Vatican officials. That is, I don't know of any prelate who has supported war with Iraq.

Regarding modern warfare, I am not sure about Hobsbawm's precise numbers, and, of course, you are right about warfare in the 80's and 90's. But I think that it is undeniable that Hobsbawm's figures do include the firebombings of Dresden, Hamburg, and Tokyo, as well as Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Furthermore, a situation of guerilla conflict and human shields seems likely to raise its ugly head in a conflict with Iraq, where it is said, for instance, that Saddam will bring his forces into the city, forcing our troops to fight amongst civilians, block after block.

Now, of course, one can say that, in such a situation, it would be Saddam's fault for 'forcing' us to bomb schools, etc. One could also blame Japanese intransigence for 'forcing' us to bomb cities. And, of course, such statements have a great deal of truth to them. However, I think that before we go to war today, we need to understand that such 'force' will be placed on us - and that should make us hesitate. Even if it is ultimately because of Saddam's undisputed evil, there is still something frightful about going into a conflict knowing that one will have to bomb dams (indirectly spreading typhoid and cholera) and that there will most probably be multiple 'Black Hawk Down' type scenarios.

And, if I can leap to 4), that 'force', which will make us do things that ordinarily we would not even think of doing, blurs lines. I am haunted by a line in the Christian Century on August 29, 1945: "Our leaders seem not to have weighed the moral considerations involved." Because modern war is what it is (we have not even yet spoken about propaganda), inevitably blurring lines, it is hard to keep moral considerations in mind - and especially so if keeping those moral considerations in mind means accepting the risk of greater casualties. We can very easily become unrecognizable to ourselves - I am also haunted by reading of soldiers who have to refer to themselves, when they remember being in combat, in the third person. War can do that to a person - slowly but surely, as the moral considerations that once defined him come to appear to belong to another world altogether.

I would feel much more confident in a war with Iraq if I felt that we would in fact keep those moral considerations in mind. Hopefully we can avoid the temptation of violating basic moral rules without our religious leaders having to be vigilant. However, the justification of the violation of those rules is usually theological in nature, so those moral rules often need an express theological backing to be kept in sight. Government leaders will ultimately appeal to God and religion in times of war; we need 'religious leaders' to make sure they do so responsibly. And the press has simply not paid the same attention to the concerns of religious leaders - Catholic or Protestant - that it did during the Gulf War. The Commonweal article that I mentioned is not yet on-line; I had recourse to the paper copy.

Will the situation be worse if we attack than if we let Saddam stay in power? (#2) I think that that is a debatable question. I fear that the answer is more likely the former possibility. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, has written:
"I have had several conversations in recent months with friends from minorities, especially Christian minorities, in the Middle East. None has expressed any tolerance for Saddam Hussein nor any visceral anti-Americanism; all have expressed, with differing degrees of fatalism, their expectation of being recipients of yet more violence from extremists in the wake of any military action."
And, of course, there is the danger that Saddam will attack Israel, and various worries about assembling some post-war order in Iraq, especially since the country has not been under the rule of law since 1958 and some Kurds will want to form a larger Kurdistan with chunks of Turkey, etc, etc. We may even worry about creating a precedent that may lead India to attack Pakistan, and so on. Now, reasonable people can disagree about these things. However, I think that reasonable people MUST at least consider these things. That is, we have to ask ourselves: What will our actions mean for someone in the West Bank? What will our actions mean for someone in Kashmir? I worry that often we don't think about these things and imagine a world with just Saddam and the United States facing one another in some sort of duel. It is easy to forget about the rest of the world, when one is asked to imagine the consequences of - God forbid
Neil Dhingra | 11.21.02 - 12:01 pm | #

Neil,

There are a lot of things mixed together in your last post, and I don't want to debate them all. But let me take up a few.

First, I am unaware of any credible allegation that the US ever deliberately bombed a school or hospital. I am aware that Saddam accused us of doing so, and I am aware of one possible accidental bombing of a medical clinic (though that as I recall is unclear). To say "Saddam 'forced us' to do so" is to admit a lie, so far as I can see.

