War is deviltry. It calls for sacrifices indeed, but not at the altar of love. “Greater love hath no man than this.” A great blasphemy this, to use Christ’s words in connection with men going to war. They go because they are drafted, because they are afraid of what their neighbors will say, because the pay is good, because the benefits accruing afterward (the G.I. Bill of Rights) are great. And they are told by the press and the pulpit that they are going because they love their fellows, and they are filled with a warm glow of self-love. And then they are given their intensive training in how to escape death, how to kill. Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life for his brothers, and the Russians are our brothers, the Negro is our brother, the Japanese are our brothers, the Germans, the Mexicans, the Filipinos, the Jews, the Arabs.
. . .
So let’s not have any more talk about God and country. The battle is for this world, for the possessions of this world.
Dorothy Day, “Letter to the Editor,” Commonweal, May 21, 1948.
September 30, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Interesting thought, although the reference to the GI Bill of Rights is rather idiotic, unless there’s some evidence that most of the US servicemen who enlisted in WWII had the gift of prophecy.
October 1, 2007 at 12:39 am
I love Dorothy Day and I respect her right to be a pacifist. But I dare anyone to take that speech and read it over the graves in Normandy. Where young men died so we can enjoy our freedoms. And it IS freedom.
I also dare anyone to read that speech at Auschwitz where millions were slaughtered.
I take my hat off to those brave young men who lost their lives in the field of battle. To the resistance workers both men and women who died while resisting the Germans, Italians and Japanese war machine.
I take Auschwitz as a warning as to what can happen once man has removed God….But I will not compare those brave young men who fought to their death against the Nazi’s as if there were no difference.
God bless
Marie
October 1, 2007 at 10:46 am
Its so Catholic PC to say, no matter how one is opposed to the life and thought of Dorothy Day, to try to claim her for one’s own.
Marie, you love what about Dorothy Day-her prison time, her refusal to pay federal taxesa nd encouragement for others to refuse such taxes, her attachment to personalism/anarcho-communalism? What exactly? Other than her Mass attendance?
Dorothy Day founded and defined the Catholic Worker, she died there, spent her last days and decades in the New York House, leading a life of a Catholic Worker.
Tell me how you love her.
Or if you don’t, at least confess such. Dorothy struggled mightily to avoid becoming the plaster cast saint-she had a clear message to America and Americans. To love her is to love this message, not the cheap patronage displayed in the first sentence.
Many conservatives have tried to slice and dice Dorothy into their cheap, cliched early 21st century conservative Catholic views. Witness Amy Welborn’s cherry-picking of Advent reflections last year. The tougher and meaty Dorothy Day reflections that would challenge her audience were conveniently dropped.
Dorothy Day was a Catholic anarcho-pacifist. This is clear in her life and her writings. She cannot be co-opted easily into a cheap, plasticized caricature.
And this speech is mild compared to the activities and writings during World War 2.
October 1, 2007 at 12:16 pm
To say that one loves Dorothy Day is hardly problematic, since the command to love everyone as oneself is somewhat important.
As for the rest of your statement, one may choose where one agrees with a thinker and was thinking properly (perhaps Amy Welborn’s action), and ignore or marginalize those where the thinker was off kilter. If the intent is not to paint a thinker in one way in order to mislead, but instead to show where that thinker resonated with oneself, that is hardly “Catholic PC.”
Even an attempt to show her as an anarcho-pacifist is reductionist to her thought.
October 1, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Even an attempt to show her as an anarcho-pacifist is reductionist to her thought.
Hardly. She identified with both terms — anarchist and pacifist — clearly and repeatedly in her writings. How is it “reductionistic” to recognize it?
As for the rest of your statement, one may choose where one agrees with a thinker and was thinking properly (perhaps Amy Welborn’s action), and ignore or marginalize those where the thinker was off kilter.
Ahhh… so this must be why the same people ignore and marginalize what Jesus said and did too, eh? Now I get it.
Daniel — Right on!
October 1, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Yes, no doubt those same people – the problem is, of course, that Christ did no wrong, while I doubt that Dorothy Day was perfect. Karl Marx may have right-thought as well as wrong – trying to say that someone is either completely perfect (and thus one must quote all of their writings) or completely imperfect (therefore, utterly unquotable) is, of course, ridiculous.
And of course, you’ve ignored my thought that using the particular statements of a person which resonate with oneself, particular when one is not making an argument, but simply enjoying reflective thought, is hardly an attempt to claim her for one’s own.
