Vox Nova

66 Responses to “Letter urges Pope to protest war during U.S. visit”

1. Donald R. McClarey says:

   March 8, 2008 at 7:41 am

   Whatever would the Pope do without all the advice from people who think they know how to be pope better than he does?
2. Henry Karlson says:

   March 8, 2008 at 8:03 am

   Donald

   You mean all the people who tell the Pope his judgment on the injustice of the Iraq War (an issue of moral judgment) is wrong?
3. Daniel H. Conway says:

   March 8, 2008 at 9:00 am

   Mr. McClarey:

   You mean like Neuhuas, or Weigel?

   Perhaps we need to debate his competence in this area. That would be a very clever little act of subterfuge. But wait, First Things, that think tank of great Church loyalists already did that. Glad to have them on our side.
4. digbydolben says:

   March 8, 2008 at 9:41 am

   I wonder, Donald McClary, if Catholic Germans denounce popes for having made German emperors kneel in the snow. I think that, if you’d been an Englishman around in Becket’s day, you might have approved of the Angevin king’s summary treatment of Canterbury. In short, Donald McClary, isn’t it amazing how your “cafeteria” is always “open” for chauvinist nationalism and “closed” to any Apostolic rebuke of American power? Your positions vis-a-vis the Roman Church were condemned over a century ago, when the Roman pontiff excommunicated Charle Maurras for his dictum, “Politique d’abord.”
5. jh says:

   March 8, 2008 at 9:43 am

   Hmmm, I wonder if these Are the same people that would say the US should meet with Iran and there is no harm in talking. However it is a letter that is A fine tribute though to our fine American Civic religion :)

   I do note a couple of things. There seems not to be a ton of IRaqi names or Iraq based Catholic organizations on the list. When perhaps shall we consult them as to if they want us to high tail it out.

   Further I do note the latest US Bishops Statement on Iraq is not mentioned. In fact I noticed that often nowadays the latest US Bishop statement on Iraq is not hardly mentioned at al.

   Perhaps that is because the Bishops have sadi we have long passed the questions abnout the ethics of Interventions and now are into the much more complex questions about the ethics of withdrawal and Responsible transition.
6. Mark D. says:

   March 8, 2008 at 9:57 am

   Well, considering we are one or two excuses away from another unjust invasion (intervention)–of Iran–it would still be very pedagogical if the Pope to do something to remind the U.S. leader of the gravity of his moral failure in invading Iraq.
7. Henry Karlson says:

   March 8, 2008 at 10:06 am

   Mark

   You are right.

   And unlike what some might say, one’s view of the initial war in Iraq is very important; it demonstrates their views on an evil and an injustice. It just seems to me that people are using this to whitewash the whole enterprise.

   But if one thinks there was no problem, as some do, and they have no problem of similar interactions in other places in the world, as some who sing “bomb Iran” seem to think, then their position on Iraq continues to be very important and must be rejected. And it has significance in the election.

   I keep hearing people point out “well, whatever the reason Iraq is in a mess, we need to be there now.” Well, yes and no. It’s like saying “I broke into your home and destroyed what is inside; so I should be allowed to decide how it gets fixed.” No. You are responsible to helping fix the home, granted, but you don’t have the authority to determine how that is done. And as long as we are in Iraq as a military might dictating how the reconstruction is to be done, instead of listening to others and humbly admitting the error of the invasion itself, then the reconstruction effort is not a just action either, but a continuation of the original invasion. And that is why it is also important for a real metanoia and one to admit the error of the invasion, and to overcome the arrogance that thinks we are the ones with the solution. We aren’t.
8. jh says:

   March 8, 2008 at 10:20 am

   Mark How are two steps away from an invasion of Iran. I find that highly unlikely because what would we INVADE Iran with!!!!

   We do not have the resources. THis is why the surge occured in part because the US MIlitiary and Bush Administration recognized that the start of drawdown and withdrawal would have to start. If you are worried about IRan I would suggest a more pragamatic viewpoint is to keep US troops in Iraq.

   Needless to say any such Invasion, Unless Iran does something drastic, will not occur under this President.