Second, excepting (for the moment; I'll get to it shortly) the case of nuclear war, can you conceive of a president ordering a Dresden-style attack with the purpose of killing civilians for their own sake in today's world? I cannot. And if it were ordered, it is highly probable that no airmen would carry it out. I think the days of conventional attacks on a civilian population by American forces are over. We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars in the past 55 years developing technologies to avoid just that.

Third, Saddam acts in violation of international and moral law when he places military installations among civilians. Our technology, imperfect as it is, is designed specifically to attack those targets with the least possible harm to the civilians Saddam has endangered. It is within the law of nations for us to attack those targets so long as we take every precaution to protect innocent life. (I understand you are challenging the morality of this, but I want to be clear what the written law says.)

Fourth, even in the case of nuclear war, I am not at all persuaded that so-called "countervalue" nuclear strikes (ie, attacks on civilian populations) would follow anything but the most devastating first strike against us. But this is the only case in which deliberate targetting of civilians is still permitted officially.

I agree with most of your statements, except one:

"[War] must not be entered happily, lightly."

If by this you mean, nations must not enter war happily, then I can almost go along with it. But if you mean, the men who must fight it, then I cannot accept it. CS Lewis wrote in Mere Christianity: "War is a dreadful thing, and I can respect an honest pacifist, though I think he is entirely mistaken. What I cannot understand is this sort of semipacifism . . . which gives people the idea that though you have to fight, you ought to do it with a long face as though you were ashamed of it...It is that feeling that robs lots of magnificent young Christians in the Services of something they have a right to, something which is the natural accompaniment of courage—a kind of gaiety and wholeheartedness."

Peace,
Brian
JB the Kairos Guy | Homepage | 11.21.02 - 2:28 pm | #

One should never expect the bishops to advocate war for the simple reason that this role is denied them. It's one of the pillars of just war: legitimate authority. In the Catechism, this is manifested in the statement that the decision on the morality of war lies with those with responsibility for the public good. This would mean the government, generally, but not the bishops. It is understandable then that they would not -- cannot -- make an explicit decision. What they can do is hope for a peaceful solution, but who wouldn't? Certainly not the US President, I'm sure.

The Crusades -- in both the narrow and wider definition (Lepanto) -- were called by Popes. But the Popes were also properly heads of states (and a Pope theoretically still is today, but much diminished), and could act in that capacity. Bishops, on the other hand, do not have this standing.
Christopher Wong | 11.21.02 - 5:55 pm | #

Dear Brian,

Thank you for your kind letter; I apologize for mixing so many things together in my previous replies - I am thinking aloud.

1) You are right, I think, that we did not deliberately target schools or hospitals. However, we did target the electric grid, taking out electricity, sewage, and clean water services throughout the nation. Likewise, during its bombing of Belgrade, NATO targeted the civilian infrastructure, taking out bridges and electric power stations. It seems impossible that we can wage war without doing these things. Now, of course, one can note that dams and water treatment facilities can be classified as military targets or as collateral damage. I am not disputing that. What I am saying is simply that we can no longer wage war without causing thousands and thousands of civilian casualties. That should make us hesitate.

2) I don't think that we would bomb civilians "for their own sake". You are certainly right that we try to minimize civilian casualties. But, even as our weapons are more precise, they are more capable of exerting overwhelming force. And we seem more and more loathe to risk our own soldiers. Thus, the weapons of choice against Serbia were 500 and 2000 lb bombs dropped from great height that caused the number of civilian casualties per ton of bombs dropped to be the same as that of the Vietnam War (see Boston Globe 5.30.99). Thus, once more, it is inevitable during modern warfare that large numbers of civilians will be killed, even if we do not directly intend their deaths. We have to take that into account when committing ourselves to a war.

3) Thus, I think, we find ourselves constantly weighing a balance between efficiency (winning the war) and morality (avoiding civilian deaths). How many soldiers must be hiding inside a church before we can bomb it? During a guerilla war, can we presume that every teenage male in a particular village is an enemy soldier? It becomes very, very easy (like in so many other things) to justify questionable (and previously inconceivable) acts in the name of efficiency. For example, between 1968 and 1972, Henry Kissinger authorized over 3500 missions against the civilian populations of Laos and Cambodia using B-52 bombers. According to Pentagon figures, during that time 31, 205 American servicemen, 86,101 South Vietnamese regulars and 475,609 enemy troops were killed. During the same period more than 3 million civilians were killed, injured or rendered homeless. Is this statistic conceivable? Is it justifiable? Perhaps - I don't know all the facts, all the circumstances. But then when do the statistics become inconceivable? When do they cease to become justifiable? I hope that we can say "before Dresden", but I am not certain. There was a time when we could not say "before Hiroshima." Again, reason for presumption against force.

