Taking JunkYard BLOG to Task:(On the Iraq War and the Vatican)
It is unfortunate but very necessary in my view to point to the problems that arise when someone does not appear to take into account all facets of a situation. Bryan Preston does not usually fall into this trap but when it comes to Israel he is inclined in this direction. I would normally ignore this except for the disappointing follow-up that Mr. Preston made to this subject recently. Here is the sequence followed with my comments to each section.
WHY I AM NOT A CATHOLICThe Vatican has issued a warning of sorts to countries that will shortly disarm Saddam Hussein: You'll have to answer to God for it. The Vatican Secretary of State (a
diplomatic post) apparently said that "[t]hose who decide that all peaceful means that international law makes available are exhausted assume a grave responsibility before God, their conscience and history". The same article stated that this was "the Vatican's first official reaction to Washington's ultimatum to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to go into exile within 48 hours or face war".
The implication is quite clear: The Catholic Church believes the coming war to be an immoral one, and is invoking God's name to scare us.I prefer to look at it as the Vatican calling to mind the often overlooked element of conscience in this endeavour. It is very easy to forget in the rush of patriotism that with war comes death. And though I hear many conservatives taking the position that we have the "right" to disarm Hussein because he is a "national security risk" (and of course "free the Iraqi people"), I do not hear the same people taking the position that we can disarm abortionists who kill babies every day and justifying this as protection of "national morality". The Vatican's position is at least a consistent one in this regard.
Meanwhile, a Romanian Catholic bishop in Ohio is threatening excommunication for anyone who supports the war, and for troops fighting in it.The bishop in question did not specify excommunication. It is true that he related the gravity of supporting the war to supporting someone who sought to procure an abortion. However, only the latter under the Church's codes of canon law would qualify as an excommunicable offense.{1}
Catholic teaching does not hold that every objectively grave act is automatically a "sin unto death" (1 John v,16-17). And as for the bishop's judgment on this matter, to my knowledge he is acting as a lone ranger here. The bishop in question here based his judgment on what we refer to as "just war criteria."{2} This criteria is to some extent a moveable feast and there is a dispute over whether just war criteria applies in the Iraq war or not.{3} The bishop happens to think it does not, I respectfully disagree with him. As this is a matter of prudential judgment and does not fall under the umbrella of the local ordinary/eparchy divinely vested competence, Catholics are allowed to respectfully disagree on this issue.
If in this speech the bishop is implying a censure of excommunication - which I am not sure it is, (i) it would only apply to a dioceses that the bishop has authority in - as an Eparchy it would apply only to those under the eparchy (ii) it will end up being overturned by higher authority. As an Eastern rite Catholic Eparchy, that bishop's Metropolitan would probably be the one to overturn it. If not then it will happen by the Metropolitan'a Patriarch or the eastern equivalent. And if it gets to the Curia, it would be overturned by either Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re of the
Congregation of Bishops or Cardinal Ratzinger of the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. And let's not forget the hands raised in triumph with Arafat some months back, and the Church's non-response to Palestinian terrorists who laid seige to the Church of the Nativity last year.This reminds me of those who claim that Pope Pius XII should have been spouting off against Hitler early in the WWII. The
same people who "conveniently" forget that when the Dutch bishops conference issued a harsh denunciation of Hitler that dictator redoubled his efforts on the Netherlands imprisoning and killing more Christians and Jews as a result.
This coming from a church that refuses to this day to hold child-molesting and pederast priests responsible for abusing those in their care and trust.With all due respect Mr. Preston, this is a rather facile reason. If we wanted to posit numbers, there is significantly more abuse of minors by Protestant ministers than there is by Catholic priests. But I would never bring this up as an argument against Protestanism because - like Catholicism - those that act in this way do so against the teaching of their respective traditions.
The Vatican is not only the religious center of Catholicism but is also a sovereign state. Therefore the pope is not only Supreme Pontiff according to the Catholic faith but is also the head of a sovereign nation. Thus there is an administrative and diplomatic element in this equation not merely the faith issue.
Joaquin Navarro-Valls is the Vatican's equivalent to General Colin Powell rank-wise. This position has no bearing on the subject of the Catholic faith whatsoever. If the words were uttered by Cardinal Ratzinger or Archbishop Tarcicio Bertone (Prefect and Undersecretary respectively of the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) there would be more weight to it. However, without a document issued by them that takes a decided position one way or the other, it falls into the realm of free speculation by Catholics. The same principle applies to utterances of the pope. A simple statement of the pope is not a matter of Catholic doctrine. I explain this in detail
HERE.I am not sure what you are referring to when you state that the Vatican "refuses to hold pedophile priests responsible". There are a lot of priests who are accused of this who are innocent. But that aspect never gets reported. The mere accusation of pedophilia or other forms of impropriety is a form of tarring and feathering. It is akin to the epithet of "racist" or "antisemite": whether the assertion is true or not the accused is perminently damaged.