   As usual the Vaticans, the Pope’s, and much of the Catholic Churches viewpoint is far more complex than often asserted. I can not help but notice that Pope Benedict continues not to spout all these things I hear he believes. He has chances whether they are when the President visits Rome or in his latest remarks which took place when the new Ambassador to the Holy See presented her Credentials.
9. jh says:

   March 8, 2008 at 10:34 am

   Henry people are not jsut trying to Whitewash the whole enterprise.

   I mean I suppose we can have the one millionth disscussion in this country among Catholics about just war ethics and the Iraq Invason.

   However as the Bishops say at some point one must sort of move on to other things or at least make room for that

   I understand the frustrations and the need to prompt people (Such as myself) that support US efforts in Iraq to always be thinking about our our continued presence in IRaq and to be challenged on it.

   However, I notice that is often viewed as a one way street. THere is often none or little consideration as to what the Iraqis want. There is no considerations of trying to keep up with the hard facts on the ground to see what is working and what is not. THere is often no acknowledgement that in fact some aspects of the surge have in fact brought much more stability to Iraq and empowered local communities. All of which makes us closer to leave.

   IF AQ or something similar came back from near death in IRaq because of a too quick US withdrawal one would have to ask what the US would do. I suspect if something dramatic happend and was traced back I suppose we would be re invading. I am fearful of that. I fearful of what the American public would demand in their anger. I am fearful that perhaps it would be total war and I doubt very much we would see much reconstruction money afterwards.

   Lot of questions all of which are too often ignored because it shows both sides in this debate that there are no easy answers.
10. Henry Karlson says:

    March 8, 2008 at 10:43 am

    James

    The Bishops have said we have to do something about the situation. They have not said the war is just, nor that our ways of dealing with the reconstruction are just. Moreover, they have not said we should “move on” and just ignore the culpability of what we did. Again, just to say, “Who cares” has implications of how we manage the situation now.

    As for “what the Iraqis want,” which Iraqis? The problem, once again, is that we put in a group of people in power and then say “see, they want us in” but yet we don’t even give THEM the authority to make decisions. We are not there listening to the people and doing their will; we are dictating to them what we say their will is to be. That is not the proper way.

    It’s why it is a yes and no. We need to be there. But we need to be there is a far different capacity than we are now. We need to be there in a way which doesn’t show we continue with the arrogance and methodology of the past which failed. We haven’t figured that out. We still act like WE are the ones who make the decisions. As long as we do that, and as long as we ignore and ridicule all responses from Iraqis which don’t want us there with excuses like “Well, they are for the enemy,” we will not be honest with the situation.

    Just remember, many other “dictators” in the past have said they entered lands to “help the people.” The revolutions in Eastern Europe eventually showed how false that was in the past. Have we learned from history? No.
11. Henry Karlson says:

    March 8, 2008 at 10:49 am

    James

    Btw, “There is often no acknowledgement that in fact some aspects of the surge have in fact brought much more stability to Iraq and empowered local communities” ignores many questions. First, how and why has it brought stability? Is it long-lasting or temporary? Is it from a just method or not? Which Iraqi communities? Has it destroyed others? What about them, if it has?

    A police state can be stable. Do you want one here in the US?
12. Dan says:

    March 8, 2008 at 10:55 am

    It amazes me how many military experts there are in the blogoshphere.
    The way I see it is we in the USA have not been attacked since 9-11. That suggests that something is working, since there certainly have been threats. So I guess the question you experts have to ask yourselves is do you know of the threats and did you see them coming, and did you do anything to stop them?
    Write some more nonsense, I am sure that is putting the fear of God into the terrorists.
13. Daniel H. Conway says:

    March 8, 2008 at 11:04 am

    Is success morality? Can one accomplish safety and sin? Absolutely.

    Is the whole “surrendering passions,” controlling apetites, “putting out an eye” if it damns you really about meat and fasting on Fridays? Is it just about sex?

    Why is it so hard for conservatives to accept that such habits and virtues of self-denial specifically apply to the activities and dispositions of war as well? That just winning a war is not a moral end.

    That self-denial and sacrifice in the name of Christ sometimes means putting oneself at a disadvantage militarily.

    Winning seems to be everything to conservatives when it comes to war. That no concept of ius in bello exists.

