Combox for:
Is It Dissent Against the Pope and the Church, and Downright Disobedient For a Catholic to Favor the War in Iraq?
[2 May 2008]
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...and-
church.html
To the extent that "traditionalism" reflects a faulty understanding of the nature of Tradition and ecclesial, magisterial authority, I suppose it is not surprising to find a traditionalist misapprehend the level of authority of non-binding Vatican pronouncements regarding issues on which, as then Cardinal Ratzinger affirmed, Catholics may legitimately disagree.
Now, in the case of the Iraq war, the reasons for Vatican disapproval of the war and the reasons for traditionalist opposition to the war are quite different (and quite complex), but there is nevertheless a coinciding of opposition, such that those traditionalists are in agreement with the Pope for a change -- even if it's on a matter where we can respectfully disagree with the Pope.
Very well said.
You said, in arguing with SAM:
"[Our launching the war] was not unilateral; it was sanctioned by the UN, and some 30 other countries have participated with us."
This is a lie. The final UN Resolution on Iraq, 1441, did not have any 'disarm or face immediate war' clauses, and the nations voting on Resolution 1441 weren't voting for war. In fact, the UN ambassador for the United States, John Negroponte, said:
"[T]his resolution contains no 'hidden triggers' and no 'automaticity' with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12."
The British ambassador said:
“We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about 'automaticity' and 'hidden triggers' -- the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response... There is no 'automaticity' in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities."
The ambassador for Syria said:
"Syria voted in favour of the resolution, having received reassurances from its sponsors, the United States of America and the United Kingdom, and from France and Russia through high-level contacts, that it would not be used as a pretext for striking against Iraq and does not constitute a basis for any automatic strikes against Iraq. The resolution should not be interpreted, through certain paragraphs, as authorizing any State to use force. It reaffirms the central role of the Security Council in addressing all phases of the Iraqi issue."
All of which proves US and UK duplicity in voting and speaking this way, when the Downing Street Memo (which predates Res. 1441) clearly demonstrated that both were intent on invading Iraq *regardless* of its compliance with ANY UN resolution.
The popes have condemned the war not from some "pacifist-type" papal role (kinda comes off as sounding like a sneer, if you ask me, but God alone knows your intention), but from the fact that it had "no moral justification", according to then-cardinal Ratzinger. From article:
"The Catechism, Ratzinger explained, does not embrace a pacifist position a priori; indeed, it admits the possibility of a 'just war' for reasons of defense. But it sets a number of very strict and reasonable conditions: there must be a proper proportion between the evil to be rooted out and the means employed. In short, if in order to defend a value (in this case, national security) greater damage is caused (civilian victims, destabilization of the Middle East, with its accompanying risks of increased terrorism), then reco
...then recourse to force is no longer justified. In light of these criteria, Ratzinger refuses to grant the moral status of just war to the military operation against Saddam Hussein. The Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith added another consideration: 'Decisions like this should be made by the community of nations, by the UN, and not by an individual power.'"*
Needless-to-say, this was NOt a war undertaken by the UN or the international community of nations; indeed, the US has been accused of threatening, cajoling, and sanctioning nations that did NOT go along with the war.** Some moral highground!
All of that aside, your comparison to the child pornographer is pitiful. Where are Saddam's 'porn pics'? Did we find ANYthing that justified the (lowest) estimated Iraqi deaths, currently at approximately 100,000?*** NOT according to the popes! Does any of what they've said give you pause? If so, in what way?
* http://www.comunione-liberazione...ng/1/
nowar.html
** http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp...ml?
hpid=topnews
*** http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ [These are the *documented* deaths. The Johns Hopkins School of Health places the number much, much higher, at approx. 650,000: http://www.independent.co.uk/new...raq-
419682.html]
The Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith added another consideration: 'Decisions like this should be made by the community of nations, by the UN, and not by an individual power.'"
Then-Cardinal Ratzinger was not speaking in his formal office as Prefect of the CDF -- he was speaking as an ordained Catholic teacher sharing his wisdom and opinion. It is misleading to invoke his title and office of Prefect of the CDF in this context, as if what he said is binding in any way on the Catholic conscience.