To self-identify with description is not to say that some person fits entirely within that description. Daniel says that Ms. Day was an “anarcho-pacifist” is not the same as saying she identified with those sentiments.
October 1, 2007 at 2:27 pm
To self-identify with description is not to say that some person fits entirely within that description. Daniel says that Ms. Day was an “anarcho-pacifist” is not the same as saying she identified with those sentiments.
But she DID identify with “those sentiments.” She identified herself as an anarcho-pacifist. The issue is that there are actually different ways to understand what “anarcho-pacifist” means. She understood it very particularly as a natural outgrowth of her Catholicism. But that does not mean she did not identify with the term.
October 1, 2007 at 2:28 pm
And of course, you’ve ignored my thought that using the particular statements of a person which resonate with oneself, particular when one is not making an argument, but simply enjoying reflective thought, is hardly an attempt to claim her for one’s own.
Using quotes that “resonate” with oneself while ignoring the context of those quotes is irresponsible, and yes, I would say it amounts to claiming the person for one’s own.
October 1, 2007 at 3:10 pm
I disagree with your latter statement, as stating someone else’s meditations on a subject and using them for argument are two different things.
As I said before, she identified with those statements – stating that’s what she was is a different matter.
October 1, 2007 at 3:46 pm
You know, I admire those Buddhist monks for their courageous defiance of totalitarianism. But that in no way means I have to accept 100% of their beliefs. It seems Daniel and Michael want 100% or 0 with no degrees between. I can admire Dorothy Day and her self-sacrifice for her beliefs while still disagreeing with her. I don’t see the conflict.
Get off your high horse Daniel. While Dorothy was in prison, millions of people were dying around her. THANK GOD someone stepped up to stop the madness. Marie has a valid point.
October 1, 2007 at 7:09 pm
RCM — I’m not saying that one can’t disagree with things Dorothy Day stood for or believed. I don’t agree with her on everything. But Daniel raises the true point that Dorothy Day has been used by people who want nothing to do with the very central commitments she clung to.
While Dorothy was in prison, millions of people were dying around her. THANK GOD someone stepped up to stop the madness. Marie has a valid point.
The question, of course, is who was right. The tendency is to essentially pat li’l Dorothy on the head and saw, “Awww, that’s cute, you’re against war,” and then praise those who “took reality seriously” by participating in war. I think Dorothy was the one who took reality seriously. It’s easy to shrug off the witness of someone like Dorothy Day when one has so much personal investment in the myth of military force. If our tendency is to think Dorothy was naive, we should have the courage to step back and ask ourselves whether this is true or whether we are being blinded to the Gospel by competing commitments.
October 1, 2007 at 7:10 pm
That said, I would also be interested in hearing what specifically Marie loves about Dorothy Day.
October 2, 2007 at 2:45 am
Daniel:)
I admired the work Dorothy Day did, so much so, I worked for 2 years in a homeless shelter where I helped serve food to the poor, drug addicts and alocholics. I smiled at each one I served whether they returned the smile or spat at me. It made no difference. Serving the poor should never fall into self serving!
I also helped my own community by visiting the poor, sick and the elderly in their homes where I provided an ear for their pain and gave food and nourishment when it was needed. I was also able to help them pay off their utility bills. There were many days where I would visit up to 15 families a day.
Then at the end of the day I would visit a nursing home where I would try and assist the nurses by feeding the patients their evening meal who suffered with alzheimers. Before I left I would try and spend 10-15 minutes with the residents who received NO visits from their own family members.
How much do YOU love Dorothy Day? Remember ‘love’ is meaningless unless it is followed by action!
Dorothy Day was a restless spirit in seach of a ’cause’. For years it was communism, then socialism as she ran around such elite company as John Reed and Eugene O’Neill. I admire her idealism and that she was prepared to be imprisoned for them. I admire her in that she lived amongst the poor, she cleaned up the men who came in for help. She washed countless floors, cleaned up one vomit mess after another and if someone didnt make it to the toilet in time she also cleaned up that mess too! Now that is steelinenss. I admire the fact that she stayed even though there were times she wanted to run.
I admire her for standing up against “McCarthyism” as innocent lives were being destroyed.
I also admire St. Teresa of Avila and Therese of Lisieux does that mean by your standards I should rush out and join a convent?
Admiration does not mean that you actually want to ‘BE’ that person. I am not Dorothy Day. And you, sir, are NOT my judge. Thank God.
