(Click on the logo to return to the main blog.)
Questions to Questions
02/27/2003
Amy Welborn picks up and meanders with the questions that surround war and Catholicism. She makes a fair and deliberate attempt, but the bottom line — my bottom line, at least — with her analysis is that she misunderstands the motivation of Catholics who disagree vehemently with the Vatican even more than she seems to explain away the real problems that the United States currently faces.
I'm a neophyte at Catholicism, so it is entirely possible that my answers with respect to my religion are wrong — perhaps even that my questions are inappropriate. But then, perhaps it affords me a broader view. I look at these men who are charged with guiding the Church that perpetuates my religion, and I ask, is this my faith? Is this my faith, whose leaders make of themselves propaganda pieces for Arafat and for Hussein? Am I a follower of a religion that cannot muster the moral strength to turn its back on monsters — monsters! — while correctly cautioning those who openly and honestly seek counsel before battling those monsters and praying that somehow war can be avoided?
I don't want the Pope's "rubber stamp," as Amy characterizes the position held by people with whom I share a conclusion. I want clarity. I want the perspective and "the Long View of the oldest continually existing institution in the world," and surely that Long View would see the folly in urging compromise at all costs when it is obvious that only one side discusses and negotiates in good faith. Amy asks what I want from the Pope, if not a "go get 'em." The answer is simple: I want a statement that does not thrust my religion in among the haters and the anarchists and the communists who are protesting the war. I do not want him to express total support for violent force. But I would prefer that he not put his position, the position of the Church that I follow, so in line with the suicidal ideologies that fester in the Western world. Amy does me and those with whom I agree injustice by imagining that we have not considered the Pope's stand. I submit that we are so pained because we have.
We are so incredulous because we want guidance from our Church, which rightfully presumes to offer it in so many practical matters in our lives. We look to the Pope for some inkling of this guidance, and we get the opinion that, as a practical matter, as a matter of action, it is not the time for war. But we ask what else can be tried, and to that question, we get vague answers — pray, trust in God. Well, of course, we should put our faith in God, but what do we do. If I catch a deadly but curable disease, no Catholic would tell me that medicine is not the answer. Our Church does not declare that we must only pray and trust in God to end abortion. Our religion calls on us to act, not just to pray. So what do we do?
Amy complains that we defenders of the war are "starting to sound a little robotic — and strained — as well." For my part, that is because for all of our logic and our practical considerations and suggestions and defenses, we have received only more ruminations, more rambling admissions of confusion that conclude that anybody who has a solution must be wrong. We get more questions:
Why Hussein? Why now?
Because the allowable time for attempting peaceable solutions with Hussein has passed. Now. We who feel thus cannot conclude otherwise than that the wonderers and questioners, whose objections never change, even as they concede opposing arguments, are merely seeking to delay because they do not want it to be now. They do not want it to be the case that it has long been Hussein and that Hussein is the most blatantly unruly of the children, to whom the others look to discern their own boundaries. They do not want it to be the case that September 11 was mainly significant because it woke us up to the reality that we had taken our eyes off the sands slipping through the glass and because it drew Saddam's deadline in bold letters of flames: Now!
Furthermore, having disconnected their arguments from practical concerns, they are free to suggest that, to be moral and consistent, the United States would have to declare war on all tyrants of the world simultaneously. Is this the wisdom of the Long View of the Church that I feel to be the focal point of Truth in this world? It cannot be that the lesson learned from watching "nations and empires rise and fall" is that issues as profound as those around war are such that the problem of one dictator cannot be said to be only resolvable through war until all other dictators are declared in that state, as well. Here, the argument becomes that we cannot possibly have exhausted all peaceful means with Hussein while there are other regimes for which those possibilities are not exhausted.
Amy asks:
Why not pray for peace? Why not pray for a peaceful and just resolution? Why not pray for …I dunno…God’s will be done, maybe?
This is either dishonest or uncharitable. I have not heard anybody declare that they will not pray for peace, only that they will not pray for peace on the Pope's terms. In those terms, there is no such thing as peace through war. The other possibilities are never exhausted. In the Vatican's presentation of peace, God's will is declared as already known, and the United States is acting against it. The much-touted Just War Theory is but so many scribblings on parchment, and the beleaguered man cannot defend himself. The Pope's peace, at least as he has allowed it to be presented, does not really leave the question of a "just resolution" open. Because, as the Pope has cast peace, particularly by not negating more-extreme phrasings, the defense of the United States is excluded. The lives of the people of Iraq are excluded. The simmering war of cultures is left to simmer even longer in the hope that the pot will not crack. The only solution is supernatural. And so I ask again, is this Catholicism? Do we not act? Do we not take upon ourselves the responsibility for evil that we, ourselves, have brought into the world?
Amy ends with a question: "What is it that we really care about?"
In the practical, material matters of my life, I care about the safety of my family and all of those to whom I extend my love. That includes my countrymen. It also includes the rest of my human family, those who live behind a wall of terror that only the United States, by some method or other, can break. And I care that it sometimes seems as if our immediate families must be threatened for our society to care about families elsewhere.
In the spiritual matters of my life, I care about finding Truth and understanding how it is that I should live and live to find my way to God. And when those who lead the institution that is the keeper of the Long View to God seem to manifest — whether through abuse, craven self-concern, or moral vagueness — those things that I find inconsistent with my sense of faith, I ask through an almost unbearable pain: Is this my religion?
ADDENDUM:
Patrick Sweeney has posted the measured, factual rebuttal that I can no longer muster (perhaps for fear of being "robotic" and "strained").