You also say "the Popes have condemned the war," but there has been no such formal condemnation that is in any way binding on Catholics. If there were, then all Catholics in the armed services of those countries participating in the Coalition actions would be obliged to be conscientious objectors. The fact that no Pope has issued any such directive proves that they have not formally decreed that this is, or was, an unjust war. They have opined that there was not sufficient cause to go to war, and indeed have always urged that we avoid going to war and do all we can to have peace restored -- as is their divine calling as ministers of Jesus Christ the Prince of Peace. Still, then-Cardinal Ratzinger has also inidicated that Catholics may disagree with that opinion.
"[Our launching the war] was not unilateral; it was sanctioned by the UN, and some 30 other countries have participated with us."
This is a lie.
How is what Dave said a lie? He correctly stated that the U.S. did not act unilaterally -- as is well known, we went through the U.N., and enlisted allies to go into Iraq with us. He correctly stated that the resumption of hostilities against Iraq came only after the U.S. and Britain went to the U.N., and he correctly stated that about 30 other countries participated in the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath. The U.S. did not decide unilaterally to resume hostilities against Iraq, nor did we invade Iraq alone -- even though there wouldn't necessarily have been anything wrong with that if we had.
The final UN Resolution on Iraq, 1441, did not have any 'disarm or face immediate war' clauses, and the nations voting on Resolution 1441 weren't voting for war.
So what? The text of Resolution 1441 was clearly written to warn Iraq that they had to comply with all relevant U.N. Resolutions or face the consequences:
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,
Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area, . . .
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UND...PDF/
N0268226.pd
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UND...pdf?
OpenElement
Note also this passage from Security Council press release 7564:
The representative of the United States noted that, while primary responsibility rested with the Council for the disarmament of Iraq, nothing in the resolution constrained any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by that country, or to enforce United Nations resolutions protecting world peace and security.
http://www.un.org/News/Press/doc.../
SC7564.doc.htm
Thus, although we did not act unilaterally, if we had, we would have done nothing unlawful.
There is more than adequate grounds in Resolution 1441 to justify the resumption of hostilities against Iraq. We are free to disagree on whether or not resuming hostilities was prudent or timely or the best way to secure Iraq's compliance (I'm not sure it was, but let's at least remember that it had been years and years since Iraq had been compliant with the U.N.'s terms for peace following Saddam Hussein's attempt to annex Kuwait -- WMDs or no WMDs), but there is simply no doubt that the U.S. and its allied coalition had more than ample cause to end the temporary cease fire that had been established after we drove Hussein's forces out of Kuwait.
Dave wrote: "[Our launching the war] was not unilateral; it was sanctioned by the UN[.]"
No, it wasn't. The statements of the Ambassadors to the UN prove as much, and I'll take *their* interp of 1441 over yours and his, thankyouverymuch.
Resolution 678 authorized the UN to "use all necessary means" "to restore international peace and security in the area".
Iraq in 2001 (and even earlier) was NO THREAT to the "peace and security of the area", and the US said so.[1] What happened from 2001 until 2003 that made Iraq a pressing threat? NOTHING.
Besides, you conveniently ignored the rest of the post:
The Downing Street Memo proves that US & UK didn't give a spitball about the UN sanctioning their unnecessary war; it was going to happen anyway. Read it.[2]
It appears that the US bullied nation-states that didn't want to either join it's 'Coalition of the Willing'--just another nail in the coffin of the 'we-went-with-international-sanction' argument.
You also wrote: "[T]here is simply no doubt that the U.S. and its allied coalition had more than ample cause to end the temporary cease fire that had been established after we drove Hussein's forces out of Kuwait."
How ridiculously naive on several points! To wit:
1. Here's your "allied coalition", bubba.[3]
2. As if there was *ever* a "ceasefire" after Desert Storm! Remember "Operation Desert Fox"? No, you don't, because you aren't Iraqi, and obviously think the war ended in 1993. Not so! The US/UK bombed the country on a weekly (and sometimes daily) basis for the most spurious reasons. The "no-fly zones" were never sanctioned by the UN (nor, needless-to-say, were they ever agreed to by Iraq), and were illegally enforced by the US and UK. The civilian population of Iraq was starved of medicines, foodstuffs, and vital supplies (such as replacement parts for water treatment plants bombed by the US) by the decade-long embargo that left an estimated 500,000 children dead [4], all because they didn't rise up and oust Hussein. (Targeting civilians in order to get their government to change its policy on a particular matter is the textbook definition of TERRORISM. Why is this the case when the PLO does it but not when the US does it, especially when the US can do it on a much, much larger scale than the PLO?)
