War Musings:
Is the major media in this country guilty of sedition??? Before you say yes or no, please consider the following:
16 May, 1918 The U.S. Sedition Act
United States, Statutes at Large, Washington, D.C., 1918, Vol. XL, pp 553 ff. A portion of the amendment to Section 3 of the Espionage Act of June 15, 1917.SECTION 3.
Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully make or convey false reports, or false statements, . . . or incite insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct . . . the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, or . . . shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States . . . or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully . . . urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production . . . or advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both....
I now ask again: Is the major media in this country guilty of sedition??? When major news networks give away coordinates of where our military is stationed, relays information such as "the troops in my company are down to one meal a day because supplies are tight", or relates information such as "the troops have had to cannibalize their equipment for parts because there are problems with out supply lines", does anyone want to claim that this is not aiding and abetting the enemy??? Other examples could be listed but these are adequate to make the case I believe. If such reports continue I believe the government will need to cut off not only Al Jazeera's news broadcast but also the American media. (Or at the very least limit the access of the media and give everyone the same story to report.) I am sick and tired of reporters who would sell the security of our troops for a "news scoop". How this is not a form of the world's oldest profession is a mystery to me.
Friday, March 28, 2003
The JunkYard BLOG after unfortunately falling last week has regained its footing. (See my side margin for details.) On the idiocy of the media apparatii, Bryan Preston sums up their inconsistencies well in the following link. Just a sample as you will need to click on the link for more:
So on the one hand, we invaded too fast. On the other hand, it's taking too long to win. Slow down, you're not winning fast enough. They're like kids on the long drive to Grandma's house, only worse--slow down Dadday, we're going to get a speeding ticket, are we there yet? Why aren't we there yet? How does one reason with people who can sit there under fresnel lights in front of big teevee cameras and utter both criticisms with a straight, even serious, face? With their brows furrowed just to make themselves look concerned. How does one confront such cognitive dissonance emanating from the most august organs of the fifth estate?
With facts... Click here for more
So on the one hand, we invaded too fast. On the other hand, it's taking too long to win. Slow down, you're not winning fast enough. They're like kids on the long drive to Grandma's house, only worse--slow down Dadday, we're going to get a speeding ticket, are we there yet? Why aren't we there yet? How does one reason with people who can sit there under fresnel lights in front of big teevee cameras and utter both criticisms with a straight, even serious, face? With their brows furrowed just to make themselves look concerned. How does one confront such cognitive dissonance emanating from the most august organs of the fifth estate?
With facts... Click here for more
Thursday, March 27, 2003
"Common Sense Ain't So Common Anymore" Dept.
While it is very pleasing to read of American Catholic colleges which follow the pope's Apostolic Constitution Ex Corde Ecclesiae it is unfortunat to think that these are still very much in the minority - though their numbers are increasing. Here are a few Catholic colleges which recently reflected upon the benefits of Ex Corde Ecclesiae. May their tribe be fruitful and multiply...
While it is very pleasing to read of American Catholic colleges which follow the pope's Apostolic Constitution Ex Corde Ecclesiae it is unfortunat to think that these are still very much in the minority - though their numbers are increasing. Here are a few Catholic colleges which recently reflected upon the benefits of Ex Corde Ecclesiae. May their tribe be fruitful and multiply...
Wednesday, March 26, 2003
"Tales from The Dyspeptic One" Dept.
(Plus a Rerum Novarum Apology)
Tony Blair.
People used to say he was the British answer to Bill Clinton (now there's one helluva question!).
I used to say that.
Well, I suppose you could say he's like Clinton, only with principles he will not sacrifice at any cost. Which is to say, not like Bill Clinton at all.
It appears that Tony Blair - whose wife is Catholic and whose children are being raised as Catholics - may be considering conversion to Catholicism. That is certainly a feather in his cap if it is true. The way he mows over those in Parliment who are opposed to the war effort is another.
In any event, go read his speech to the House of Commons today. LINK
Prime Minister Blair, I retract my assertions over many years that you were without principle. Whatever disagreements we have - and we have many - I at least know that you have a backbone now and a solid one.
(Plus a Rerum Novarum Apology)
Tony Blair.
People used to say he was the British answer to Bill Clinton (now there's one helluva question!).
I used to say that.
Well, I suppose you could say he's like Clinton, only with principles he will not sacrifice at any cost. Which is to say, not like Bill Clinton at all.
It appears that Tony Blair - whose wife is Catholic and whose children are being raised as Catholics - may be considering conversion to Catholicism. That is certainly a feather in his cap if it is true. The way he mows over those in Parliment who are opposed to the war effort is another.
In any event, go read his speech to the House of Commons today. LINK
Prime Minister Blair, I retract my assertions over many years that you were without principle. Whatever disagreements we have - and we have many - I at least know that you have a backbone now and a solid one.
"Restoring a Landmark" Dept.
Frequently do we Catholics who consider ourselves traditionally minded bemoan the modern day architectural Iconoclasm that has taken place in many churches. There is no shortage of churches which under the banner of "renovation" actually are involved in a wreckovation. I do not have to detail these sad processes for you who are aware of what I speak. (Beautiful architecture being stripped down to the most drab and uninspiringly "utilitarian" modes.) I would presume therefore that if there was a restoration project that was actually restoring a Church and not wrecking it that those who rail (and rightfully so) against the modern Iconoclasts would be happy to donate to the cause. Well, there is such a cause my friends.
Blessed Sacrament Parish in Seattle where I attend mass is on a capital raising campaign to cover the $1.6 million that was not picked up by the insurance. (In the project to restore the church after it was seriously damaged in the 2001 earthquake we had out here in Seattle.) Think of it this way my friends: this is an active way for you to contribute to an actual restoration.
You can see a mini-tour of the church HERE. There are a few more devotional stations than the ones listed here. (I saw one to St. Albert the Great next to the one to St. Thomas Aquinas for example during Stations of the Cross almost two weeks ago.) Please direct any questions about the campaign to fund the restoration of Blessed Sacrament Church to Campaign Manager Christopher Murray, at (206) 548-0417. You can reach him by email at cmurray @ blessed-sacrament.org. Please give what you can for this cause - particularly those to whom lamenting about "wreckovations" is a pet hobby.
Frequently do we Catholics who consider ourselves traditionally minded bemoan the modern day architectural Iconoclasm that has taken place in many churches. There is no shortage of churches which under the banner of "renovation" actually are involved in a wreckovation. I do not have to detail these sad processes for you who are aware of what I speak. (Beautiful architecture being stripped down to the most drab and uninspiringly "utilitarian" modes.) I would presume therefore that if there was a restoration project that was actually restoring a Church and not wrecking it that those who rail (and rightfully so) against the modern Iconoclasts would be happy to donate to the cause. Well, there is such a cause my friends.
Blessed Sacrament Parish in Seattle where I attend mass is on a capital raising campaign to cover the $1.6 million that was not picked up by the insurance. (In the project to restore the church after it was seriously damaged in the 2001 earthquake we had out here in Seattle.) Think of it this way my friends: this is an active way for you to contribute to an actual restoration.
You can see a mini-tour of the church HERE. There are a few more devotional stations than the ones listed here. (I saw one to St. Albert the Great next to the one to St. Thomas Aquinas for example during Stations of the Cross almost two weeks ago.) Please direct any questions about the campaign to fund the restoration of Blessed Sacrament Church to Campaign Manager Christopher Murray, at (206) 548-0417. You can reach him by email at cmurray @ blessed-sacrament.org. Please give what you can for this cause - particularly those to whom lamenting about "wreckovations" is a pet hobby.
"Blue Monday Hangover" Dept.
Since the news is courtesy of The Mighty Barrister it seems that a blues title is appropriate.
The Anniversary of Iwo Jima
First a picture and then some comments and finally, a memorial speech by a contemporary of these men. Since I am a day late on this, I will be a bit more lavish than normal. The men of Iwo Jima certainly deserve no less and in light of the present war remembering them can recall to the modern mind a concept that it tries to run from or appease at any cost: the concept of sacrifice.
"Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends" (John xv,13).
Frankly modern so-called "patriotic Americans" who are whining about this war taking longer than 4 days can shut the hell up or I will really lose it.
On an island of eight square miles there were over six thousand eight hundred US battle deaths and over twenty-thousand Japanese battle deaths. (Overall casualties for the US were around twenty-five thousand.)
I am not endorsing high casualty rates; however, the sobering facts of that battle are worth recalling briefly as it was among the lynchpins of the South Pacific island hopping campaign. We may well see in this Iraq war a couple thousand US deaths. Considering the size of the country we are facing and the total number of opposing forces, such a scenario is not unlikely. It is not pleasant but the fact is, when you are opposing this kind of aggression it is sadly par for the course. And even with all of our technology, it is still very much a possibility here.
This is the grimmest, and surely the holiest, task we have faced since D-day. Here before us lie the bodies of comrades and friends. Men who until yesterday or last week laughed with us, joked with us, trained with us. Men who were on the same ships with us, and went over the side with us as we prepared to hit the beaches of this island. Men who fought with us and feared with us. Somewhere in this plot of ground there may lie the man who could have discovered the cure for cancer. Under one of these Christian crosses, or beneath a Jewish Star of David, there may rest now a man who was destined to be a great prophet to find the way, perhaps, for all to live in plenty, with poverty and hardship for none. Now they lie silently in this sacred soil, and we gather to consecrate this earth to their, memory.