You can disagree with a person without being disagreeable. Perhaps that’s a lesson you should learn?
I stand by my previous comment. I will NOT condemn the brave men and women who fought so strongly and so fiercely for the freedom we now take for granted during the dark years of WW2. I remember the sacrifice of the resistance workers who were tortured and brutalised for our self same freedoms. I will also not forget the millions who were slaughtered by the Nazi’s simply because of their race or religion.
It is too easy for this generation to become ‘armchair revolutionaries’ without their ideals being tested.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer chose to say in his own country and fight the Nazi war machine he was martyred for his beliefs. It is easy to be a pacifist in a free country. Dorothy Day died a free woman in a free country and THAT’s the difference.
BTW Daniel you never did counter my previous statement and please dont shield yourself under Dorothy Day’s legacy. What is YOUR opinion on those who gave their lives for YOU and the freedoms you now enjoy?
I am merely expressing my own views on this issue, my goodness how very ‘dorothy day’ of me.
Peace:)
Marie PS as for me being PC that’s a RIOT lol.
http://viewfromthepews.blogspot.com/2007/09/early-church-fathers-pc-version.html
http://viewfromthepews.blogspot.com/2007/09/testimony-from-ex-people-pleaser.html
October 2, 2007 at 2:59 am
PS: Thankyou radicalcatholicmom for the courtesy of allowing me to express my own views in a respectful manner:).
Peace & blessings to you:)
Marie
October 2, 2007 at 4:04 am
It’s a big church……..
October 2, 2007 at 7:24 am
I lived my first 20 years under the dictatorship of Ceausescu, in communist Romania, a prisoner in my own country. Millions of people died in the communist prisons only because they were perceived as being a threat for the regime. In this time the Western Europe and USA did let this happen. Eastern-Europe was the price to appease Stalin, to create a tampon between URSS and the civilized world. The generation of my grandparents waited years and years for the armies of the West or USA to come and free them. From the perspective of the ordinary people a war that would have overthrown the regime would have been a just war.
October 2, 2007 at 7:55 am
Mr. Jones remains uninformed about Dorothy Day. She was pacifist, not only identifying clearly as such, but identifying her entire movement as such. She banished all from her Catholic Worker in the 1940’s who had any predilection to support of the war efforts, reducing her house number and CW’ers to less than a third of its original size.
As for identifying with such sentiments as anarchism/personalism, one would hardly need to go further than her appreciations of Ammon Hennacy to see how much she admired/identified with his anarchism as well as identifying the movement with such.
To Marie: I will discuss nothing with you about my actions in these forums.
Servant of God Dorothy Day is a difficult woman. However, intellectual honesty would forgo one from claiming “love” and then denying a core aspect of her witness as a Christian-her pacifism. Her understanding of the Mystical Body of Christ informed her work in her and Peter’s work in the houses of hospitality and in opposition to capitalism and war.
October 2, 2007 at 8:54 am
Daniel:)
your ‘actions’ in these forums probably dont bear closer scrutiny. You make assumptions and then fail to back them up. That’s not MY problem it is YOURS. And I will leave it with you.
I wonder why Dorothy Day never felt inclined to go to Nazi Germany and organize peace rallies there? Instead she chose to stay in a FREE country where she could FREELY express her opinions without paying the price. Others did it for her.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer declined asylum in America to confront the evil in Germany. Sophie Scholl and her brother also defied Hitler and paid the ultimate price.
I admire the WORK that Dorothy Day did amidst the poor and downtrodden but I do NOT support her pacifist ‘ideals’…As Paula said sometimes the price is too high to expect others to PAY it!(Those poor souls who died unknown in the Russian Gulags!)
I didnt think you would be able to refute any of my statements.
Go in Peace:)
Marie
October 2, 2007 at 2:37 pm
“The word anarchist is deliberately and repeatedly used in order to awaken our readers to the necessity of combating the ‘all-encroaching state,’ as our Bishops have termed it, and to shock serious students into looking into the possibility of another society, an order made up of associations, guilds, unions, communes, parishes–voluntary associations of men [sic], on regional vs. national lines, where there is a possibility of liberty and responsibility for all men.”
- Dorothy Day, Catholic Worker, December 1949, cited in Mark and Louise Zwick, The Catholic Worker Movement: Intellectual and Spiritual Origins (New York: Paulist, 2005).