Nonetheless, if we bury our heads in the sand over these injustices, as you (and possibly Dave) have done, that still leaves us with your disturbing allegation "that the U.S..had more than ample cause to [invade]." What causes? Every allegation the US took to the UN--the mobile weapons labs; the yellow cake uranium; the aluminum tubes for uranium centrifuge--have emerged as lies, lies, and more damnable lies.
Some final questions, for you and Dave: If this war meets the criteria for a Just War, why haven't the last two popes simply said so?
Why do they hint strongly or out-and-out say that it is NOT just?
And finally--If
And finally--If they are obviously hinting strongly that it it NOT just, why do you and Dave support it, even if you're "allowed to" by reasoning that it isn't 'binding' on you to do so?
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y...h?v=y1X-I-
38lrU
[2] http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/
[3] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/
...raq.emmabrockes
[4] http://www.commondreams.org/view.../102300-
103.htm
Jon, for all your bluster, you still haven't proven that the Pope has bound Catholic consciences to believe that the Iraq war is unjust. But then you probably don't actually care about the actual topic of this weblog post, which is why you have launched into a tirade having nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand.
That being said, regarding a few of your many erroneous statements:
Dave wrote: "[Our launching the war] was not unilateral; it was sanctioned by the UN[.]"
No, it wasn't. The statements of the Ambassadors to the UN prove as much, and I'll take *their* interp of 1441 over yours and his, thankyouverymuch.
If the war was launched "unilaterally" as you claim, then how is it that there were many more than one nation who participated in the resumption of hostilities? It seems you don''t know what the word "unilateral" means.
Again, if the war was not sanctioned by the U.N., then how it is that the U.S. and her allies took their case to the U.N., obtained a resolution that gave the lawful go-ahead for a resumption of hostilities (no, not an automatic or immediate resumption) , and only then resumed hostilities?
Iraq in 2001 (and even earlier) was NO THREAT to the "peace and security of the area", and the US said so.
Only someone ignorant of Iraq's dealings with the international community during the 1990s and early 2000s would argue that Iraq was no threat to the peace and security of the area. Three words: no fly zones. So, whatever the U.S. said is irrelevant, because it isn't true. (Keep in mind, of course, that during the 1990s the U.S. effectively had no foreign policy, because the U.S. had no president, although I kind of recall some slimy Caligula-esque person who was on t.v. a lot back then. What was the name? Klemson? Klintstone?)
What happened from 2001 until 2003 that made Iraq a pressing threat? NOTHING.
If you don't know what happened from 2001 to 2003 that convinced the U.S. to radically change its policy towards the terror-breeding Middle East, then you have no business talking about the Iraq war.
The Downing Street Memo proves that US & UK didn't give a spitball about the UN sanctioning their unnecessary war; it was going to happen anyway. Read it.[2]
It appears that the US bullied nation-states that didn't want to either join it's 'Coalition of the Willing'--just another nail in the coffin of the 'we-went-with-international-sanction' argument.
"Bullied"? Or strongly sought to convince?
Now that so many of our coaltion partners are opting out, what measures have we Big American Bullies taken to punish them for leaving the coaltion?
Besides, you conveniently ignored the rest of the post:
I didn't conveniently ignore any part of your comment. Your comment did nothing to prove that Catholics are obliged to believe the Iraq war is unjust, so I had no need to respond to any of your statements at all. I did
It appears that the US bullied nation-states that didn't want to either join it's 'Coalition of the Willing'--just another nail in the coffin of the 'we-went-with-international-sanction' argument.
"Bullied"? Or strongly sought to convince?
Now that so many of our coaltion partners are opting out, what measures have we Big American Bullies taken to punish them for leaving the coalition? I mean besides exporting our so-called "entertainment" and "culture," which we were doing even before the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
Besides, you conveniently ignored the rest of the post:
I didn't conveniently ignore any part of your comment. Your comment did nothing to prove that Catholics are obliged to believe the Iraq war is unjust, so I had no need to respond to any of your statements at all. I did elect to correct a few of your misstatements, however.