It is not easy to do so. Some of us have buried our closest friends here. We saw these men killed before our very eyes. Any one of us might have died in their places; Indeed, some of us are alive and breathing at this very moment only because the men who lie here beneath us had the courage and the strength to give their lives, for ours. To speak in memory of such men as these is not easy. Of them too it can be said with utter truth: The world will little note nor long remember what we say here. It can never forget what they did here.
No, our power of speech can add nothing more to what these men and the other dead of our Division have already done. All that we can even hope to do is follow their example. To show the same selfless courage in peace that they did in war. To swear that by the grace of God and the stubborn strength and power of human will, their sons and ours shall never suffer these pains again. These men have done their job well. They have paid the ghastly price for freedom. If that freedom be once again lost, as it was after the last war, the unforgivable blame will be ours, not theirs. So it is we the living who are to be dedicated and consecrated.
We dedicate ourselves, first, to live together in peace the way we fought and are buried in this war. Here lie men who loved America because their ancestors generations ago helped in her founding, and other men who loved her with equal passion because they themselves or their own fathers escaped from oppression to her blessed shores.
Here lie officers and men, Negroes and whites, rich and poor together. Here no man prefers another because of his faith or despises him because of his color. Here there are no quotas of how many men from each group are admitted or allowed. Among these men there is no discrimination, no prejudices, no hatred. Theirs is the highest and purest Democracy.
Any man among us the living who fails to understand that will thereby betray those who lie here dead. Whoever of us lifts his hand in hate against a brother, or thinks himself superior to those who happen to be in the minority, makes of this ceremony and of the bloody sacrifice it commemorates an empty, hollow mockery.
To this, then, as our solemn, sacred duty, do we the living now dedicate ourselves: to the right of Protestants, Catholics, and Jews, of white men and Negroes alike, to enjoy the Democracy for which all of them here have paid the price.
To one thing more do we consecrate ourselves in memory of those who sleep beneath these white crosses and stars. We shall not foolishly suppose, as did the last generation of Americas fighting men, that victory on the battlefield will automatically guarantee the triumph of Democracy at home..This war, with all its frightful heartache and suffering, is but the beginning of our generations struggle for Democracy. When the last battle has been won, there will be those at home, as there were the last time, who will want us to turn our backs in selfish isolation on the rest of organized humanity, and thus to sabotage the very peace for which we fight. We promise you who lie here: We will not do that! We will join hands with Britain, China, Russia, in peace, even as we have in war, to build the kind of peace for which you died.
When the last shot has been fired, there will still be those whose eyes are turned backward, not forward, who will be satisfied with those wide extremes of poverty and wealth in which the seeds of another war can breed. We promise you, our departed comrades: This too we will not permit. This war has been fought by the common man; its fruits of peace must be enjoyed by the common man. We promise, by all that is sacred and holy, that your sons, the sons of miners and millers, the sons of farmers and workers, will inherit from your death the right to a living that is decent and secure.
When the final cross has been placed in the last cemetery, once again there will be those to whom profit is more important than peace, who will insist with the voice of sweet reasonableness and appeasement that it is better to trade with the enemies of mankind than, by crushing them, to lose their profit. To you who sleep here silently, we give you our promise: We will not listen! We will not forget that some of you were burnt with oil that came from American wells, that many of you were killed by shells fashioned from American steel; we promise that when once again men seek profit at your expense, we shall remember how you looked when we placed you reverently, lovingly, in the ground.
Thus do we memorialize those who, having ceased living with us, now live within us. Thus do we consecrate ourselves, the living, to carry on the struggle they began. Too much blood has gone into this soil for us to let it lie barren. Too much pain and heartache have fertilized the earth on which we stand. We here solemnly swear: This shall not be in vain!
Out of this, from the suffering and sorrow of those who mourn, this will come we promise the birth of a new freedom from the sons of men everywhere. AMEN. [Lieutenant Roland B. Gittelsohn (A Jewish Chaplain from New York City who was at Iwo Jima) Uncommon Valor copyright 1946 by the Infantry Journal]
May their souls and all the souls of the faithfully departed, through the mercy of God rest in peace. Amen.
Since the news is courtesy of The Mighty Barrister it seems that a blues title is appropriate.
The Anniversary of Iwo Jima
First a picture and then some comments and finally, a memorial speech by a contemporary of these men. Since I am a day late on this, I will be a bit more lavish than normal. The men of Iwo Jima certainly deserve no less and in light of the present war remembering them can recall to the modern mind a concept that it tries to run from or appease at any cost: the concept of sacrifice.
"Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends" (John xv,13).
Frankly modern so-called "patriotic Americans" who are whining about this war taking longer than 4 days can shut the hell up or I will really lose it.
On an island of eight square miles there were over six thousand eight hundred US battle deaths and over twenty-thousand Japanese battle deaths. (Overall casualties for the US were around twenty-five thousand.)
I am not endorsing high casualty rates; however, the sobering facts of that battle are worth recalling briefly as it was among the lynchpins of the South Pacific island hopping campaign. We may well see in this Iraq war a couple thousand US deaths. Considering the size of the country we are facing and the total number of opposing forces, such a scenario is not unlikely. It is not pleasant but the fact is, when you are opposing this kind of aggression it is sadly par for the course. And even with all of our technology, it is still very much a possibility here.
This is the grimmest, and surely the holiest, task we have faced since D-day. Here before us lie the bodies of comrades and friends. Men who until yesterday or last week laughed with us, joked with us, trained with us. Men who were on the same ships with us, and went over the side with us as we prepared to hit the beaches of this island. Men who fought with us and feared with us. Somewhere in this plot of ground there may lie the man who could have discovered the cure for cancer. Under one of these Christian crosses, or beneath a Jewish Star of David, there may rest now a man who was destined to be a great prophet to find the way, perhaps, for all to live in plenty, with poverty and hardship for none. Now they lie silently in this sacred soil, and we gather to consecrate this earth to their, memory.
It is not easy to do so. Some of us have buried our closest friends here. We saw these men killed before our very eyes. Any one of us might have died in their places; Indeed, some of us are alive and breathing at this very moment only because the men who lie here beneath us had the courage and the strength to give their lives, for ours. To speak in memory of such men as these is not easy. Of them too it can be said with utter truth: The world will little note nor long remember what we say here. It can never forget what they did here.
No, our power of speech can add nothing more to what these men and the other dead of our Division have already done. All that we can even hope to do is follow their example. To show the same selfless courage in peace that they did in war. To swear that by the grace of God and the stubborn strength and power of human will, their sons and ours shall never suffer these pains again. These men have done their job well. They have paid the ghastly price for freedom. If that freedom be once again lost, as it was after the last war, the unforgivable blame will be ours, not theirs. So it is we the living who are to be dedicated and consecrated.
We dedicate ourselves, first, to live together in peace the way we fought and are buried in this war. Here lie men who loved America because their ancestors generations ago helped in her founding, and other men who loved her with equal passion because they themselves or their own fathers escaped from oppression to her blessed shores.
Here lie officers and men, Negroes and whites, rich and poor together. Here no man prefers another because of his faith or despises him because of his color. Here there are no quotas of how many men from each group are admitted or allowed. Among these men there is no discrimination, no prejudices, no hatred. Theirs is the highest and purest Democracy.
Any man among us the living who fails to understand that will thereby betray those who lie here dead. Whoever of us lifts his hand in hate against a brother, or thinks himself superior to those who happen to be in the minority, makes of this ceremony and of the bloody sacrifice it commemorates an empty, hollow mockery.
To this, then, as our solemn, sacred duty, do we the living now dedicate ourselves: to the right of Protestants, Catholics, and Jews, of white men and Negroes alike, to enjoy the Democracy for which all of them here have paid the price.
To one thing more do we consecrate ourselves in memory of those who sleep beneath these white crosses and stars. We shall not foolishly suppose, as did the last generation of Americas fighting men, that victory on the battlefield will automatically guarantee the triumph of Democracy at home..This war, with all its frightful heartache and suffering, is but the beginning of our generations struggle for Democracy. When the last battle has been won, there will be those at home, as there were the last time, who will want us to turn our backs in selfish isolation on the rest of organized humanity, and thus to sabotage the very peace for which we fight. We promise you who lie here: We will not do that! We will join hands with Britain, China, Russia, in peace, even as we have in war, to build the kind of peace for which you died.
When the last shot has been fired, there will still be those whose eyes are turned backward, not forward, who will be satisfied with those wide extremes of poverty and wealth in which the seeds of another war can breed. We promise you, our departed comrades: This too we will not permit. This war has been fought by the common man; its fruits of peace must be enjoyed by the common man. We promise, by all that is sacred and holy, that your sons, the sons of miners and millers, the sons of farmers and workers, will inherit from your death the right to a living that is decent and secure.
When the final cross has been placed in the last cemetery, once again there will be those to whom profit is more important than peace, who will insist with the voice of sweet reasonableness and appeasement that it is better to trade with the enemies of mankind than, by crushing them, to lose their profit. To you who sleep here silently, we give you our promise: We will not listen! We will not forget that some of you were burnt with oil that came from American wells, that many of you were killed by shells fashioned from American steel; we promise that when once again men seek profit at your expense, we shall remember how you looked when we placed you reverently, lovingly, in the ground.
Thus do we memorialize those who, having ceased living with us, now live within us. Thus do we consecrate ourselves, the living, to carry on the struggle they began. Too much blood has gone into this soil for us to let it lie barren. Too much pain and heartache have fertilized the earth on which we stand. We here solemnly swear: This shall not be in vain!