Marie, just a few things to think about:
1) Why did Dorothy Day stay in the U.S. organizing rather than go to Nazi Germany? Probably for the same reasons that Bonhoeffer decided to go back to Germany, as you said. She knew who her people were and what she was called to do in her context.
2) Dorothy Day would have had tremendous issues with the assertion that the U.S. is a “free country,” or the idea that the killing and dying of U.S. soldiers contributed to her freedom.
3) Your citation of Bonhoeffer is worth looking into a little more. For one thing, he remained committed to Christian nonviolence throughout his life and NEVER showed support for Christians fighting in war, up until his last days. When he did return to Germany, it was not because he had a radical change of heart and knew that he had to fight against the Nazis. It was because he could not live with himself being free from the risk of being drafted in the U.S. while his friends were being enlisted into the Nazi army. He was committed to his friends and wanted to stand by them in their struggle with the question on whether to serve or not (and Bonhoeffer was against it). Even when Bonhoeffer joined the conspiracy to kill Hitler, he was only tangentially involved, assisting with communication and networking, and was never involved directly with assassination attempts. But to hear others tell it, you would think Bonhoeffer planted the bombs himself. Finally, Bonhoeffer said near the end of his life that he had never rejected his pacifist ideals: “…Nor have I ever regretted my decision in the summer of 1939, for I am firmly convinced—however strange it may seem—that my life followed a straight and unbroken course, at any rate in its outward conduct.”
If anything, Bonhoeffer could be cited in favor of assisting a movement toward tyrannicide against one’s own tyrannical leader (not in favor of a military invasion to capture/kill another nation’s leader) under very extreme conditions, but never in favor of war. He was always opposed to war and to use him in an argument in favor of war is to completely misuse him.
October 2, 2007 at 2:45 pm
[...] interesting discussions going on at Vox Nova, the Catholic group blog to which I contribute. The first is in response to a Dorothy Day quote that I posted (also posted here a couple days ago). The [...]
October 2, 2007 at 5:37 pm
Here is a good article about how Dorothy Day has been co-opted:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1252/is_n1_v123/ai_17835721
October 2, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Michael, well said.
Dorothy Day was wise enough to respond to “what she was called to do in her context.” She was not the type of person to just follow the popular cause of the day, like global warming is currently. Dorothy, although she embraced many “causes” (as Marie would have them called) throughout her life, was not one to pick one up and drop another in some endless cycle of cause-chasing. What Dorothy Day did do was add to the things she believed in throughout her life. Any attentive reading of her autobiography shows that the beliefs she held early in her life (socialism, pacifism, support for labor, etc.) were also beliefs she held onto to the end of her life. There is much more consistency in Dorothy’s belief system than Marie would have one believe. Dorothy’s Catholicism bolstered and enriched her beliefs. She exemplifies how we should look at the church as an alternate political reality, not a political body per se, but a different way of doing things. And AMEN to that.
As for freedom: if you can differentiate between freedom for and freedom from, you can understand Christianity. If one’s perpective is always freedom from, it is a very narrow view of the freedom God gives us (as opposed to any nationalistic freedom).
Peace
October 2, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Here is a good article that touches on how Dorothy Day has been misused.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1252/is_n1_v123/ai_17835721
October 3, 2007 at 2:37 am
Loving adamv’s articles. The more clever attempts to neutralize Day is to portray her as a pious conservative running a soup kitchen, who tolerated some quirky people around her because she was so nice.
Hardly.
Some conservatives more routinely cherry-pick her more simply pious and less challenging articles. Leaving a different understanding of what she lived and thought, particularly the struggles of communal living, living in a Catholic Worker which places one in the bed next to the formerly homeless, the difficulty of her prison witness (no pasing fancy that-she did non-violent direct actions until the early ’70’s with her last arrest with the UFW).
Day saw herself committed to building a new society in the shell of the old. As she had frequently quoted her mentor Peter Maurin. She was challenged to resist the American empire in its heart. And it was Americans she challenged, not Russians. And elected prison time. Chose it when so many other choices were possible.
She will not easily convert to a plastic dashboard saint. Despite the excess of capitalized words by some commentators.
October 3, 2007 at 4:26 am
Please spare me the empty rhetoric. You carry about as much weight as the drugged out crowds at Woodstock!
You accused me of trying to make Dorothy Day into a ‘plaster Saint’ No! I am not doing that. YOU are.