The Downing Street Memo proves that US & UK didn't give a spitball about the UN sanctioning their unnecessary war; it was going to happen anyway. Read it.
I already know about the Downing Street Memo, which demonstrates that the U.S. and Britain believed it was in their own interests and the interests of other nations that Saddam Hussein be dealt with once and for all. Why do you think they took their case to the U.N.? Because they wanted to stop other nations from overthrowing Saddam Hussein?
As if there was *ever* a "ceasefire" after Desert Storm!
True, Saddam Hussein never abided by the terms of the cease fire. It does us no credit that it took us so long to take our responsibilities seriously over there, instead of continually opting for a series of ineffectual or counterproductive half-measures or tenth-measures.
Remember "Operation Desert Fox"?
Yes.
No, you don't, because you aren't Iraqi,
Yes I do, even though I'm not Iraqi.
and obviously think the war ended in 1993.
If you had read my comments more carefully, you would have noticed that I am arguing that the war did NOT end in 1993, and that there was just a temporary cessation of fighting. The current war is a continuation of the original war that Saddam Hussein started by invading Kuwait. That's why, strictly speaking, the U.S. had no obligation to go to the U.N. -- that we did so shows the U.S. knows it is best not to act in these matters unilaterally.
The "no-fly zones" were never sanctioned by the UN (nor, needless-to-say, were they ever agreed to by Iraq), and were illegally enforced by the US and UK. The civilian population of Iraq was starved of medicines, foodstuffs, and vital supplies (such as replacement parts for water treatment plants bombed by the US) by the decade-long embargo that left an estimated 500,000 children dead [4], all because they didn't rise up and oust Hussein.
What part of "authorized Member States to use all necessary means" don't you understand?
That way you're talking, it sou
The way you're talking, it sounds to me as if you think the only appropriate course of action that could have been taken against Saddam Hussein in the 1990s as well as in 2003 was to do nothing, or maybe say, "Now, now, stop being so naughty."
Targeting civilians in order to get their government to change its policy on a particular matter is the textbook definition of TERRORISM.
What a foolish thing to say, Jon. Trade embargoes against nations with which one is at war are the same as deliberately launching missiles into residential neighborhood with the hopes that civilians can be killed, or sending suicide bombers into a marketplace? How do you expect anybody to take you seriously when you say stupid things like that?
Nonetheless, if we bury our heads in the sand over these injustices, as you (and possibly Dave) have done,
If you don't even know my opinion of the justice of measures such as the trade embargo or Desert Fox, how can you be so sure I've buried my head in the sand over them?
that still leaves us with your disturbing allegation "that the U.S..had more than ample cause to [invade]." What causes? Every allegation the US took to the UN--the mobile weapons labs; the yellow cake uranium; the aluminum tubes for uranium centrifuge--have emerged as lies, lies, and more damnable lies.
Your memory of these matters is extremely faulty, and your appraisal of them is superficial and tendentious. The next thing you're going to tell me is that Richard Armitage was convinced by Darth Va-, er, Dick Cheney to "leak" Valerie Plame's "undercover" status.
If this war meets the criteria for a Just War, why haven't the last two popes simply said so?
Maybe because it doesn't meet the criteria for a just war.
Or maybe because Popes John Paul and Benedict believe it doesn't meet the criteria for a just war.
A question for you: if the Holocaust and Nazism were monstrously immoral (as they obviously were), why didn't Servant of God Pius XII simply say so?
Why do they hint strongly or out-and-out say that it is NOT just?
Maybe because it is not just. Or maybe it is just, but they mistakenly believe it is not just.
And finally--If they are obviously hinting strongly that it it NOT just, why do you and Dave support it, even if you're "allowed to" by reasoning that it isn't 'binding' on you to do so?
If we are allowed to partly or wholly disagree with the Pope on a particular matter, why should you or anyone else care that I might partly or wholly disagree with the Pope on that matter? If you aren't able to convince me to agree with you, do you think a spurious invocation of papal authority is going to sway me?
Jordanes has argued so well, that there is no need for me to add anything.
The point of the post was whether it is disobedient against the pope and the Church to support the Iraq War. Jon seems to grant that point, and so it has become another dispute about the war itself. I've done that twice, so I'm not inclined to do it again, given all the topics I cover on this blog.