    This is the real agenda behind the Weigels when they write and act.
14. Henry Karlson says:

    March 8, 2008 at 11:06 am

    Dan

    So would you say Clinton’s policy after the first Twin Towers attack worked? After all, there were no other such attacks. Only when Bush came into office, and his team ignored the threats, did something happen. Seems to me Bush failed, because the attack happened on his watch. Seems like Clinton was far more successful in dealing with the threat: it ended in his time.

    Of course, that’s not the right way to look into it. Both Clinton and Bush were failures. I was just using your logic above.

    The problem with your analysis is you are thinking in the short term; at best, Osama thinks in a longer term situation, taking several years per attack. Just because we have had no attacks is not evidence of our success. It is just evidence of no attacks. On the other hand, the situation in Afghanistan AND in Iraq shows we are increasing, not decreasing, the terrorists and those who hate us. That to me is not a success.

    And even IF our work in Iraq has stopped attacks here (silly as it is) that does not make it just. That is the thing — you seem to suggest might means right? It doesn’t. It’s not valid to say “We will make some other nation face the wrath of terrorists for our sake.” Nope.
15. Jay Anderson says:

    March 8, 2008 at 11:11 am

    I feel pretty certain that the Pope will talk about Iraq during his visit, and that he will be brutally honest about his views, but that he will disappoint the signatories of this letter by not taking their advice.

    Furthermore, to presume to tell the Holy Father “… you MUST …” do anything, or to presume to tell him what he must surely be thinking on his birthday, is something I’d never dream of doing.
16. Henry Karlson says:

    March 8, 2008 at 11:16 am

    Jay

    Who is telling him what he “must” do? On the other hand, people are free to inform the Pope. If you read Church history, some saints have done so with some “zing” when they have done so. Plus, would you tell us St Paul was wrong when he told St Peter to eat with the gentiles?

    Certainly one cannot order the Pope to do anything; but one can indeed inform and suggest. And what is more, this suggestion is telling him to follow with his own declaration (like Paul to Peter). That says something and makes it different from many other “opinions.” I mean, did you read Michael Novak on the Pope’s Easter message about Iraq?
17. DarwinCatholic says:

    March 8, 2008 at 11:41 am

    Who is telling him what he “must” do? On the other hand, people are free to inform the Pope. If you read Church history, some saints have done so with some “zing” when they have done so.

    Indeed, this is hardly the first time that a list of people headed by Bishop Gumbleton have sought to “inform” the pope with some “zing”. I suppose one should at least give him credit for urging something which is not clearly against the pope’s will, this time.

    Like Jay, I am sure that the topic of Iraq will be addressed by the pope while he is here. I suspect that his remarks will not mirror the ideological bitterness and lack of concern for stability in Iraq shown by some members of the US “peace activist” community, and yet at the same time will be far from comfortable for those, like myself, who continue to believe that the war was more a good idea than not.

    This is because the current pope (and we are thrice blessed in this regard) thinks for himself and thinks clearly, with wisdom, sanctity and concern for humanity. In this regard, I’m rather more interested in listening to what he has to say that telling him what to say. And I would advise others to do the same.
18. Henry Karlson says:

    March 8, 2008 at 11:44 am

    “In the Middle East, besides some signs of hope in the dialogue between Israel and the Palestinian authority, nothing positive comes from Iraq, torn apart by continual slaughter as the civil population flees.”

    Pope Benedict XVI, Easter, 2007.

    While that is one year ago, the same things were said then about Iraq as they are today. “It’s going well” “we need to stay there” “same as usual, it’s going good.” The Pope said no.

    It’s still a no. We still haven’t learned.
19. Jay Anderson says:

    March 8, 2008 at 11:48 am

    From the letter:

    “If you meet with him, you MUST (emphasis added), then, meet as a prophet should …”

    I wouldn’t have mentioned it had it not been in the letter.
20. Henry Karlson says:

    March 8, 2008 at 11:51 am

    Jay

    I see it saying “if meet with him you must, then…” I don’t see a comma and the first you that you added in this post. Is it in the original? Can you show me the email? That one comma changes everything. But without it, it says “if you must meet him” in a poetic way.

    “If eat you must, then eat good food.”
21. Michael J. Iafrate says:

    March 8, 2008 at 11:57 am

    I read the “must” as a plea. That’s perfectly fine.