I think that we can find some common ground regarding "happily" and "lightly." I think that I can agree that soldiers should never enter wars "ashamed": to suggest that would be horribly unfair to men and women who may very well die for us. But I am not sure about "gaiety and wholeheartedness." Can we think of an analogous situation? Can the Church approach warfare like it does an excommunication? It is not something to be ashamed about, after all, sometimes we must excommunicate lest we cease to be faithful. But it is not something to be particularly happy about, either. After all, one must reckon with Paul VI's words before the United Nations: "So no more war! War never again. Jamais la guerre! Jamais plus la guerre."

Thank you again - you have made me think and reflect much more than I would have without your impressive correspondence.

Peace,
Neil

Neil Dhingra | 11.21.02 - 7:35 pm | #

Wrong! The U.S. deliberately
bombed a T.V. station in Sarajevo --
not only unjust in Catholic thinking,
but a blatant war crime.
Anonymous | 11.21.02 - 7:46 pm | #

To anonymous: the U. S. is not Catholic.

Anon: Saying "either the bishops are wrong or you are" is not the best logic. "Either/or" works in digital electronics, but there are other domains.

Today the bishops say one thing; tomorrow we have to wait and see what the say.

Not only this, but we are not beholden to what a conference or group of bishops say. Each of us has one bishop and one pope to answer to.

And of course not even this statement is sufficient.

Again, as I continue to blog, Catholicism is not a religion of law, but is founded upon a man, St. Peter, who has successors. So, when you try to come up with a definitive interpretation of what the bishops teach, then you have to allow for the fact that what they say in any given document must rely on many other things said previously and so forth.

At best they are entertaining you to explore the faith more deeply.
Anonymous | 11.21.02 - 9:52 pm | #

Where in the world did the idea come from that clergy is forbidden to shed blood? Absurd.
Anonymous | 11.21.02 - 9:53 pm | #

The last two posts are mine, not anonymous': If, I discover here, one leaves blank the address bars immediately above, then it comes out "anonymous".
John L. Sillasen | 11.21.02 - 10:03 pm | #

A priest is an icon of Christ. Whose blood did Christ shed? Whose blood did the martyrs shed?
Pavel Chichikov | 11.21.02 - 11:08 pm | #

.... another attack on an American city.

Can we then agree, perhaps, that
1) The US Bishops, whether supporting war with Iraq or not, must remind us of the horrors of war.
2) They must remind us, whether they support war with Iraq or not, that these horrors may cause us to lose sight of our moral convictions.
3) They must remind us, whether they support war with Iraq or not, that we must use theological language reponsibly, even as we will be tempted to use it for nationalistic reasons.
4) They must remind us, whether they support war with Iraq or not, that we have responsibilities to people elsewhere and to the international order.
5) They must remind us, whether they support war with Iraq or not, that war places a hard and difficult responsibility on us, and must not be entered happily, lightly, or as anything other than a last resort. That is, this is a time for fasting and prayer in preparation for hard and difficult things.

Peace,
Neil
Neil Dhingra | 11.22.02 - 12:05 am | #

John and Pavel,

Here's a link to Aquinas' views on the matter:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3...umma/ 304002.htm

David | 11.22.02 - 9:35 am | #

David, I read the link you posted. It appears that St. Thomas is basing his argument rather on political conventions than on absolute spiritual doctrines. He also appears to be referring to normal conditions, and not to "emergency" conditions. I believe we have the right to self defense: Jesus told St. Peter to put back his sword, but not to get rid of it. Why? But, I'm glad you replied to my "Absurd" exclamation; now I have more to ponder.
John L. Sillasen | 11.25.02 - 10:45 pm | #