"[I]f the Holocaust and Nazism were monstrously immoral (as they obviously were), why didn't Servant of God Pius XII simply say so?"
I'm so glad you asked, because it ties in nicely with the point of the post: The simple answer is that he *did*, in Mit Brenner Sorge. You've only to read it [1]. You are right in what you insinuated, however: Pius XII condemned Nazi aggression in no stronger terms than John Paul II and Benedict XVI have Iraq. Nonetheless, you seem to fall into the same trap that has ensnared modern critics of Pius and has ensnared Dave on the issue of Iraq: If you cannot see what the pope DID write (and the last two have said) as being a condemnation of Nazism (and Iraq), then nothing will suffice to get you to change your poorly informed opinions about either. You are to be counted (and because you speak for Dave, according to him, then he too) with the German apologists for the Nazis who claimed exactly what you are claiming now: Because the pope has not made strong enough statements sufficiently 'binding' for you, you are free to choose whether to support this war or not.
The pope said in 1937 and the last two have been saying for a number of years now: 'Let those who have ears let them hear. The war is wrong. Nazism is wrong. Unilateral war is wrong.' They also seem to be saying, in a spirit of charity: 'We would hope it wouldn't take demands of obedience to see this.'
Unfortunately, that isn't sufficient for you, nor was it for some in 1937. You want an out-and-out command to obey, when the chief shepherds of the Church have been more apt to ask you and all Catholics to GET THE HINT in charity. Now, am I claiming that WWII is comparable to the Iraq War in terms of moral gravity? That Bush is Hitler, etc.? No, simply that apologists for both make the same arguments and illogical claims, when the popes have spoken clearly on all these issues. It isn't from charity that one asks, 'What is the *least* I have to do or believe in order to "obey"?'
I'll say again, and leave it at this: Pius XII condemned Nazi aggression in no stronger terms than John Paul II and Benedict XVI have Iraq. Adjust your opinions to theirs (not mine), and you won't have to worry about whether or not "it is disobedient against the pope and the Church to support the Iraq War".
[1] http://www.papalencyclicals.net/...11/
P11BRENN.HTM
The focus here always seems to be on what is the minimum amount of respect a Catholic could ever give to the pope's opinion. If I have met that standard I am OK.
To me the issue is much more around what influence does the Republican party and various conservative thinkers have on Catholics? So support for the war in Iraq and torture are just symtoms of a deeper problem. People have bought into a line of thinking that is just not Christian. It is partisan. It seems like a lot of protestants have politics and religion so intertwined they can't imagine a split between Republican policy and biblical teaching. Many protestants converts have the same deal. They just assume conservative political principles are in line with the faith. It does not matter how many statements from bishops and popes endorse liberal thinking. They will remain loyal conservatives.
Sure the church leaves open room for prudence. But is it prudent to follow a secular school of political thought? It boils down to the same false sense of independent thought we see in religion. Just like everyone who goes to a Lutheran church reads the bible like a Lutheran and claims that this is totally based on reason and not on any obedience he has to Lutheranism. Same thing with liberals and conservatives. Most think they are what they are because of reason. They don't see the power of tradition shaping their thinking.
Jon said: "[I]f the Holocaust and Nazism were monstrously immoral (as they obviously were), why didn't Servant of God Pius XII simply say so?"
I'm so glad you asked, because it ties in nicely with the point of the post: The simple answer is that he *did*, in Mit Brenner (sic) Sorge.
Sorry, Mit Brennender Sorge was not a simple statement that Nazism was monstrously immoral. The Pope never issued any such simple and blunt condemnation. There are some pretty good reasons he didn't, just as there are some pretty good reasons he never just came out and decried the Holocaust. Some of those reasons were practical or pragmatic, and some have to do with the divinely-ordered nature of the Petrine Office.
There are also some pretty good reasons why the Popes have never come out and said the Iraq War is either just or unjust. Again, some of those reasons are practical or pragmatic, and some have to do with the divinely-ordered nature of the Petrine Office.
You've only to read it.
Already have, but thanks anyway.
You are right in what you insinuated, however: Pius XII condemned Nazi aggression in no stronger terms than John Paul II and Benedict XVI have Iraq.