Out of this, from the suffering and sorrow of those who mourn, this will come we promise the birth of a new freedom from the sons of men everywhere. AMEN. [Lieutenant Roland B. Gittelsohn (A Jewish Chaplain from New York City who was at Iwo Jima) Uncommon Valor copyright 1946 by the Infantry Journal]
May their souls and all the souls of the faithfully departed, through the mercy of God rest in peace. Amen.
"None Dare Call it a Volokh Conspiracy" Dept.
(A Rerum Novarum Quadruple Slam)
Much as Rerum Novarum referred to the poem Danny Deever about six months ago (I am too lazy to find the post this morning mea culpa), Eugene Volokh refers to it today in a climate where indeed it is very relevent. If only we treated our modern Danny Deevers in the same manner this war would be running even smoother. But I digress...
More from Eugene Volokh - this time on information that will appeal to anyone who loves statistics:
THIS IS SO COOL: You can now search through census data for censuses from 1790 to 1960. Want to know the population in 1790? Or maybe the number of slaveholding families? Or maybe the number of slaveholding families who are themselves black? Or of Jews? By state? And by county? Or maybe literacy rates (self-reported, of course) in various states in 1900? Or the number of people born in China, or in Russia? Want to see the states sorted by the percentage of the 1900 population that was foreign-born males? Just go to...Go here for more information.
Those Lidless Eye types who are salivating like Pavlov's hounds at the thought of more statistics to misappropriate for devious means should be advised: I doubt these are the sorts that will be of much interest to you. But as long as you remember Mark Twain's dictum about the three kinds of lies (lies, damn lies, and statistics) then feel free to dig in. For those such as your humble servant of Rerum Novarum who simply likes to have as many resources at their fingertips as possible, you now have census data to play with.
Eugene Volokh a third time. This time he executes a version of what I call the "refutation by substitution" argument. Here is just a sample:
Apparently there are some industry insiders who will testify that alcohol manufacturers were actually aware that some of their products end up in the hands of drunk drivers and others who criminally abuse alcohol, contributing to the 10-15,000 deaths of innocent bystanders caused by alcohol each year in the U.S. Go here for more...
Finally, Philippe de Croy has a very interesting entry about the New York Times actually spinning (gasp!!!) a news story. For more information on why the NYT should change their motto from "all the news that's fit to print" to "all the news that we can make to fit our agenda", see the following:
NYT SPIN WATCH. Today's New York Times has an article titled "Opinions Begin to Shift as Public Weighs War Costs." It's a report of a new poll the newspaper has run. Given the headline, what would you expect such an article to say?.. For information on what it actually was about, go here.
And they wonder why their circulation has been going down for years...a hint:
Of a recent poll that was taken, 62% felt that it was making opinion polls actual news stories; however the remaining views were of a different hue. For while 14% felt that making opinion polls actual news stories was a marked improvement over the days when news stories were generally reported without commentary attached. (The horror.) Meanwhile, 11% attributed it to right wing talk radio, 7% to a need for greater graphic sexual content needed in news stories. And finally, 4% polled blamed Ronald Reagan personally while the remaining 3% were undecided. This current Rerum Novarum polled one rather tired Irish/Ukrainian American and the results are accurate to reflect the national trends to within plus or minus 3 percentage points ;-)
(A Rerum Novarum Quadruple Slam)
Much as Rerum Novarum referred to the poem Danny Deever about six months ago (I am too lazy to find the post this morning mea culpa), Eugene Volokh refers to it today in a climate where indeed it is very relevent. If only we treated our modern Danny Deevers in the same manner this war would be running even smoother. But I digress...
More from Eugene Volokh - this time on information that will appeal to anyone who loves statistics:
THIS IS SO COOL: You can now search through census data for censuses from 1790 to 1960. Want to know the population in 1790? Or maybe the number of slaveholding families? Or maybe the number of slaveholding families who are themselves black? Or of Jews? By state? And by county? Or maybe literacy rates (self-reported, of course) in various states in 1900? Or the number of people born in China, or in Russia? Want to see the states sorted by the percentage of the 1900 population that was foreign-born males? Just go to...Go here for more information.
Those Lidless Eye types who are salivating like Pavlov's hounds at the thought of more statistics to misappropriate for devious means should be advised: I doubt these are the sorts that will be of much interest to you. But as long as you remember Mark Twain's dictum about the three kinds of lies (lies, damn lies, and statistics) then feel free to dig in. For those such as your humble servant of Rerum Novarum who simply likes to have as many resources at their fingertips as possible, you now have census data to play with.
Eugene Volokh a third time. This time he executes a version of what I call the "refutation by substitution" argument. Here is just a sample:
Apparently there are some industry insiders who will testify that alcohol manufacturers were actually aware that some of their products end up in the hands of drunk drivers and others who criminally abuse alcohol, contributing to the 10-15,000 deaths of innocent bystanders caused by alcohol each year in the U.S. Go here for more...
Finally, Philippe de Croy has a very interesting entry about the New York Times actually spinning (gasp!!!) a news story. For more information on why the NYT should change their motto from "all the news that's fit to print" to "all the news that we can make to fit our agenda", see the following:
NYT SPIN WATCH. Today's New York Times has an article titled "Opinions Begin to Shift as Public Weighs War Costs." It's a report of a new poll the newspaper has run. Given the headline, what would you expect such an article to say?.. For information on what it actually was about, go here.
And they wonder why their circulation has been going down for years...a hint:
Of a recent poll that was taken, 62% felt that it was making opinion polls actual news stories; however the remaining views were of a different hue. For while 14% felt that making opinion polls actual news stories was a marked improvement over the days when news stories were generally reported without commentary attached. (The horror.) Meanwhile, 11% attributed it to right wing talk radio, 7% to a need for greater graphic sexual content needed in news stories. And finally, 4% polled blamed Ronald Reagan personally while the remaining 3% were undecided. This current Rerum Novarum polled one rather tired Irish/Ukrainian American and the results are accurate to reflect the national trends to within plus or minus 3 percentage points ;-)
Tuesday, March 25, 2003
March Update of Rerum Novarum:
Lots of adjustments more than any fullscale updating but I did add a few things to this edition. (Not nearly as many as I planned to but this is adequate for now.)
Deleted Items Listed By Category:
On 'Traditionalism' (Properly So-Called)
On the "Traditional" Leonine Prayers
My reason: too much stuff to add and something had to go. Many of the links which were in a series format could be consolidated but this one was a stand alone. Ergo, it was deleted from the main page but is still in the archives. For those looking for a magisterial parallel, basically I have done to it what the Church did to the Feast of St. Philomena.
Blogs Reclassified
As Bill Cork told me how to put my archives on a separate page, it cleared up a lot of room for additional links. I decided to add links to five very good but currently defunct blogs under their own heading. To that section I reclassified Kevin Miller's De Virtutibus BLOG and Fr. Rob Johansen's Thrown Back BLOG and added old blogs from Emily Stimpson (Fool's Folly), Jeff Miller (Atheist to a Theist), and also revoked the excommunication on Pete Vere's Canon Law BLOG and put his mothballed blog there as well. Jeff and Emily's blogs being inactive is pretty well known now (as is Pete's Canon Law weblog) but the others perhaps not so; therefore I will touch on them briefly here.
In the case of Professor Miller, he has moved on to the Heart, Mind, and Strength BLOG which is where Mark Shea is spending his Lent thus far as well. It goes to show that the maxim of "What Greg wants...Greg gets..." is still very much applicable.{1} I already link to HMS so it seemed to be superfluous in the current space constraints to keep the weblog up so it had to be dropped. But at the same time it was too good to cancel completely so I reclassified it. This gave me an excuse to re-add Atheist to a Theist and a very good excuse to add Fool's Folly which Emily stopped updating about the time Rerum Novarum began operation in August of 2002.
As for Fr. Rob, his local ordinary ordered him to no longer blog. And though the content of his weblog alone would qualify for such a category, his obedience despite the difficulties and (arguably) unjust nature of this make this addition a cinch. But in the currently limited weblog spacing it has to be reclassified. However, should his ordinary allow him to start posting again, we will readd this link without hesitation to the active status. The same goes for the others in that category as well.
Those are the deletions or readjustments from this update.
Added items listed by category
Rerum Novarum Archives
Thanks to Bill Cork, I was able to take thirty odd weeks of archive links off the front page and put them in a link of their own. Huge space saver so thanks Bill for the assistance on that.
Weblog Retrospectives{2}
Rerum Novarum Six Month Anniversary Retrospective
Self-explanatory methinks...
Political Miscellany
Taking The JunkYard BLOG To Task on the Iraq War and the Vatican
Normally I would not add such a new link to an update but we are at war and these points needed to be made prevalent in my opinion.
General Theological Subjects
Ash Wednesday Homily
Fr. Reginald's very stirring Ash Wednesday Homily. I wanted to add Fr. John's homily from this year but they still have not archived it at my church's site. So Fr. Reginald's from last year will work in a pinch. Normally I would not add homilies to the perminant links section but for Lent this seems appropriate. As we have such fabulous Dominican preachers at my church, I may make this a "revolving homily" feature so stay tuned for details.
Some Envoy Encore Discussions
Included in the threads is stuff from Pete Vere, David Smith, myself, and others who are on that thread. Breier Sheetz's stuff is one of those who is worthy of note also from that thread series.
Web Apologetics/Evangelization Tidbits
A cornucopia of links to stuff where I take on both self-styled "traditionalists" and also self-styled "progressives".
Reform of the Tridentine Missal (Parts I and II)
This is a consolidation of the two parts of this series into one link in essence.