Just because Dorothy Day wrote some words it does not make it right or correct. But according to you guys to even challenge her ‘theories’ is almost tantamount to ‘heresy’. Grow up!
Why did Dorothy Day stay in America? Because she knew if she went to Germany and started peaceful demonstrations or wrote about Hitler in a negative context she would have faced imprisonment and maybe death. Her voice would have been silenced!
I brought up Dietrich Bonhoeffer to make a point. Here were two people with the same ideals and the contrast between them both is astounding. One put his life on the line for his ideals the other chose a safer path.
Do not denigrate the actions of this brave man and dismiss him as some sort of intellectual dilettant. This is a man who loved life, loved God and wanted to live, but he met his death bravely. In essense he died for his beliefs. Which is more than what YOU have done! You dismiss people so airily how very arrogant and presumptuous. I agree Bonhoeffer was no ‘war monger’ but neither did he choose a ’safe path’ for himself, he put his faith and his life on the line. Which is more than what Dorothy did. As for Dorothy Day choosing to stay with ‘her people’. If she only cared about Americans then why did she object to the war in Vietnam? The Vietnamese were not Americans? Your argument does not stand up! Yes, she liked to rant about the ‘evils of the world’ but words are cheap in a time of great crisis.
And please enough of the ‘freedom’ talk. If you state you dont agree with the sitting Goverment within your own country will you be thrown into prison? Will you be beheaded? NO! If you hold a rally againsts the war in Iraq, will you suffer persecution? Will you be murdered for voicing your opinion? NO!
Would you be able to keep a blog like this in Iran? China? Burma? North Korea? NO! That is called loss of freedom and none of us have a clue as to what that truly means. Thank God.
Nobody is ‘in favor of war’ but still war comes to us. What would you do, face your enemy with a feather duster? As I said its easy to be an ‘armchair revolutionary’.
You put up these ‘Red Banner Headlines’ on your blog then get your boxers in a tizzy when challenged. Guys, its called freedom!
“The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crises maintain their neutrality.”
Go in Peace
Marie
October 3, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Why did Dorothy Day stay in America? Because she knew if she went to Germany and started peaceful demonstrations or wrote about Hitler in a negative context she would have faced imprisonment and maybe death. Her voice would have been silenced!
This is funny, considering 1) she WAS imprisoned, time and time again, 2) she and the Catholic Worker were harassed by the FBI and CIA constantly, and 3) they received death threats.
I brought up Dietrich Bonhoeffer to make a point. Here were two people with the same ideals and the contrast between them both is astounding. One put his life on the line for his ideals the other chose a safer path.
Do not denigrate the actions of this brave man and dismiss him as some sort of intellectual dilettant. This is a man who loved life, loved God and wanted to live, but he met his death bravely. In essense he died for his beliefs. Which is more than what YOU have done! You dismiss people so airily how very arrogant and presumptuous. I agree Bonhoeffer was no ‘war monger’ but neither did he choose a ’safe path’ for himself, he put his faith and his life on the line. Which is more than what Dorothy did.
You brought him up to make a point about WAR. Which is wrong, because he always opposed war. I certainly did NOT denigrate Bonhoeffer. I admire him very much and spent a semester studying his life and his writings chronologically. I am merely pointing out to you that to use Bonhoeffer to defend violence is wrong because he always opposed it. His decision to become involved in the plot to kill Hitler (again, a tangential involvement) was NOT based on a change in his thinking to accept the legitimacy of violence, but an act of desperation. There is a myth that has been built up around Bonhoeffer which has enabled people like yourself to use him to defend various positions, usually to support violence. And it’s a misuse of him to do this.
Again, I think it is unbelievable that you would say Dorothy Day chose a “safer” path. What she did was not “safe.” She is still being condemned by some (like you) for her views and her actions. That she was not presented with the type of opportunity to give her life like Bonhoeffer did does not represent a deficiency in her witness. We do no go seeking to become martyrs. We witness where we are.
As for Dorothy Day choosing to stay with ‘her people’. If she only cared about Americans then why did she object to the war in Vietnam? The Vietnamese were not Americans? Your argument does not stand up! Yes, she liked to rant about the ‘evils of the world’ but words are cheap in a time of great crisis.
I didn’t say at all that Dorothy Day “only cared about Americans.” I said she knew her calling, in her context, for the people that were hers to care for. She was a personalist and dealt with the people in front of her, some of whom were Americans, but a great number of them were not. That was her calling. Amazing that you would accuse her of being “all talk” and a “cheap” disciple! I suggest you read a little more about her before you make such off-the-mark accusations.