ADDENDUM II:
Lane Core makes some good points about taking a side in the debate in view of individual conscience. We have to trust one side or the other in this high-stakes game, and if we, as Americans, listen to our President and it turns out that we were deceived, our consciences will be clear. This is not so if we mistakenly trust the Butcher of Baghdad.
Posted by Justin Katz @ 01:09 AM EST
8 comments
Terrific piece, Justin.
Amy mentioned people snorting with derision towards John Paul II, but I fear that the snorts will begin in earnest when Allied troops uncover mass graves of thousands upon thousands of Saddam's victims, the torture chambers, WMDs far in excess of what we expected, extensive Al Quaeda and other terrorist connections.
I fear what people will think of the Vatican's guidance on charity and justice when they see relieved Iraqis clasping hands with G.I.s, etc.
I fear that not just public policy makers, but the public at large, will say to themselves, "Thank God we didn't listen to the Vatican and follow its guidance."
George Lee @ 02/27/2003 12:31 PM EST
Great post, Justin, I've long enjoyed seeing your comments on just war, here and elsewhere. You are right: it is painful to see oneself not simply on the other side of a prudential decision from one's own Church, but to watch that Church fall in comfortably with capital-M Movements whose purposes are clearly antithetical to her own. It has been a shame to see Amy's discussion of this topic devolve into the ramblings it has, but the answers haven't changed, and they are still relevant.
Thanks for giving voice to what so many of us feel.
Marc Lewandowski @ 02/27/2003 10:59 PM EST
Justin is exactly on target; how in heck can removing an existing evil from the international community be anything except morally obligatory?
tonymixan @ 02/28/2003 07:18 PM EST
Glad to see this issue addressed. I, too, am a neophyte Catholic, and I was never so ashamed of my adopted religion as I was last week when the priest handed out a sheet of things of we could do to protest the coming war with Iraq. I thought to myself, "So this is what it's like to live under a monarchy."
I wouldn't mind if the Church took a neutral stance, but they've become antiwar activists of the same ilk as ANSWER. And coming as it did right after the Pope's meeting with Tariq Aziz, and his (Aziz's) snubbing of an Israeli reporter for no other reason than his heritage, I found my diocese's request that I protest the war particularly insulting.
I grieve for Catholicism if this is the best they can do in the face of such obvious evil.
sydney smith @ 03/02/2003 03:00 PM EST
Sydney,
Although I'm cognizant that I'm very fortunate to have a pastor who shows no inclination to use his pulpit to stump against the war, and I don't know what my reaction would be if he were to do so, I think we have to be careful how we phrase these things to ourselves.
As discussion at Mark Shea's blog has touched on again and again, anti-war activism is a prudential matter for the hierarchy, meaning that it is neither infallible nor obligatory. That would not be true in a monarchy.
Similarly, the comparison with ANSWER is not as direct as it may seem. The central problem with ANSWER's activism is that the organization seems more interested in overthrowing capitalism and bringing about a socialist state than in actual peace. The Church, in contrast, is truly and rightfully inclined toward peace; the problem that it is having now seems to me to be that the hierarchy has become too influenced by secular assessment of the world's current balance of power and locus of disruption.
As I tried to convey with this essay, I don't believe that this is "the best Catholicism can do," but rather a temporary flaw in its current behavior, led as it is by imperfect humans. But believing Catholicism to be the true religion for many reasons other than its stance on current events, I also have to believe that Christ will guide it toward straighter paths.
Justin Katz @ 03/02/2003 04:18 PM EST
I came out of church after Mass this morning very depressed. We have an honorable priest, one who served as a military chaplain, and who is also opposed to the impending war. What concerned me today was that his homily advanced the idea that we're motivated by vengeance rather than charity.
There is no doubt that we have to be wary of vengeance. As one of many who lost friends in the 9/11 attacks, and who was horrified by the pictures of people plunging 90 stories to their deaths, I'm all to aware that pure hatred can percolate up and overwhelm one's sense of right and wrong.
But in examining my conscience I don't see this as an act of vengeance - I see it as an unfortunate but necessary act to deal with persistent, dangerous evil. This evil will not be detered by prayer alone, any more than Hitler was so detered. For one thing, this evil doesn't even agree to the basic moral rules of the game.
Thus, while I will pray for the deliverance of the souls of those who perpetrate these heinous crimes, I also cannot ignore the innocents in Iraq and elsewhere who have been, are, or will be killed, maimed, and tortured. To ignore these facts, IMHO, is to reqlinquish one's claim to moral seriousness.
Mike Lutz @ 03/02/2003 05:49 PM EST
OK, the ANSWER analogy was overdrawn, but I don't think the monarchy comparison is.
I didn't make it clear in the post, but the hand-out came from our bishop, not the priest. In fact, the priest was a little apologetic about it when he brought it to our attention, making a point to acknowledge that people of good conscience can be for the war, too. Nonetheless, he apparently felt compelled to give us the anti-war protest tips.
I couldn't help but feel that he was just following orders from the bishop - a bishop whose credibility has been badly damaged by the sex abuse scandals. Our diocese has been particularly hard hit by the scandals, but the official response from the bishop on down has been to cast the heirarchy as "victims" of the scandal, too. We're often asked to pray for the bishop in these difficult times, but we've never been asked to forgive him for his misguided policies these past twenty years. Nor has he acknowledged that these policies might have been faulty.
It was the summation of these two things that made the Church feel like a monarchy to me. No dissent allowed from the lesser clergy. Nothing for the rest of us to do but wait for a regime change.
sydney smith @ 03/02/2003 06:43 PM EST
A tour de force. Thanks for fighting the good fight. MCNS
Mark Sullivan @ 03/05/2003 09:46 AM EST