Approved Weblogs Added
The Association of Students at Catholic Colleges' Ever Ancient, Ever New BLOG
Heck, they are trying to play a role in actively cleaning up the mess that is Catholic higher education and they put out a good weblog too. Therefore, a little publicity would not hurt methinks.
Eastern Catholic Corner Links:
I reordered the magisterial texts in that section from oldest to newest chronologically and added Pope Pius XI's Encyclical Letter on Promoting Oriental Studies (Rerum Orientalium) to the mix.
Other Approved* Sites or Links of Interest
Catholic Community Forum
Another site with a discussion board was added to this section. To the magisterial texts in this classification, I added Pope Paul VI's Apostolic Exhortation on Evangelization in the Modern World Evangelii Nuntiandi. This very important and often overlooked magisterial text is the charter document of the New Evangelization and the one from which Pope John Paul has built his own magisterial teaching on this subject from. What Rerum Novarum was to Catholic social teaching and Casti Connubi was to Christian marriage (and Dignitatis Humanae to the subject of civil religious liberty), Evangelii Nuntiandi has been to the Church's refined understanding of evangelization.
Wherefore, as these links and their classifications meet with my approval, as Sovereign Thane and Lord High Executioner of Rerum Novarum I declare them to be stable, intact, and valid and to be promulgated in perpetuity all things to the contrary notwithstanding.
Notes:
{1} Sung to the tune of "What God Wants" ;-)
{2} This is a new category.
Lots of adjustments more than any fullscale updating but I did add a few things to this edition. (Not nearly as many as I planned to but this is adequate for now.)
Deleted Items Listed By Category:
On 'Traditionalism' (Properly So-Called)
On the "Traditional" Leonine Prayers
My reason: too much stuff to add and something had to go. Many of the links which were in a series format could be consolidated but this one was a stand alone. Ergo, it was deleted from the main page but is still in the archives. For those looking for a magisterial parallel, basically I have done to it what the Church did to the Feast of St. Philomena.
Blogs Reclassified
As Bill Cork told me how to put my archives on a separate page, it cleared up a lot of room for additional links. I decided to add links to five very good but currently defunct blogs under their own heading. To that section I reclassified Kevin Miller's De Virtutibus BLOG and Fr. Rob Johansen's Thrown Back BLOG and added old blogs from Emily Stimpson (Fool's Folly), Jeff Miller (Atheist to a Theist), and also revoked the excommunication on Pete Vere's Canon Law BLOG and put his mothballed blog there as well. Jeff and Emily's blogs being inactive is pretty well known now (as is Pete's Canon Law weblog) but the others perhaps not so; therefore I will touch on them briefly here.
In the case of Professor Miller, he has moved on to the Heart, Mind, and Strength BLOG which is where Mark Shea is spending his Lent thus far as well. It goes to show that the maxim of "What Greg wants...Greg gets..." is still very much applicable.{1} I already link to HMS so it seemed to be superfluous in the current space constraints to keep the weblog up so it had to be dropped. But at the same time it was too good to cancel completely so I reclassified it. This gave me an excuse to re-add Atheist to a Theist and a very good excuse to add Fool's Folly which Emily stopped updating about the time Rerum Novarum began operation in August of 2002.
As for Fr. Rob, his local ordinary ordered him to no longer blog. And though the content of his weblog alone would qualify for such a category, his obedience despite the difficulties and (arguably) unjust nature of this make this addition a cinch. But in the currently limited weblog spacing it has to be reclassified. However, should his ordinary allow him to start posting again, we will readd this link without hesitation to the active status. The same goes for the others in that category as well.
Those are the deletions or readjustments from this update.
Added items listed by category
Rerum Novarum Archives
Thanks to Bill Cork, I was able to take thirty odd weeks of archive links off the front page and put them in a link of their own. Huge space saver so thanks Bill for the assistance on that.
Weblog Retrospectives{2}
Rerum Novarum Six Month Anniversary Retrospective
Self-explanatory methinks...
Political Miscellany
Taking The JunkYard BLOG To Task on the Iraq War and the Vatican
Normally I would not add such a new link to an update but we are at war and these points needed to be made prevalent in my opinion.
General Theological Subjects
Ash Wednesday Homily
Fr. Reginald's very stirring Ash Wednesday Homily. I wanted to add Fr. John's homily from this year but they still have not archived it at my church's site. So Fr. Reginald's from last year will work in a pinch. Normally I would not add homilies to the perminant links section but for Lent this seems appropriate. As we have such fabulous Dominican preachers at my church, I may make this a "revolving homily" feature so stay tuned for details.
Some Envoy Encore Discussions
Included in the threads is stuff from Pete Vere, David Smith, myself, and others who are on that thread. Breier Sheetz's stuff is one of those who is worthy of note also from that thread series.
Web Apologetics/Evangelization Tidbits
A cornucopia of links to stuff where I take on both self-styled "traditionalists" and also self-styled "progressives".
Reform of the Tridentine Missal (Parts I and II)
This is a consolidation of the two parts of this series into one link in essence.
Approved Weblogs Added
The Association of Students at Catholic Colleges' Ever Ancient, Ever New BLOG
Heck, they are trying to play a role in actively cleaning up the mess that is Catholic higher education and they put out a good weblog too. Therefore, a little publicity would not hurt methinks.
Eastern Catholic Corner Links:
I reordered the magisterial texts in that section from oldest to newest chronologically and added Pope Pius XI's Encyclical Letter on Promoting Oriental Studies (Rerum Orientalium) to the mix.
Other Approved* Sites or Links of Interest
Catholic Community Forum
Another site with a discussion board was added to this section. To the magisterial texts in this classification, I added Pope Paul VI's Apostolic Exhortation on Evangelization in the Modern World Evangelii Nuntiandi. This very important and often overlooked magisterial text is the charter document of the New Evangelization and the one from which Pope John Paul has built his own magisterial teaching on this subject from. What Rerum Novarum was to Catholic social teaching and Casti Connubi was to Christian marriage (and Dignitatis Humanae to the subject of civil religious liberty), Evangelii Nuntiandi has been to the Church's refined understanding of evangelization.
Wherefore, as these links and their classifications meet with my approval, as Sovereign Thane and Lord High Executioner of Rerum Novarum I declare them to be stable, intact, and valid and to be promulgated in perpetuity all things to the contrary notwithstanding.
Notes:
{1} Sung to the tune of "What God Wants" ;-)
{2} This is a new category.
Sunday, March 23, 2003
Republican - You believe that the free market will
take care of most things, but that the
government should be there with moderate
taxation to provide for national defense and
enforcing morality. Your historical role model
is Ronald Reagan.
Quiz is via And Then?
Stereotype is right. The quiz was a bit too dichotomizing it seemed to me. Though I usually vote for Republicans, I am not affiliated with any political party. If the Republicans were more of the Reagan mould I would probably still stand with them. But until they stop trying to be "Reagan Lite", I am afraid I cannot in conscience do that.
The problem is, I am in some ways more like Barry Goldwater probably. He was a conservationist also. Not that Reagan was against conservation but he was not supporting of it in the same manner as Goldwater did. Actually, some symbiosis of Reagan, Goldwater, St. Augustine, and Ronnie Van Zant would come closer to the real deal. Oh well, no test is perfect I suppose...
Which political sterotype are you?
brought to you by Quizilla
Points to Ponder:
On fasting
Do you fast?
Give me proof of it by your works.
If you see someone who is poor, take pity on that person.
If you see a friend being honored, do not be envious.
Do not let only your mouth fast, but also the eyes, and the feet, and the hands and all the member of our bodies.
Let the hands fast, by being free of avarice.
Let the feet fast, by ceasing to run after sin.
Let the eyes fast, by disciplining them not to glare at that which is sinful.
Let the ears by not listening to evil talk and gossip.
Let the mouth fast from foul words and unjust criticism.
For what good is it if we abstain from birds and fishes, but bite and devour our brothers and sisters? [St. John Chrysostom as quoted by Karen Marie Knapp's From the Anchor Hold BLOG]
On fasting
Do you fast?
Give me proof of it by your works.
If you see someone who is poor, take pity on that person.
If you see a friend being honored, do not be envious.
Do not let only your mouth fast, but also the eyes, and the feet, and the hands and all the member of our bodies.
Let the hands fast, by being free of avarice.
Let the feet fast, by ceasing to run after sin.
Let the eyes fast, by disciplining them not to glare at that which is sinful.
Let the ears by not listening to evil talk and gossip.
Let the mouth fast from foul words and unjust criticism.
For what good is it if we abstain from birds and fishes, but bite and devour our brothers and sisters? [St. John Chrysostom as quoted by Karen Marie Knapp's From the Anchor Hold BLOG]
Bush Administration vs. Hollywood Left
(Credentials that is...)
Courtesy of our fellow lover of the leaf Verus Ratio is this revealing comparison of the antiwar Hollyweird crowd and the Bush Administration viz educational credentials. And as Verus Ratio noted, this is actually diminishing of the Bush Administration's overall credentials since John Ashcroft is not even mentioned. Nonetheless it is a HUGE mismatch. To quote the late Gorilla Monsoon "stick the fork in them, they are done"...
(Credentials that is...)
Courtesy of our fellow lover of the leaf Verus Ratio is this revealing comparison of the antiwar Hollyweird crowd and the Bush Administration viz educational credentials. And as Verus Ratio noted, this is actually diminishing of the Bush Administration's overall credentials since John Ashcroft is not even mentioned. Nonetheless it is a HUGE mismatch. To quote the late Gorilla Monsoon "stick the fork in them, they are done"...