I insinuated no such thing. Servant of God Pius XII condemned Nazism and the Holocaust in much stronger terms, and at a much higher level of magisterial authority, than John Paul II and Benedict XVI have ever criticised or spoken against the Iraq war. Mit Brennender Sorge was an encyclical, you know, a pretty authoritative exercise of papal magisterium. But the Holy See has issued no formal magisterial statements on the Iraq war.
Nonetheless, you seem to fall into the same trap that has ensnared modern critics of Pius and has ensnared Dave on the issue of Iraq: If you cannot see what the pope DID write (and the last two have said) as being a condemnation of Nazism (and Iraq), then nothing will suffice to get you to change your poorly informed opinions about either.
I wish you'd stop jumping to conclusions in the absence of evidence, Jon. I have pointed out that Mit Brennender Sorge is not a simple and blunt condemnation of Nazism, but I never said nor implied it was not a condemnation of Nazism.
You are to be counted (and because you speak for Dave, according to him, then he too) with the German apologists for the Nazis who claimed exactly what you are claiming now: Because the pope has not made strong enough statements sufficiently 'binding' for you, you are free to choose whether to support this war or not.
So because I agree with Pope Benedict XVI that Catholics are free to disagree with him in this matter, that classes me with German apologists who excused the Nazi regime and dissented from Mit Brennender Sorge?
The pope said in 1937 and the last two have been saying for a number of years now: 'Let those who have ears let them hear. The war is wrong. Nazism is wrong. Unilateral war is wrong.'
They've
They've also been saying, "U.S. withdrawal from Iraq at this time is wrong."
Unfortunately, that isn't sufficient for you, nor was it for some in 1937. You want an out-and-out command to obey, when the chief shepherds of the Church have been more apt to ask you and all Catholics to GET THE HINT in charity.
It's not I who want an out-and-out command to obey, Jon. It's you who seem to want me to treat counsel and warnings as commands to obey.
It isn't from charity that one asks, 'What is the *least* I have to do or believe in order to "obey"?'
Nor is it from charity that one spuriously invokes papal authority to try to convince others to accept one's personal opinions. Also, treating counsel as a moral imperative is a symptom of scrupulosity. It is not right to give papal statements greater weight than intended by the Pope.
Adjust your opinions to theirs (not mine), and you won't have to worry about whether or not "it is disobedient against the pope and the Church to support the Iraq War".
I don't worry about that question at all, because, as you conceded, it is not disobedience against the Pope and the Church to support the Iraq war.
Randy said: It seems like a lot of protestants have politics and religion so intertwined they can't imagine a split between Republican policy and biblical teaching.
Quite true -- just like a lot of Catholics (and a lot of Catholic bishops) seem to have politics and religion so intertwined they can't imagine a split between Democrat policy and church teaching.
Many protestants converts have the same deal. They just assume conservative political principles are in line with the faith. It does not matter how many statements from bishops and popes endorse liberal thinking. They will remain loyal conservatives.
My take on this question is a little different. First, I recognise that in the U.S., even conservatism is a form of liberalism, and then I recall how liberalism (as a political philosophy or doctrine) was subject to some severe critiques by the Popes in the past. Since liberalism, properly speaking, isn't really compatible with Catholic social doctrine, I refrain from committing myself definitively to either Republicans or Democrats (although in practical terms, at this time due to the social issues, I generally have to vote for Republican candidates -- simply because, for all the things about Republican policies that are in dreadful conflict with Catholic doctrine, the Democrats have made themselves far worse). Any support for a party or candidate I may appear to show is provisional, because America isn't a Catholic country and has not instituted Catholic social principles -- though, as the Pope said last month during his U.S. visit, there are a lot of things about the American system that a Catholic can and should be happy about and that do accord with the Church's social doctrine. Still, I'm not a "conservative." As
As someone who prays for the conversion of the U.S. and the liberty and exaltation of the Church, I'm much too radical to qualify as a conservative.
I think Jordanes is my alter ego. 
Whenever I see a post of his, I figure he'll say what I woulda said (and in probably most cases, more eloquently, too).
Say it ain't so, Dave! I was sooo angling for the post!
No, wait. No I wasn't. LOL.
Who's to say one can't have more than one alter ego???
Dave, what I said was not charitable, but you've answered charitably; do forgive me. +Benedicat tibi Dominus et custodiat te!
No problem. Twas kind of you to apologize, tho.