Further still, there is the element of church hierarchy that is not being taken into account here. Whatever you may have heard, the fact is the popes historically have never acted as micromanagers. Instead the principle of subsidiarity - often lauded by conservatives - is actually an age-old part of Vatican protocol. There is also the element that the Church recognizes as Catholic teaching - and always has - the authority of the Bishop as being a matter of divine institution. Bishops have by their ordination the supreme authority in their dioceses. This does not mean that the pope or the Curia in his name cannot intervene of course but the constitution of the Church requires a certain protocol to be followed.
I do not expect you to understand this if you have not studied these issues. But it would seem to me that an understanding of these issues to some degree is necessary if you are going to make a rash judgment here. And on the war subject as well as the Church of the Nativity subject, you are doing just that. In the case of the latter you are appearing to let your pro-Israel bias have uncritical free reign. With regards to the pedophilia issue, I must admit to being unsure of what you are implying here.
If you are referring to the Vatican's rejection of the Dallas norms for handling priests who are accused of offenses, there is very good reason for those norms being struck down.{4} The norms which were approved are significantly better.
Whatever reason you have for not being a Catholic, I would hope that they would be solid reasons and not these kinds of flimsy ones. I am reminded of atheists I have dialogued with who have claimed that they could never accept Christianity because of certain black marks that speckle the historical record. I presume that you would reject that as valid criteria just as much as you would if someone said "I cannot be a Christian because a relative of mine was conned out of a significant amount of their savings by a tele-evangelist" or some similar statement.
I mentioned
almost seven months ago that I was considering posting some song lyrics which were written during the Gulf War and to some degree bear reflection in this era of high tech warfare. I will post them here for reflection and ask that we not forget that it is real easy to be gung-ho about war when we are not in direct danger of its effects: when we have (as the song title refers to) "the bravery of being out of range":
You have a natural tendency to squeeze off a shot
You're good fun at parties, you wear the right masks
You're old but you still like a laugh in the locker room
You can't abide change, you're at home on the range
You open the suitcase behind the old workings
To show off the magnum, you deafen the canyon
A comfort a friend only upstaged in the end
By the Uzi machine gun
Does the recoil remind you, remind you of sex
Old man what the hell you gonna kill next
Old timer who you gonna kill nextI looked over Jordan and what did I see
Saw a US Marine in a pile of debris
I swam in your pools and lay under your palm trees
I looked in the eyes of the Indian who lay on the Federal Building steps
And through the range finder over the hill
I saw the frontline boys popping their pills
Sick of the mess they find on their desert stage
And the bravery of being out of range
Yeah the question is vexed
Old man what the hell you gonna kill next
Old timer who you gonna kill nextHey bartender over here, two more shots and two more beers
Sir turn up the TV sound, the war has started on the ground
Just love those laser-guided bombs, they're really great for righting wrongs
You hit the target and win the game from bars three thousand miles away
Three thousand miles away
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
We zap and maim with the bravery of being out of range
We strafe the train with the bravery of being out of range
We gain terrain with the bravery of being out of rangeWe play the game with the bravery of being out of rangeI believe it is sophistic to lump together all those who for some reason or another were opposed to the war before the first shots were fired.{5} There is also an important element that seems to be overlooked here: the pope is an international influence. I noticed that Mr. Preston referred to his Southern Baptist church not taking a position but with all due respect there is no comparison here. The pope is the one personage that single-handedly refutes the notion that this can be spun as a "Christians vs. Muslims" war. That seems to be an aspect to this that those who would be critical of the Vatican "conveniently" overlook and in the climate of the Middle East it is a very significant one.
The notion many non-Catholics have of the pope being either a mircromanager or the Catholic faithful having to assent to every syllable that he or his dicasteries utter is blatantly false. I explained this in a link further up on this post and also do so
HERE. And to show that on this issue Catholics are not monolithic, Lane Core gives a somewhat different view
which can be read here. And I have Catholic friends - both
theology professors and
licensed canonists along with other Christians who could not in conscience support this war before it started. (And at the same time none of whom would in a thousand years side with the Marxist bums who were holding their rallys.) It is unfortunate that as good as Mr. Preston is at making these kinds of distinctions on a whole host of issues that on this particular element of the war subject he has thus far has been unable to.
Notes:{1} The Eastern Churches have their own Code of Canon Law but I doubt on this issue it would differ from the Code for the Latin rite.
{2} To verify my assertion, check out
this link for details.
{3} And further still, if Just war theory in light of the current capabilities of terrorists is not in need of some fine-tuning to account for pre-emption in some cases.
{4} Canonically they were very weakly formed and did not recognize the rights of the accused adequately in accordance with Church law.
{5} And who now that it has started want to see it end as quickly as possible.
Labels: Dialogues, Nat. Security, Old JYB/Bryan Preston, Pol/Elect/Sociopol/Geopol, War/WOT/Etc.