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 CATHOLIC
The 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's 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 rankwise. 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 permanently 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 teleevangelist" 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 next
I 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 next
Hey 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 range
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
I 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 singlehandedly 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 micromanager 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 preemption 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.
(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 CATHOLIC
The 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's 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 rankwise. 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 permanently 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 teleevangelist" 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 next
I 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 next
Hey 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 range
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
I 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 singlehandedly 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 micromanager 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 preemption 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.
Saturday, March 22, 2003
"Minor Mea Culpa" Dept.
(Also known as "mea minima culpa")
With the regular season of baseball starting up within a matter of a week or so, I should point out I suppose that in my October tribute to former Mariners skipper Lou Piniella that I made the declaration that the Mariners needed to get Dusty Baker. I was not aware at the time of Baker's IRS problems and the guy the Mariners did end up signing - former Arizona Diamondbacks bench coach Bob Melvin - is so far doing very well.
I note this here because I was wrong to insist so stridently on getting Dusty Baker as Melvin appears to be a very good fit for the Mariners team and is a lot cheaper to boot. Normally when sports teams are cheap they are fodder for ridicule but in this instance they were right and your humble servant was in error.
As far as weblog updates go, it does not appear that I will get to it tonight so at the earliest it will be tomorrow evening - and probably late evening - that it is tended to.
(Also known as "mea minima culpa")
With the regular season of baseball starting up within a matter of a week or so, I should point out I suppose that in my October tribute to former Mariners skipper Lou Piniella that I made the declaration that the Mariners needed to get Dusty Baker. I was not aware at the time of Baker's IRS problems and the guy the Mariners did end up signing - former Arizona Diamondbacks bench coach Bob Melvin - is so far doing very well.
I note this here because I was wrong to insist so stridently on getting Dusty Baker as Melvin appears to be a very good fit for the Mariners team and is a lot cheaper to boot. Normally when sports teams are cheap they are fodder for ridicule but in this instance they were right and your humble servant was in error.
As far as weblog updates go, it does not appear that I will get to it tonight so at the earliest it will be tomorrow evening - and probably late evening - that it is tended to.
Dr. Art Sippo responds to the irrational CAItanic captain Robert Sungenis.
To complement Art's piece your humble servant of Rerum Novarum decided to weigh in at The Lidless Eye Inquisition and highlight some of the flaws in the CAItanic slaw. (Particularly "Vichy Bob" and his crew's profound misunderstanding of Ecclesiology.) Click on the link above for more details.
I may blog tomorrow and hopefully will update this weblog over the weekend. I apologize but the war has had me preoccupied - along with doing more spiritual reading than I normally do. I hope to finish Dark Night of the Soul tonight: a work I have read sections of over the years but never read the whole work start to finish. My frequent statements about self-styled "trads" being spiritually immature is being reinforced in this study. However, though they stand heavily indicted by this saint's work, everyone I can think of to is to some degree implicated as well. It is rather shocking to read the parts that directly apply to me personally...a subject that leads me to contemplate possibly doing a series on the Dark Night after Lent on this weblog.
Oh, one more thing lest I forget. I plan to be involved in the St. Blog's Baseball League.
It has been a few years since I have done this sort of thing - actually 1999 was the last year. Since that time, my interest in the national pasttime due to personal and family tragedies in 2000-2002 waxed and waned a lot. Hopefully this helps rekindle my passion for the game and I encourage anyone reading this to sign up over the weekend if you are a baseball fan. The league has six teams thus far and 8-12 would be great the more the better. (My team in this league is the Cardinals.) You have to register before Sunday though because the commish of the league will be holding the autodraft Monday. Thus you have to register and rank your players before then.
To complement Art's piece your humble servant of Rerum Novarum decided to weigh in at The Lidless Eye Inquisition and highlight some of the flaws in the CAItanic slaw. (Particularly "Vichy Bob" and his crew's profound misunderstanding of Ecclesiology.) Click on the link above for more details.
I may blog tomorrow and hopefully will update this weblog over the weekend. I apologize but the war has had me preoccupied - along with doing more spiritual reading than I normally do. I hope to finish Dark Night of the Soul tonight: a work I have read sections of over the years but never read the whole work start to finish. My frequent statements about self-styled "trads" being spiritually immature is being reinforced in this study. However, though they stand heavily indicted by this saint's work, everyone I can think of to is to some degree implicated as well. It is rather shocking to read the parts that directly apply to me personally...a subject that leads me to contemplate possibly doing a series on the Dark Night after Lent on this weblog.
Oh, one more thing lest I forget. I plan to be involved in the St. Blog's Baseball League.
It has been a few years since I have done this sort of thing - actually 1999 was the last year. Since that time, my interest in the national pasttime due to personal and family tragedies in 2000-2002 waxed and waned a lot. Hopefully this helps rekindle my passion for the game and I encourage anyone reading this to sign up over the weekend if you are a baseball fan. The league has six teams thus far and 8-12 would be great the more the better. (My team in this league is the Cardinals.) You have to register before Sunday though because the commish of the league will be holding the autodraft Monday. Thus you have to register and rank your players before then.
Wednesday, March 19, 2003
Please pray for the eternal repose of the soul of Michael Forrest's brother Ken and also for his family in their hour of grieving. (Ken passed away yesterday.)
Eternal rest grant unto his soul oh Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon him. May he rest in peace. May his soul and all the souls of the faithfully departed, through the mercy of God rest in peace. Amen.
Eternal rest grant unto his soul oh Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon him. May he rest in peace. May his soul and all the souls of the faithfully departed, through the mercy of God rest in peace. Amen.
Tuesday, March 18, 2003
You are Romans.
Which book of the Bible are you?
brought to you by Quizilla
This is rather surprising since I would have figured to have been either 1 Corinthians or the Psalms.
A Possible "New Ultramontanism" as Outlined by Blog From the Core:
(Plus some musings from your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
Lane Core Jr. explains HERE a kind of creeping Ultramontanism that he detects from some of the Catholics who are trying to justify a very rigid interpretation of the pope's current stand on the war as binding or near binding on the conscience. I have gone over my rationale on this subject as you know HERE, however it seems that one of the terms I refer to needs to be unpacked a little. In responding to the webmaster at Minute Particulars, Lane blogs the following:
Mark's mistake is in lumping all prudential judgements into one big heap and making hasty generalizations from them about what kind of respect or deference is due to the pope's or bishops' opinions about certain kinds of prudential judgements.
It did appear to me that the link Lane refers to (from Minute Particulars) blurred the distinction a bit.{1} If Mark was simply saying that one should never take joy or comfort in being opposed to the pope in an area where there is free inquiry of opinion then I can concur with that sentiment. I frankly do not like being on the opposite side of the pope on this issue. I doubt Lane does either.
Now, there are prudential judgements that certainly belong to the pope and bishops: the appointment of bishops and pastors; disciplines concerning the administration of the sacraments; clerical celibacy; and many, many others. These prudential judgements concern the governance of the Church, and they belong by right to the Church's pastors. Those who are not the Church's pastors may disagree with these kinds of prudential judgements; they may very well convey to the Church's pastors their disagreements; but they ought to do so with circumspection and respect, because the pope and bishops are the ones on whom these prudential judgements devolve by right.
And though Lane did not mention it, I know he intended to infer that such prudential judgments as noted above - however one may have problems with them - are nonetheless to be obeyed.
Now, there are other prudential judgements in which the pastors of the Church do not have any competence, and should not have any say. The popes and bishops of the Church may declare, for instance, that a married man with children has a moral obligation to support his family, and that culpable failure to do so is a grave sin. Surely, nobody would dispute their authority to do so. But the pope and bishops have no right — indeed, it is no business of theirs — to tell a man what school he should attend to educate himself properly for a career; or what career he ought to get educated for, to support a family properly; or what particular job he ought to take to fulfill that responsibility. The pastors of the Church simply have no competence in this area of prudential judgement, and attempting or purporting to have such competence would be an attempt to usurp an authority that simply does not belong to them.
Agreed.
Now, it is the teaching of the Catholic Church that the competence to decide whether warfare in given circumstances actually conforms to the Church's teaching concerning just war belongs to public, civil authorities. Not to popes; not to bishops; not to priests; not to theologians. This is the teaching of the Church. It is not my opinion; it is not anybody's opinion: it is Church teaching that the right to determine whether a given military action would be just warfare belongs to public, civil authorities. It is they — not the Church's pastors — who have the necessary charisms: the inclination, the instincts, the vocation, the education, the experience, and the insights that are all necessary to fulfill their duties as civil, public authorities. Or, if not they, then nobody. And that is precisely why Church teaching devolves to them the prudential judgements regarding the application of just-war tradition.
I agree with this to a point. It is also Catholic teaching that all nations should recognize the Catholic Church as the one Church founded by Our Lord and as the True Religion. These are matters of the divine law which are irrevocable. However, there is also the fact that there are no Catholic nations anymore in the proper sense of that term. So the Church as she has spent the past hundred years or so in a world of non-Catholic nations has had to operate a little differently than would be ideal. (Please do not misunderstand this as an endorsement of monarchial government.)
Because the governments are not Catholic, they tend to not take into account Catholic just war criteria in making their decisions on these matters. (President Bush though actually appears to try and do this and even more so than President Reagan who - though I am not sure he did this nonetheless appears to have been influenced on many issues by his meetings with the pope.)