    Jay also assumes the the Pope believes he knows everything without getting any input from others. My understanding of our Pope is that he is not that arrogant.
22. Henry Karlson says:

    March 8, 2008 at 12:06 pm

    Michael

    It’s clearly a conditional statement, and not telling him what he must do; from the text I see here, Jay seems to add to it to make it say what it didn’t say.
23. Gerald L. Campbell says:

    March 8, 2008 at 12:17 pm

    JH says: “Mark How are two steps away from an invasion of Iran. I find that highly unlikely because what would we INVADE Iran with!!!!:

    JH, the answer is very simple: airpower and missile platforms.
24. jh says:

    March 8, 2008 at 12:26 pm

    Henry of course I do not want a police state.

    However to ignore the succcess and even the return of power and responsibility to local citizens in areas of Iraq is not proper. When the Secretary of State of the Vatican came to the US he refused to take the bait to say how or when US forces should withdrawal. He recognizes I think that the issues are complex.

    We must look the good and the bad. We must see and yes have the courage to admit when there is a possibility of success and if those efforts are paying off. We must do that along with seeing what is not working and what is bring chaos and tragedy.

    THis either/or as to Iraq by both sides does not reflect a reality. I also think that those that oppose the war in Iraq and to be more specific the contiuned presence of US troops in Iraq more often than not tryot have the Vatican and the Pope tkae positons as to withdrawal and future US policy that they have in fact not taken.

    In a sense they are doing what they were accusing their opponents who supported intervention of doing. Cherry Picking statements and not giving a full context or not pointing out when the Church hasdecided to remain silent.

    I suppose I am frustrated a tad that in the Cqtholic blogpshere there seems to be little attempt to keep up with the latest news in Iraq or try to understand the military and political complexity of the situation. In a sense the Catholic blogsphere is a mirror of the secualr world. Supporters just yell the good and the opponents just yell the bad. At the end of the day I have a feeling that both sides that try to dress all this up in Catholic Morality are just replaying old arguments. I myself am guilty of that and I am trying to look at it all sides so I can make prudential judgement as to what I should and should not support.

    However I do feel strongly that perhaps a rapid withdrawal of US troops regardless of the consequences is perhaps not the Catholic ethical thing to do. Even though it would make us Americans feel better so we could wash out hands of it.

    Reasonable people can disagree of course on this issue. However I do think in the end that there is little attention by anyone to the real facts on the ground. In the end American Catholics are perhaps just like all Americans. That is we are pretty bored with this and not willing to expend the energy to do it.
25. jh says:

    March 8, 2008 at 12:34 pm

    Gerald no doubt we could and might use various Military assets such as airpower and missile platforms ot take out Iran assets in the future depending ont he situation. OIf course what is the air is the dynamic of them getting a nuclear weapon.

    However I find it highly doubtful unless there will be full fledge invasion of Iran anytime in the forseeable future. For that to happen the Iranians would have to do something indeed drastic. Such as invade another country.

    In the end I suspect there might be some US bases in Iraq if Iran truly becomes a nuclear power. For the obvious reason that are similar to why we had them in Germany. If something happens one wants the conventional forces to battle it out so people have time to prevent the use of weapons we do not wish to think of being used. Something that I am afraid we shall be facing in case talks such as occuring at Annapllis and other places are not successful.
26. jh says:

    March 8, 2008 at 12:37 pm

    Henry indeed the Bishops have not said “who cares” as to discussion about the initial entry. However the American Bishops have also said other things must be considered. That is perhaps we can walk and chew gum at the same time.

    The fact that I see the latest American Bishops statement rarely quoted or in fact engaged speaks volumes to me. It does indeed show that people on all sides of this debate very frankly are pretty stubborn
27. jh says:

    March 8, 2008 at 12:38 pm

    Henry I am aware of the Pope’s Easter Message. Needless to say there have been significant developments since then
28. Gerald L. Campbell says:

    March 8, 2008 at 12:39 pm

    “Winning seems to be everything to conservatives when it comes to war.”

    Clauswitz defines war as an extension of politics by another means. But, in the final analysis, war is about politics. War is not something in and of itself, as Americans are inclined to believe.

    In Iraq, the military means that were employed did not achieve the political ends to which they were directed. The political mess still exists. We have not won the contest.

    Culturally, Americans tend to disassociate war and politics. This is a huge error. We tend to believe that if we use maximum force we will prevail. Not so. Power must be used proportionally for success. Political ends are always the objective in war. Unless those ends are realize, the contest is not over. In Iraq, the contest is far from over. New means must be employed to realize the end we seek.