First of all, you have misapprehended my position on the war. I did not say that the Pope's judgment on the war is infallible. I was pointing out that you are attacking traditionalists for disagreeing with the Pope's prudential decisions, but then do so yourself. Then you clarified that you only think opposition to the Pope's prudential judgment is wrong when it is a knee-jerk reaction. Are you the judger of knee-jerk reactions?
The Pope was right, as was JPII on this issue. There was simply no justification for going into Iraq, neither in 1991 or in 2003. WWII is not the issue, although I completely agree with you that what the Allies did in WWII was at least as evil as anything Hitler and Stalin did.
When Sadam converted from a Soviet groupie to a Amerophile we filled his coffers with the same biological weapons we tried to remove from him a few years ago. Where did they go? He obviously got rid of them, because we certainly haven't found them. What justified us going into Iraq?
Was it because Sadam might give WMD to terrorists? What WMD? Why aren't we in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia? Was it because Sadam Hussein violent? So aren't half of the rest of the countries in the world! Why aren't we accomplishing regime change in China, Russia, Iran, Zimbabwe, Venezuala, Thailand, Syria, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Ukraine, Khazakstan, Moldavia (the latter three having governments complicit in the enslavement of women to prostitution), Albania, North Korea, Sudan? If Iraq is a just war, then war in all of those countries is also just, because they all commit crimes against their people, they all hold their people in a state of material poverty, and many of those countries have weapons of mass destruction. In 1992 China threatened to rain ICBMs on California if we interfered with Taiwan, that is more of a threat than anything Sadam Hussein ever said. Why aren't we doing shock and awe in Beijing? Iraq didn't have enough guns to defend themselves to make us think twice.
Hi Mr. Grant, I think that the issue is not whether the Pope is right or wrong on the issue of the Iraq war (One of my uncles died three days after getting back from there and I still have family fighting there so I have my opinions on the matter), but when it is licit to disagree with the Pope on this issue or any other.
You said, "When Sadam converted from a Soviet groupie to a Amerophile we filled his coffers with the same biological weapons we tried to remove from him a few years ago. Where did they go? He obviously got rid of them, because we certainly haven't found them. What justified us going into Iraq?"
Assuming arguendo that you are correct that America empowered that man by giving him money and arms which enabled him to do what he did to his people and others around the region and the world, then it would seem to me that we as a people had an obligation to ameliorate his evil by seeking his removal from power even using force if necessary. When one sins, it is not enough to confess the sin, but to do penance as well and make things right if possible.
And no matter what one may feel about the war in Iraq, against terrorism or the horrible things you allude to in your comment, we should all pray for peace and for all to love their brothers and sisters as themselves.
God bless!
Ryan said: I did not say that the Pope's judgment on the war is infallible.
I didn't think you were saying it was infallible. It seemed to me that you were arguing that his judgment was somehow morally binding.
I was pointing out that you are attacking traditionalists for disagreeing with the Pope's prudential decisions, but then do so yourself.
But traditionalists don't just disagree with the Pope's prudential decisions, they also disagree with binding, authoritative opinions and rulings and decrees of the Pope and the Magisterium in communion with him.
Then you clarified that you only think opposition to the Pope's prudential judgment is wrong when it is a knee-jerk reaction.
I can't speak for Dave, but I can say that your statement here doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to anything I've said or believe.
There was simply no justification for going into Iraq, neither in 1991 or in 2003.
There apparently wasn't in 1991, or at least not sufficient justification, but in the years following there came to be ample reasons to go in and remove Saddam Hussein.
He obviously got rid of them, because we certainly haven't found them.
As I understand it, we eventually did find a very small amount -- but by then it didn't matter anymore, as Saddam was gone and we were there to stay for the foreseeable future.
What justified us going into Iraq?
His repeated violations of the terms of the cease fire, for one.
Why aren't we in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia? Was it because Sadam Hussein violent? So aren't half of the rest of the countries in the world! Why aren't we accomplishing regime change in China, Russia, Iran, Zimbabwe, Venezuala, Thailand, Syria, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Ukraine, Khazakstan, Moldavia (the latter three having governments complicit in the enslavement of women to prostitution), Albania, North Korea, Sudan?