Popes and bishops who would attempt or purport to bind the consciences of Catholics in this regard, or even claim to have some special insight or authority that must somehow be respected in this regard, would be attempting to usurp an authority that properly and by right belongs to somebody else — in this case, to public, civil authorities — no less than the pope or bishop who would try to tell a man what job to take is attempting to usurp that man's proper and rightful decision-making authority. And it is they, if anybody, who would be "dissenting" from Church teaching if they did so.
It seems to me that this is an inescapable conclusion if one will do more than give lip service to the teachings of the Catholic Church regarding just war.
The only thing I do not see covered here is the authority of the keys to regulate certain applications of the divine law. The reason I referred in my piece to the pope "making a condemnation of this war a part of his magisterium" is because by doing so, he would be regulating the application of the divine laws regarding the just war in this case. This is for example how his teaching on the death penalty is congruent with Tradition. Pardon me for a moment while I digress.
The pope in his magisterium has set forth the traditional teaching on bloodless restitution whenever possible as the protocol to follow in this day and age. He has stated that the death penalty should be used "rarely if at all" but at the same time has not issued a strict interpretation of this teaching that is binding. Therefore, as long as we adhere to the principle teaching that the death penalty should be used very judiciously and only when no other means of protecting society is feasible, we are as far as I can tell obedient to the manifest mind of the Holy Father on this subject.
Self-defense would be one legitimate use and the Holy Father recognizes this. I can think of a few other examples of people who could be executed even under that criteria. One such example is treason. Another is dealing with serial murderers and those who have actually had people on the outside of prison killed based on orders issued from prison. (And with some gangs this has happened.)
Those two would easily qualify since (i) a serial murderer is someone who cannot be left to the whim of parole boards and (ii) the purpose of imprisonment of a criminal is to protect society. If therefore someone is from their jail cell ordering execution of others to gang subordinates, then they have to be executed to protect society. And of course treason is a crime which is worthy of the death penalty. I doubt the pope would disagree with any of these exceptions to the norm for the reasons I specified.
I am also of the belief that those who sell hard drugs to children should be executed as well - since they can direct such operations from jail at times and I do not trust our justice system to keep such people under wraps. That would be the only addition I would add to the three I noted prior to it and I do not see how the pope's criteria of "unless society cannot otherwise be protected" does not fail to apply here as well.
Considering that I used to be a "kill them all and let God sort them out" kind of guy, the pope's teaching has forced me to rethink my position on this subject. And this is an example of regulating the application of the divine law as the latter literally intepreted calls for death on a whole host of subjects. (See Deuteronomy.)
Ironically enough, I believe the pope's position on this war will actually facilitate the war effort. It (i) removes the potential accusation that it is a crusade of the west or of Christians vs. Muslims (ii) it will I believe show that the UN is an impotent entity if we end up going without them (iii) it is causing the US and others to try every last ditch effort at diplomacy - which removes the "there were other options" excuse. If there were no other viable options, then Saddam's refusal to disarm his WMD's puts us in a position of justifying the attack on the basis of self-defense. (Particularly since the pope has already recognized our right to self-defense against the Al Queda.)
Though I sought to note conclusively in my stated position as detailed in early February that any attack by us would not be a new war but the legitimate resumption of the old Gulf War (as the terms of the ceasefire as spelled out by the UN have never been followed by Iraq), it does not appear to me that President Bush is for the most part approaching this from the angle that I suggested.
In my opinion it is easier to demonstrate the just nature of this war from that angle - along with of course actually showing the footage of Saddam gassing his own people - but for some reason (I wonder why???) the media does not want to show that footage. Apparently Michael Savage in showing the footage on his debut MSNBC show is the only media personality with any cajones in this regard.
However, at the same time, if the pope concluded that this war - for whatever reason - was truly and irrevocably unjust, he has the power of the keys to regulate the application of the divine law. To do this though, he could not merely come out in speeches against it. He would have to formally authenticate this judgment by making it a part of his magisterium in a recognizable manner. Should he do that, then I believe as Catholics we would owe exterior and interior assent to it. Until he does that, what you have noted about prudential judgments applies.
That is my view of it anyway. I also believe that there will not be a magisterial document issued to bind Catholics against this war because (i) such a document would take time to prepare (ii) if there are any documents already prepared for this, the drafts would literally have to be revised every week to take into account various variables that keep coming out about Iraq's non-compliance (iii) I cannot think of any pope in the past hundred years or so who has actively supported any war - yet none of them sought to bind the consciences of Catholics against a war. Instead, they sought through diplomacy and other means to influence the formation of consciences against war{2} and then worked for peaceful resolutions after a war had already started.
Thus while JP II appears to be personally opposed to this war, barring him making it a part of his magisterium, we are not bound to his judgment on the matter. And for those who in good conscience side with the pope on the matter, that is fine as I see it so long as they are in our corner when the war begins. And it will begin - barring extraordinary and unforseen diplomatic progress -within a few days in about thirty three hours from when this post is published.
Notes:
{1} See Lane's entry for details on this.
{2} Among St. Pius X's dying words were reserved the following for certain WWI partisans who had asked for his blessing of their war effort: "I bless peace, not war."
(Plus some musings from your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
Lane Core Jr. explains HERE a kind of creeping Ultramontanism that he detects from some of the Catholics who are trying to justify a very rigid interpretation of the pope's current stand on the war as binding or near binding on the conscience. I have gone over my rationale on this subject as you know HERE, however it seems that one of the terms I refer to needs to be unpacked a little. In responding to the webmaster at Minute Particulars, Lane blogs the following:
Mark's mistake is in lumping all prudential judgements into one big heap and making hasty generalizations from them about what kind of respect or deference is due to the pope's or bishops' opinions about certain kinds of prudential judgements.
It did appear to me that the link Lane refers to (from Minute Particulars) blurred the distinction a bit.{1} If Mark was simply saying that one should never take joy or comfort in being opposed to the pope in an area where there is free inquiry of opinion then I can concur with that sentiment. I frankly do not like being on the opposite side of the pope on this issue. I doubt Lane does either.
Now, there are prudential judgements that certainly belong to the pope and bishops: the appointment of bishops and pastors; disciplines concerning the administration of the sacraments; clerical celibacy; and many, many others. These prudential judgements concern the governance of the Church, and they belong by right to the Church's pastors. Those who are not the Church's pastors may disagree with these kinds of prudential judgements; they may very well convey to the Church's pastors their disagreements; but they ought to do so with circumspection and respect, because the pope and bishops are the ones on whom these prudential judgements devolve by right.
And though Lane did not mention it, I know he intended to infer that such prudential judgments as noted above - however one may have problems with them - are nonetheless to be obeyed.
Now, there are other prudential judgements in which the pastors of the Church do not have any competence, and should not have any say. The popes and bishops of the Church may declare, for instance, that a married man with children has a moral obligation to support his family, and that culpable failure to do so is a grave sin. Surely, nobody would dispute their authority to do so. But the pope and bishops have no right — indeed, it is no business of theirs — to tell a man what school he should attend to educate himself properly for a career; or what career he ought to get educated for, to support a family properly; or what particular job he ought to take to fulfill that responsibility. The pastors of the Church simply have no competence in this area of prudential judgement, and attempting or purporting to have such competence would be an attempt to usurp an authority that simply does not belong to them.
Agreed.
Now, it is the teaching of the Catholic Church that the competence to decide whether warfare in given circumstances actually conforms to the Church's teaching concerning just war belongs to public, civil authorities. Not to popes; not to bishops; not to priests; not to theologians. This is the teaching of the Church. It is not my opinion; it is not anybody's opinion: it is Church teaching that the right to determine whether a given military action would be just warfare belongs to public, civil authorities. It is they — not the Church's pastors — who have the necessary charisms: the inclination, the instincts, the vocation, the education, the experience, and the insights that are all necessary to fulfill their duties as civil, public authorities. Or, if not they, then nobody. And that is precisely why Church teaching devolves to them the prudential judgements regarding the application of just-war tradition.
I agree with this to a point. It is also Catholic teaching that all nations should recognize the Catholic Church as the one Church founded by Our Lord and as the True Religion. These are matters of the divine law which are irrevocable. However, there is also the fact that there are no Catholic nations anymore in the proper sense of that term. So the Church as she has spent the past hundred years or so in a world of non-Catholic nations has had to operate a little differently than would be ideal. (Please do not misunderstand this as an endorsement of monarchial government.)
Because the governments are not Catholic, they tend to not take into account Catholic just war criteria in making their decisions on these matters. (President Bush though actually appears to try and do this and even more so than President Reagan who - though I am not sure he did this nonetheless appears to have been influenced on many issues by his meetings with the pope.)
Popes and bishops who would attempt or purport to bind the consciences of Catholics in this regard, or even claim to have some special insight or authority that must somehow be respected in this regard, would be attempting to usurp an authority that properly and by right belongs to somebody else — in this case, to public, civil authorities — no less than the pope or bishop who would try to tell a man what job to take is attempting to usurp that man's proper and rightful decision-making authority. And it is they, if anybody, who would be "dissenting" from Church teaching if they did so.
It seems to me that this is an inescapable conclusion if one will do more than give lip service to the teachings of the Catholic Church regarding just war.
The only thing I do not see covered here is the authority of the keys to regulate certain applications of the divine law. The reason I referred in my piece to the pope "making a condemnation of this war a part of his magisterium" is because by doing so, he would be regulating the application of the divine laws regarding the just war in this case. This is for example how his teaching on the death penalty is congruent with Tradition. Pardon me for a moment while I digress.