    In WWII, hostilities in Europe were ended on May 8, 1945. But the political disposition of Europe was not settled. The Soviets refused to pull back to their borders. The final disposition of Europe was not settled until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990.

    To say the war in Europe only lasted for six years is to miss the point. Military hostilities ended, but the conflict raged for another 45 years!
29. Mark D. says:

    March 8, 2008 at 12:44 pm

    Jh,

    I am not so sure. This is an administration that was incessantly told–until they fired the generals who were telling them so–that we would need 350,00-450,000 soldiers to secure Iraq adequately post invasion. What did they do?

    Seymour Hersch has reportedly upon the administration’s itch–no, depraved drive–to find/construct a reason to go enter Iran. If one listens even cursorily to McCain talk, he reveals himself as even more eager. These are not exaggerations or opinions: they are facts.
30. Gerald L. Campbell says:

    March 8, 2008 at 12:53 pm

    Mark D.,

    You are correct. The Administration would like to attack Iran if it could find a way.

    This possibility is so real that Senator Biden told Bush directly that if the US attacked Iran without congressional approval he would call for impeachment proceedings to begin. The possibility of invasion has been very real — indeed, too real.
31. Henry Karlson says:

    March 8, 2008 at 1:09 pm

    JH

    The problem is people keep saying “There have been significant advancements.” Remember, “Mission accomplished”? It’s always been the talking point to criticism of the war — to keep saying “it’s different now” as if that fixes everything. But the honest thing is — it isn’t so much better; the situation is on the brink even now. And the message continues to be the same — from the same sources.

    And I would add if you don’t want a police state, how do you think an increase in police state somewhere else is any indication of any good going on? Again, one must look at the whole situation; it IS dire. Its so bad, Iraq is asking Iran for help. Look into that!
32. Michael J. Iafrate says:

    March 8, 2008 at 1:13 pm

    The fact that I see the latest American Bishops statement rarely quoted or in fact engaged speaks volumes to me. It does indeed show that people on all sides of this debate very frankly are pretty stubborn

    The latest bishops’ statement discusses what a disaster the Iraq war has become. It reiterates that the Popes judged invasion to be unjust, and that the bishops agreed. It calls for withdrawal as soon as possible.

    The assumption seems to be that withdrawing troops now would be irresponsible, as if there could be no effort to responsibly deal with the situation apart from the military presence. This is, quite simply, a naive faith in the use of the military for everything.
33. Henry Karlson says:

    March 8, 2008 at 1:16 pm

    Michael

    I was thinking of an analogy of the situation. A child rapist gets a young girl pregnant. Now does he have the right to claim her as his bride, and say he should be left out of jail to take care of the child, because he “made the situation bad” and now he “has to fix it”? Obviously not.

    Yet some think the argument differs when it is an unjust war. That because it was unjust that validates its continuation when on the scene. I don’t get it.

    As I have said, I can accept the US has a role to play in reconstruction. It must, however, be at the behest of Iraq and their dictates, not ours; and it must be in a totally different paradigm than the one being used (military).
34. Mark D. says:

    March 8, 2008 at 1:25 pm

    “It’s so bad. Iraq is asking Iran for help. Look into that.”

    Is it any wonder? We completely dismantled the Sunni Army post-Invasion. We did not have an adequate troop force to secure the country. The Shiites then reasserted themselves. Iran is a Shiite neighbor. Anyone taking a Middle Eastern 101 course at the local community college could have foreseen this…
35. Daniel H. Conway says:

    March 8, 2008 at 1:58 pm

    Unlike Mr. Anderson or Mr. DarwinCatholic, I expect that the Pope wil excel in diplomatic-speak in public and only venture slightly off this in private (which will be unrecorded). He unlikely to be as clear as he was prior to the Iraq debacle, especially now that he is Pope.

    As such, diplomacy-speak will embolden the die-hard war propagandists and they will continue to delude some less well versed in Rome-speak with propositions that go so far as to say that the Pope supports the Iraq war. More thoughtful right-wingers will be silent in a continued attempt to retain unity in their ranks, no matter how much they disagree with the propagandists. John Allen will write a column trying to decipher “Pope-speak” on this matter and be dismissed as a Communist.