If you state you dont agree with the sitting Goverment within your own country will you be thrown into prison? Will you be beheaded? NO! If you hold a rally againsts the war in Iraq, will you suffer persecution? Will you be murdered for voicing your opinion? NO!
Are you kidding? The situation in the US is not as extreme as in other totalitarian states, but if you don’t think dissidents are persecuted, jailed, and assassinated in the United States, you apparently don’t know much about US history. Check out Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States for a taste. Again, I point out that Dorothy Day herself was imprisoned countless times, received death threats, and was investigated by the U.S. government.
“The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crises maintain their neutrality.”
Who said anything about being neutral? I’m taking a stance. You’re off your rocker.
October 4, 2007 at 3:26 am
LOL @ off my rocker. Ah, dear I needed a good laugh Michael and you provided it.
Now lets take a look at my first response. Dorothy Day did not have the Moral authority to write about soldiers or what they did and didn’t do, especially as she decided to stay within the safe confines of her own free country. I will not accept nor tolerate what Dorothy Day is trying to do when she tries to paint both Allied soldiers and the Nazi’s/Japanese soldiers as if they were of the same calibre. There is a VAST difference and shame on anyone who tries to make this comparison.
Did it ever occur to Dorothy Day that the Allied soldiers fought because it was the right thing to do in a time where an evil despot such as Adolf Hitler intended to rule the world by force. How patronizing to infer that these brave men went to war for money! What good is money if you’re dead?
To say that these brave young men went to war because they were afraid of ‘what will the neighbours think’ how ludicrous! Who is Dorothy Day to accuse anyone of anything? She stayed home!
There is a difference between harassment and persecution. Dorothy Day was probably watched by the CIA and the FBI from her days spent with the communist, John Reed. Dorothy was harassed the Jews were persecuted, and THAT’s the difference!….For Dorothy to claim that all are our ‘brothers’ tell that to Elie Wiesel. Tell that man who lost his entire family that he should embrace his Nazi ‘brothers’ oh spare me!
You obviously have a slavish devotion to Dorothy Day and cannot bear anyone to oppose your own one eyed view, but at least recognise your ignorance.
I take more note of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Sophie and Hans Scholl(do you even KNOW who they are?). Blessed Maria Restituta Kafka, Saint Maximilian Kolbe over and above Dorothy Day.
Only those who have been through the fire have the Moral Authority to speak about it!
As for me I honour our war dead. I treasure my freedom and give thanks to those who fought for it. I remember the millions who were slaughtered by the Nazi’s. I respect the resistance fighters who stood their ground in a time of great moral crisis when it was a war of good vs evil.
Now I have more things to do than continue this debate. So take a chill pill Michael and go out and enjoy the sunshine and perhaps spare a thought for those young men who died on the beaches of Normandy!
Go in Peace
Marie
October 4, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Now lets take a look at my first response. Dorothy Day did not have the Moral authority to write about soldiers or what they did and didn’t do, especially as she decided to stay within the safe confines of her own free country.
She doesn’t have the right to make a gospel-based judgment on the military in the “free country” that you are describing? Why not?
And if what you say is true, then YOU have no right to talk about soldiers and what they did or did not do.
I will not accept nor tolerate what Dorothy Day is trying to do when she tries to paint both Allied soldiers and the Nazi’s/Japanese soldiers as if they were of the same calibre. There is a VAST difference and shame on anyone who tries to make this comparison.
When precisely did she do this?
Did it ever occur to Dorothy Day that the Allied soldiers fought because it was the right thing to do in a time where an evil despot such as Adolf Hitler intended to rule the world by force.
I’m sure the thought crossed her mind. Surely she thought something needed to be done about Hitler. But not war.
How patronizing to infer that these brave men went to war for money! What good is money if you’re dead?
You need to talk with current U.S. soldiers about why they enlist. A vast majority of them do it for the money or for the “opportunities” it will give them.
There is a difference between harassment and persecution. Dorothy Day was probably watched by the CIA and the FBI from her days spent with the communist, John Reed.
The Catholic Worker as a whole was harassed.
You obviously have a slavish devotion to Dorothy Day and cannot bear anyone to oppose your own one eyed view, but at least recognise your ignorance.
I do have a devotion to Dorothy Day, but I fail to see how this makes me blind about her. I don’t agree with everything she said. I would rather have a devotion to Day than to a mass of soldiers. Ignorance about what?