The pope in his magisterium has set forth the traditional teaching on bloodless restitution whenever possible as the protocol to follow in this day and age. He has stated that the death penalty should be used "rarely if at all" but at the same time has not issued a strict interpretation of this teaching that is binding. Therefore, as long as we adhere to the principle teaching that the death penalty should be used very judiciously and only when no other means of protecting society is feasible, we are as far as I can tell obedient to the manifest mind of the Holy Father on this subject.
Self-defense would be one legitimate use and the Holy Father recognizes this. I can think of a few other examples of people who could be executed even under that criteria. One such example is treason. Another is dealing with serial murderers and those who have actually had people on the outside of prison killed based on orders issued from prison. (And with some gangs this has happened.)
Those two would easily qualify since (i) a serial murderer is someone who cannot be left to the whim of parole boards and (ii) the purpose of imprisonment of a criminal is to protect society. If therefore someone is from their jail cell ordering execution of others to gang subordinates, then they have to be executed to protect society. And of course treason is a crime which is worthy of the death penalty. I doubt the pope would disagree with any of these exceptions to the norm for the reasons I specified.
I am also of the belief that those who sell hard drugs to children should be executed as well - since they can direct such operations from jail at times and I do not trust our justice system to keep such people under wraps. That would be the only addition I would add to the three I noted prior to it and I do not see how the pope's criteria of "unless society cannot otherwise be protected" does not fail to apply here as well.
Considering that I used to be a "kill them all and let God sort them out" kind of guy, the pope's teaching has forced me to rethink my position on this subject. And this is an example of regulating the application of the divine law as the latter literally intepreted calls for death on a whole host of subjects. (See Deuteronomy.)
Ironically enough, I believe the pope's position on this war will actually facilitate the war effort. It (i) removes the potential accusation that it is a crusade of the west or of Christians vs. Muslims (ii) it will I believe show that the UN is an impotent entity if we end up going without them (iii) it is causing the US and others to try every last ditch effort at diplomacy - which removes the "there were other options" excuse. If there were no other viable options, then Saddam's refusal to disarm his WMD's puts us in a position of justifying the attack on the basis of self-defense. (Particularly since the pope has already recognized our right to self-defense against the Al Queda.)
Though I sought to note conclusively in my stated position as detailed in early February that any attack by us would not be a new war but the legitimate resumption of the old Gulf War (as the terms of the ceasefire as spelled out by the UN have never been followed by Iraq), it does not appear to me that President Bush is for the most part approaching this from the angle that I suggested.
In my opinion it is easier to demonstrate the just nature of this war from that angle - along with of course actually showing the footage of Saddam gassing his own people - but for some reason (I wonder why???) the media does not want to show that footage. Apparently Michael Savage in showing the footage on his debut MSNBC show is the only media personality with any cajones in this regard.
However, at the same time, if the pope concluded that this war - for whatever reason - was truly and irrevocably unjust, he has the power of the keys to regulate the application of the divine law. To do this though, he could not merely come out in speeches against it. He would have to formally authenticate this judgment by making it a part of his magisterium in a recognizable manner. Should he do that, then I believe as Catholics we would owe exterior and interior assent to it. Until he does that, what you have noted about prudential judgments applies.
That is my view of it anyway. I also believe that there will not be a magisterial document issued to bind Catholics against this war because (i) such a document would take time to prepare (ii) if there are any documents already prepared for this, the drafts would literally have to be revised every week to take into account various variables that keep coming out about Iraq's non-compliance (iii) I cannot think of any pope in the past hundred years or so who has actively supported any war - yet none of them sought to bind the consciences of Catholics against a war. Instead, they sought through diplomacy and other means to influence the formation of consciences against war{2} and then worked for peaceful resolutions after a war had already started.
Thus while JP II appears to be personally opposed to this war, barring him making it a part of his magisterium, we are not bound to his judgment on the matter. And for those who in good conscience side with the pope on the matter, that is fine as I see it so long as they are in our corner when the war begins. And it will begin - barring extraordinary and unforseen diplomatic progress -
Notes:
{1} See Lane's entry for details on this.
{2} Among St. Pius X's dying words were reserved the following for certain WWI partisans who had asked for his blessing of their war effort: "I bless peace, not war."
Monday, March 17, 2003
I plan to post a response to my friend Lane Core Jr. about the war from our private correspondence. I hope to do so tonight before bedtime but if not it will be one of my first blog entries tomorrow. Right now I have errands to run but after the Presidents speech, my friends our path is now clear war-wise. And since war is now inevitable (barring Hussein's going into exile in the next 48 hours) we are no longer in the realm of speculation. May the Lord protect our soldiers and also all innocent people in Iraq...
Saturday, March 15, 2003
I forgot in the link-fest earlier to include my comments on a subject at the weblog called Little Green Footballs. Go there to see a truly disturbing subject matter (with pictures included) to get an idea of the kind of Islamofascist fanatics we are facing.
Regarding the Reagan Administration's Handling of the Iraq/Iran/Sandinista Situations:
(A Subject of Discussion at Amy Welborn's In Between Naps Comments Box)
See the article from the tenth of March for context. The words of the person I am interacting with will be in dark green font.
I think there's something of a whitewash going on here.The "make an ally of the lesser evil to defeat the greater evil" is a mainstay of realpolitik and we just did that when we 'befriended' Pakistan's Pervez Musharraf to defeat the Taliban. Musharraf had ousted an elected president in a military coup and declared himself president, was head of a rogue state that had developed nuclear weapons in defiance of the international community, and was no champion of human rights as far as I can tell, but he was better than the Taliban, was eager to restore his country into the good graces of the US, and was happy to accept a massive aid package. We were upfront about our relationship with Pakistan, and with the terms of the mutual assistance.
Correct.
But Iraq and our role in her history is a different story. We sold them weaponry, massive amounts of chemical and biological agents (anthrax, botulism, E. coli, West Nile fever, gas gangrene, and dengue fever), gave them intelligence information about Iranian troop movements, and gave them plenty of cash. And we lied about what we were doing.
You mean the way we lied in the late 1930's and early 1940's about being "neutral" when we were extending military equipment to the British on a "Lend-Lease" plan???{1}
The US Government denied playing a role in the conflict (we were only spectators) and Donald Rumsfeld claimed in a CNN interview that he had urged Saddam not to use chemical and biological weapons (explain that, after we sold them the agents and the weapons to deploy them), which denials, at any rate, have been contradicted by National Security member Howard Teicher and CIA records showing the sale of arms to Iraq through third party South American states during the Iraq-Iran war.
Well, the chemicals sold have both military and civilian applications. By this logic we could not sell ball bearings because they are used in the building of munitions of war. We could not sell a lot of items which can similarly be converted to military use. Remember Iraq was signatory to accords that pledged to not use chemical weapons. Of course few people like to point out that part of the equation also.
The use of chemical and biological agents was despicable to begin with (isn't that why we denied our part in the conflict?), and when Saddam used them later against the Kurds, we supported him without criticism against the protests of the international community.
The Iranian were sending waves of young volunteers to act as minesweepers and overrun Iraqi forces. If I recall correctly, what was used against the Iranians chemically in the early phase of the war was what are called "crowd control agents". These are not classified as chemical weapons and are used at times by police forces to control and restrain rioters.
Our support for him went well beyond the pale: we did not need to introduce chemical and biological weapons into his arsenal in order to help him against Iran, and we owed him no blind allegiance in 1988 when he gassed the Kurds.
Again what was given him were chemicals that have both civilian and military usage. Both Iraq and the US had signed accords where they agreed to not use or deploy chemical weapons in war. These accords recognized though that certain chemicals had civilian usages and could be manufactured for that reason.
Amy raises a valid point: aren’t we entitled to an explanation, given that Reagan and Bush I military advisors like Rumsfeld and Cheney were involved then and are involved now? Given the specifics of this particular situation, I would personally like to hear a candid explanation from the administration (not likely); and given the record of lying about our relationship with Saddam Hussein, frank talk about what happened then and why would go along way to dispelling questions about their veracity now. People like me clearly see the need for a regime change in Iraq, but we’re not convinced of the need for immediate invasion (the threat is potential, not imminent), and the fact that we’re being informed about Iraq now by men who were deceitful about Iraq then doesn’t inspire confidence.
Remember MMMMM, at the time the primary enemy was the Soviet Union and we were involved on a lot of fronts to try and prevent its exporting of communism to other nations. Its involvement in the region with the invasion of Afghanistan resulted in us supporting Afghan rebels to involve the USSR in their own version of Vietnam. At the same time Hussein took over Iraq in a coup and Iran was overrun by the Shiites and Khomeini who took Americans hostage. Remember, Khomeini declared war on the west and on non-Shiite Muslims who were seen by him much the way many Orthodox Jews view Reform Jews.{2}
Khomeini's intention announced, remember that Hussein himself was (at least nominally) a Sunni Muslim. He had recently taken power in a nation where 40% of the population of Muslims was Shiite. He obviously felt at the time that it was a gamble worth taking to invade Iran before Khomeini's influence in the region resulted in him having fifth column Ayatollah supporters in his own country. He also felt that since Khomeini had American hostages and that America was one of the Ayatollah's targets{3}, that if he invaded them he would receive our support much as we supported Afghan rebels against the Soviets. And this calculation on his part was right.
We viewed Iran's form of fanaticism to be worse than Hussein's form of dictatorship. Plus, we wanted to see the two beat each other up so that they were less likely to bother other nations. We funded Iraq in part because Iran was the stronger of the two and had three times the population from which to form a military.{4}
When the Soviet Union started also funding and supporting Iraq, we were in a quandary because this meant that Iraq would likely win the war and the Soviets would have had major influence in the area. There was also an uprising of rebels in Nicaragua who were fighting the communist Sandinistas and the communist-sympathizing Devilcrat in Congress (including the Speaker of the House) was cozying up to Noriega and company. The whole situation was both delicate and complicated.