Actually one can make some interesting (if not necessarily compelling) cases in favor of military intervention in any or all of those countries. But of course we live in reality, where the U.S. military and the military of our allies can only do so much, and there are just too many international contingencies for us to be able to address. As for invading and toppling other monster regimes, the U.S. at this time has stretched herself to the limit in Afghanistan and Iraq -- even if we wanted to step into other countries, we couldn't. But that inability tells us nothing about whether or not it would be just to do so if we had the wherewithal.
Why Iraq instead of other problem regimes? I think mainly because Iraq was unfinished business. It was probably simplest to turn our attention back to Saddam Hussein -- the hard top layer of soil had already been broken. In the wake of 9/11, President Bush and his advisors wanted to do some serious remodeling to the geopolitical situation in the Arab/Muslim Middle East, and after toppling the Tali
In the wake of 9/11, President Bush and his advisors wanted to do some serious remodeling to the geopolitical situation in the Arab/Muslim Middle East, and after toppling the Taliban in Afghanistan, Iraq was bound to be their easiest route to that goal.
But it has not made the situation better, a fundamental requirement of Just War doctrine. Iraq, which was run by a sunni minority, was a counterbalance to Iran. Ayad Allawi, the former interim prime minister in Iraq, said on the Dennis Prager radio program in August of '07 that the invasion of Iraq has strengthened Iran, it is a genie let out of the bottle which can't be put back in. In fact, George H.W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Paul Wolfowitz made these same statements in 1994.
Second, "unfinished" business fails to qualify as a just cause. The same with the concept of "preventative" war. Either Iraq represented a threat to the United States or it did not. If it represented a threat to our interests, that scarcely arises to an unavoidable danger. Sadam's northern and southern borders were controlled by the US and the UK. If he could have done anything, the 90's under Clinton was the perfect time. Even now, I find no compelling evidence of an Islamic front to terrorize America. If they wanted to they could make the second Intifada look like a fire works display. Anyone who knows how bombs work knows the essential ingredients can be found at a hard ware store, and bombings could be carried out on buses, subways, in the street, in our malls, in our shopping centers. This hasn't been done, why? Not because Islam is a peaceful religion or because they can't. It is because while many Muslims may sympathize with terrorists and suicide bombers, most are unwilling to engage themselves in that, and are more interested in their next meal and hard work. That doesn't deny the violence in the Qur'an or the Islamic tradition. But if the Islamic threat the administration talks about existed, our streets would be a lot bloodier than Israeli streets.
I can't speak for Dave, but I can say that your statement here doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to anything I've said or believe.
Then please tell me why he said it here
But traditionalists don't just disagree with the Pope's prudential decisions, they also disagree with binding, authoritative opinions and rulings and decrees of the Pope and the Magisterium in communion with him.
This is a huge problem for me. Which traditionalists? We are not all the same. There are Trads like myself who go to what was incorrectly called "indult", an FSSP parish in union with the local Bishop, then there are those who go to the SSPX, which as I said before at best is in an irregular canonical situation, whose priests range from orthodox to the ones adopting positions you describe, then there are sedevacantists who are in fact schismatics and deny the Pope is truly the Pope, and then there are traditionalists who fall inbetween those categories.
What doctrines do Traditionalists deny and which ones? Which doctrines and authoritative decisions do I deny? This is why Traditionalism can only be sensibly narrowed to the fight for the Traditional liturgy and the traditional expression of piety. That in and of itself will transform the other issues, including ecumenism and religious liberty.
Then please tell me why he said it here
Please look at the context there and seek to understand my comment in the larger context of my thought on "trad'ism".
But in a nutshell, the following statement of mine along these lines is about as succinct a one as I've made, I think:
"Every Tom, Dick, and Harry with a picture of Pope St. Pius X in one hand, and a dog-eared Denzinger in the other, going around judging (nay, trashing) the pope or an Ecumenical Council, as if they were some sort of expert . . . This is self-importance elevated to the level of the profoundly ridiculous; almost grotesque or surreal. And they are blind to this obvious reality, which makes it all the more frightening. One can do that in Protestantism, as everyone is their own pope, when it comes down to it. But to attempt that in Catholicism is patently and manifestly absurd."
For a longer treatment of these matters, see my paper:
Are All Catholic Laymen and Non-Theologians Qualified to Freely and Frequently Criticize the Pope's Opinions and Prudential Judgment?
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...en-and-
non.html
Commenting by HaloScan