Only those who have been through the fire have the Moral Authority to speak about it!
Then you should take your own advice and quiet down, eh?
As for me I honour our war dead.
I choose, rather, to honor the saints of God.
October 5, 2007 at 10:11 am
“I would rather have a devotion to Dorothy Day than to a mass of soldiers.”
My goodness how glibly you dismiss the courage of ‘that mass of soldiers’. They were BOY’s who laid down their lives so YOU could enjoy YOUR freedom. Your ignorance is obvious to all.
God in peace
Marie (End of discussion)!
October 5, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Marie — I stand by what I said. You used the word devotion, a word with a meaning, and I’m explaining to you who the recipients of my devotion are: saints who are declared so because of their likeness to Christ. I think it’s important to sort out who the objects of our religious devotion are. You are making it clear who the objects of your devotion are. Consider how few soldiers are made saints, especially soldiers from the “great war” you admire so much.
(End of discussion)
Promise?
October 5, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Marie,
The joint owners of this blog are clearly not the “traditional” Catholics they claim to be. This was a good thread, you drew the poison slowly out of Michael for all to see.
October 5, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Joe – I have nothing to hide on this issue. I agree with the traditionalist Dorothy Day when it comes to war and the temptations of nationalism.
October 5, 2008 at 10:16 am
I think the issue that lies at the heart of this discussion, is individual pacifism vs. collective pacifism. Jesus’ “turn the other cheek,” and “those who die by the sword live by the sword ” statements leave us to wonder to what extent they are to be carried out.
Based on my own reflections, I believe, in our daily lives, we are meant to be agents of peace….with those who offend us, misjudge us, criticize us, annoy us, and abandon us.. We are to rebel against our pride and pursue the path of sacrifice and mortification.
However, on a collective/governmental leval, there are times when we must fight for the common good and the protection of our people. War should always be a last resort, but sometimes one must confront evil in order to secure the true peace which Jesus talks about. True peace does not gloss over injustices or turn a blind eye to dangerous dictators.
However, that being said, if we pursue holiness on an individual level, that peace will naturally spread to our families, our workplaces, our communitiies, our government and our world—thus eliminating the need for war.
I admire Dorothy Day for many differnt reasons. She fully believed in the inherent dignity of every person, and saw Christ in them. Her spirituality was one of heroic sacrafice, of conversion, of a faith put into practice. She lived mercy and had the heart of Christ. However, I beleive she was well-meaned, when it came to her complete pacifist stance on war, she was wrong.
Can she still be called a saint? Yes, for saints do not have to be “right” on everything. Saints have been wrong. Saints have made mistakes. Not everything a saint says can be quoted as Gospel. St. Jerome is quoted as saying, “The only good thng about marriage is that it brings forth more virgins.” Pope John Paul II admitted in his writings towards the the end of his life he should have been more of diciplinarian. You and I, by the call of he Second Vatican Council are called to sainthood. Have I been right on everything? Heck no! :)
If she is declared a saint, it will be because of ferver of her love, but not necessarily for her political views.
October 5, 2008 at 11:57 am
However, on a collective/governmental leval, there are times when we must fight for the common good and the protection of our people.
Our baptism into the Body of Christ changes who “our people” are. All those who are members of the Body, or potential members of the Body, i.e. all human beings are “our people.”
October 5, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Hi Michael,
While it is true that we are all one body in Christ, that does not mean we are not meant to have associations, or countries. It’s a necessity of life that we must prioritize according to our state in life. A father must look after the well being of his own children before he concerns himself with his neighbor’s children. The United States must protectt he well being of her people before she tackles the problems of the world.
There is no perfect political /economic system, if there was, Jesus would have told us about it. He did not come to change government (although he respected it and submitted himself to it). He came to change hearts, one at a time.
God Bless,
Kristin
October 5, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Kristin – 1) Families are natural. Nation-states are not. 2) Christ even changed the meaning of family, if you review the Gospels. 3) We must not prioritize our nation above the Body of Christ. To do so is idolatry.
October 5, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Did not God choose Isreal as his “chosen one?” Society must function on a basic level, just as families must function. A one-world government is not only impractical, but dangerous given the state of the world. Jesus preached love and unity among the human family, but he spent most the time with his chosen ones, the diciples.
If we are attacked, we are obliged to protect ourselves, our children. The just-war theory makes sense.