President Reagan and his advisers saw a brilliant way to put down the Sandinistas without involving American lives and also to help keep the scales balanced in the Middle East conflict. It involved selling outdated munitions to Khomeini and funnelling the money to the "contras" in Nicaragua to buy weapons and supplies with which to fight the Sandinistas. Since we were supplying Iraq - and wanted to retain that option again if necessary - this had to be kept quiet.
The result of this policy was that Iran was able to fight Iraq to a standstill which depleted both nations militarily.{5} And by 1990 the contras due to our support had successfully gotten their way in Nicaragua with the first free elections down there where the Sandinistas were voted out of office. Verdict in both cases: a brilliant use of diplomacy by the Reagan Administration and at a loss of no American lives.
The Keystone Kops diplomacy of President Carter created a lot of the messes Reagan inherited foreign policy-wise in 1981. Compared to that and to the foreign policy miscues of President Bush on Iraq (giving the implied green light to invade Kuwait and then not finishing the job when we went to war against Hussein in 1991), I will take the strategic planning and American-life-preserving polices of President Reagan's Administration any day. True he blundered in Lebanon but considering the world scene in 1981 and then again in 1989, Reagan's batting average was damn high - far higher than any president I can think of in recent decades. And considering both the world situation and our domestic situation in 1981, that is saying a lot.
I believe W has learned from Reagan and also from 9-11. And as a result, we should finish Hussein this time, do it quickly, with a minimum of innocent lives lost, and then do what we can to rebuild Iraq as a democratic country. Then we can sit back in our easy chairs and criticize the current situation. (Including whether the UN is a viable entity anymore.) But I digress...
Notes:
{1} Not being completely straight-forward is unfortunately always a part of diplomacy to some degree. (Some might call this "lying.")
{2} Much as Orthodox (and some Conservative) Jews do not view Reformed Jews as "authentic Jews" in essence, the same is the case with the way the more extremist factions of Shiites view Sunni Muslims.
{3} Remember, we were/are "The Great Satan" to them.
{4} Not to mention zealots who would willingly act as human minesweepers for Khomeini's "cause".
{5} That war ended in 1988 and the US had to supply Hussein again towards the end to keep the scales balanced.
(A Subject of Discussion at Amy Welborn's In Between Naps Comments Box)
See the article from the tenth of March for context. The words of the person I am interacting with will be in dark green font.
I think there's something of a whitewash going on here.The "make an ally of the lesser evil to defeat the greater evil" is a mainstay of realpolitik and we just did that when we 'befriended' Pakistan's Pervez Musharraf to defeat the Taliban. Musharraf had ousted an elected president in a military coup and declared himself president, was head of a rogue state that had developed nuclear weapons in defiance of the international community, and was no champion of human rights as far as I can tell, but he was better than the Taliban, was eager to restore his country into the good graces of the US, and was happy to accept a massive aid package. We were upfront about our relationship with Pakistan, and with the terms of the mutual assistance.
Correct.
But Iraq and our role in her history is a different story. We sold them weaponry, massive amounts of chemical and biological agents (anthrax, botulism, E. coli, West Nile fever, gas gangrene, and dengue fever), gave them intelligence information about Iranian troop movements, and gave them plenty of cash. And we lied about what we were doing.
You mean the way we lied in the late 1930's and early 1940's about being "neutral" when we were extending military equipment to the British on a "Lend-Lease" plan???{1}
The US Government denied playing a role in the conflict (we were only spectators) and Donald Rumsfeld claimed in a CNN interview that he had urged Saddam not to use chemical and biological weapons (explain that, after we sold them the agents and the weapons to deploy them), which denials, at any rate, have been contradicted by National Security member Howard Teicher and CIA records showing the sale of arms to Iraq through third party South American states during the Iraq-Iran war.
Well, the chemicals sold have both military and civilian applications. By this logic we could not sell ball bearings because they are used in the building of munitions of war. We could not sell a lot of items which can similarly be converted to military use. Remember Iraq was signatory to accords that pledged to not use chemical weapons. Of course few people like to point out that part of the equation also.
The use of chemical and biological agents was despicable to begin with (isn't that why we denied our part in the conflict?), and when Saddam used them later against the Kurds, we supported him without criticism against the protests of the international community.
The Iranian were sending waves of young volunteers to act as minesweepers and overrun Iraqi forces. If I recall correctly, what was used against the Iranians chemically in the early phase of the war was what are called "crowd control agents". These are not classified as chemical weapons and are used at times by police forces to control and restrain rioters.
Our support for him went well beyond the pale: we did not need to introduce chemical and biological weapons into his arsenal in order to help him against Iran, and we owed him no blind allegiance in 1988 when he gassed the Kurds.
Again what was given him were chemicals that have both civilian and military usage. Both Iraq and the US had signed accords where they agreed to not use or deploy chemical weapons in war. These accords recognized though that certain chemicals had civilian usages and could be manufactured for that reason.
Amy raises a valid point: aren’t we entitled to an explanation, given that Reagan and Bush I military advisors like Rumsfeld and Cheney were involved then and are involved now? Given the specifics of this particular situation, I would personally like to hear a candid explanation from the administration (not likely); and given the record of lying about our relationship with Saddam Hussein, frank talk about what happened then and why would go along way to dispelling questions about their veracity now. People like me clearly see the need for a regime change in Iraq, but we’re not convinced of the need for immediate invasion (the threat is potential, not imminent), and the fact that we’re being informed about Iraq now by men who were deceitful about Iraq then doesn’t inspire confidence.
Remember MMMMM, at the time the primary enemy was the Soviet Union and we were involved on a lot of fronts to try and prevent its exporting of communism to other nations. Its involvement in the region with the invasion of Afghanistan resulted in us supporting Afghan rebels to involve the USSR in their own version of Vietnam. At the same time Hussein took over Iraq in a coup and Iran was overrun by the Shiites and Khomeini who took Americans hostage. Remember, Khomeini declared war on the west and on non-Shiite Muslims who were seen by him much the way many Orthodox Jews view Reform Jews.{2}
Khomeini's intention announced, remember that Hussein himself was (at least nominally) a Sunni Muslim. He had recently taken power in a nation where 40% of the population of Muslims was Shiite. He obviously felt at the time that it was a gamble worth taking to invade Iran before Khomeini's influence in the region resulted in him having fifth column Ayatollah supporters in his own country. He also felt that since Khomeini had American hostages and that America was one of the Ayatollah's targets{3}, that if he invaded them he would receive our support much as we supported Afghan rebels against the Soviets. And this calculation on his part was right.
We viewed Iran's form of fanaticism to be worse than Hussein's form of dictatorship. Plus, we wanted to see the two beat each other up so that they were less likely to bother other nations. We funded Iraq in part because Iran was the stronger of the two and had three times the population from which to form a military.{4}
When the Soviet Union started also funding and supporting Iraq, we were in a quandary because this meant that Iraq would likely win the war and the Soviets would have had major influence in the area. There was also an uprising of rebels in Nicaragua who were fighting the communist Sandinistas and the communist-sympathizing Devilcrat in Congress (including the Speaker of the House) was cozying up to Noriega and company. The whole situation was both delicate and complicated.
President Reagan and his advisers saw a brilliant way to put down the Sandinistas without involving American lives and also to help keep the scales balanced in the Middle East conflict. It involved selling outdated munitions to Khomeini and funnelling the money to the "contras" in Nicaragua to buy weapons and supplies with which to fight the Sandinistas. Since we were supplying Iraq - and wanted to retain that option again if necessary - this had to be kept quiet.
The result of this policy was that Iran was able to fight Iraq to a standstill which depleted both nations militarily.{5} And by 1990 the contras due to our support had successfully gotten their way in Nicaragua with the first free elections down there where the Sandinistas were voted out of office. Verdict in both cases: a brilliant use of diplomacy by the Reagan Administration and at a loss of no American lives.
The Keystone Kops diplomacy of President Carter created a lot of the messes Reagan inherited foreign policy-wise in 1981. Compared to that and to the foreign policy miscues of President Bush on Iraq (giving the implied green light to invade Kuwait and then not finishing the job when we went to war against Hussein in 1991), I will take the strategic planning and American-life-preserving polices of President Reagan's Administration any day. True he blundered in Lebanon but considering the world scene in 1981 and then again in 1989, Reagan's batting average was damn high - far higher than any president I can think of in recent decades. And considering both the world situation and our domestic situation in 1981, that is saying a lot.
I believe W has learned from Reagan and also from 9-11. And as a result, we should finish Hussein this time, do it quickly, with a minimum of innocent lives lost, and then do what we can to rebuild Iraq as a democratic country. Then we can sit back in our easy chairs and criticize the current situation. (Including whether the UN is a viable entity anymore.) But I digress...
Notes:
{1} Not being completely straight-forward is unfortunately always a part of diplomacy to some degree. (Some might call this "lying.")
{2} Much as Orthodox (and some Conservative) Jews do not view Reformed Jews as "authentic Jews" in essence, the same is the case with the way the more extremist factions of Shiites view Sunni Muslims.
{3} Remember, we were/are "The Great Satan" to them.
{4} Not to mention zealots who would willingly act as human minesweepers for Khomeini's "cause".
{5} That war ended in 1988 and the US had to supply Hussein again towards the end to keep the scales balanced.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)