    Been here before.
36. T. Shaw says:

    March 8, 2008 at 2:05 pm

    Even I (about the most right wing SOB walking upright) agreed with Pope John Paul II that the invasion was unwarranted. For his trouble, that rat: A. Sullivan called JPII an anti-semite. I don’t forget that.

    However, five years later we still need to try to fix what we broke.

    I remember when John Kerry and all the rest fo the VC sympathizers, er, peace movement/soviet sympathizers promised that there would be no massacres or concentration camps when the glorious People’s Army of NV took over Vietnam and Laos. Well, there were millions (Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam) murdered and millions more tortured and made refugees.

    We don’t want that to recur, if we can stop it. Do we?

    Finally, I don’t want the Pope used as the star prop in a ‘guerrilla theater’ indirectly staged by a bunch of I-don’t-know-who-they- are.
37. Michael J. Iafrate says:

    March 8, 2008 at 2:19 pm

    Finally, I don’t want the Pope used as the star prop in a ‘guerrilla theater’ indirectly staged by a bunch of I-don’t-know-who-they- are.

    How is this letter calling for such a thing? It’s not. It’s simply calling for him not to meet with Bush, or if he does, to be direct in witnessing to the Church’s condemnation of war.
38. Gerald L. Campbell says:

    March 8, 2008 at 3:01 pm

    “Finally, I don’t want the Pope used as the star prop in a ‘guerrilla theater’ indirectly staged by a bunch of I-don’t-know-who-they- are.”

    Is the Pope really so ill-informed that he would need to be so alerted? I hardly think so.

    This letter is for the sake of those who wrote it, not the Pope.
39. Gerald L. Campbell says:

    March 8, 2008 at 3:04 pm

    “indirectly staged by a bunch of I-don’t-know-who-they- are.”

    T. Shaw,

    This is funny. But haven’t you heard of “Sister Mary”? LOL
40. Matt says:

    March 8, 2008 at 3:15 pm

    So let me get this straight. People who support the evil of abortion and/or politicians who do are calling for the Pope to not visit the president of the US who largely opposes abortion. These same people want us to meet with Castro, Ahmadinejihad, Chavez, and various other oppressive, human rights violating, terrorist sponsoring leaders.

    I thought the lefties were all about dialoguing? I guess they draw the line at George Bush.

    God Bless,

    Matt
41. Matt says:

    March 8, 2008 at 3:15 pm

    ps. I note the first name is dissenting bishop Gumby.
42. Matt says:

    March 8, 2008 at 3:16 pm

    pps. oh, and not to be forgotten is Sr. Joan….
43. T. Shaw says:

    March 8, 2008 at 4:07 pm

    I had Sister Mary when I was in the First Grade in St. Eugene’s Chapel basement school annex of Sacred Heart Parish in the High Bridge Section of the Bronx.

    I’d love to see her today. She would be about 130 years old. I’m sure she’s in Heaven with the Angels and saints.

    I was able to get through the first grade in one try, believe it or not. That was 52 years ago.
44. DarwinCatholic says:

    March 8, 2008 at 4:15 pm

    I was thinking of an analogy of the situation. A child rapist gets a young girl pregnant. Now does he have the right to claim her as his bride, and say he should be left out of jail to take care of the child, because he “made the situation bad” and now he “has to fix it”? Obviously not.

    One must certainly admire your ability, Henry, to come up with analogies that are likely to make your opponents see red rather than forward any discussion.

    Here’s the question, though: Was overthrowing the violent and repressive Baathist regime a moral act on a par with raping a child?

    It seems pretty clear that no one could have questioned the moral legitimacy of the Iraqi people themselves waging a war of rebellion to overthrow Hussein. What’s in question is whether the US had the moral standing to do so instead. (I think so, you clearly think otherwise.)

    Now, maybe you haven’t been keeping on news out of Iraq, but most of the news accounts I’ve read recently by people in Iraq don’t make it sound like exactly committing major inhumane acts. For instance, there was a good article I read recently how several officers from 1-4 Cav in Bagdad had persuaded the (mostly Shiite) judicial authorities to release a Sunni man who had been held without charge for a number of months. Now, that’s certainly interfering in the way certain people in the Iraqi government wanted to run things, but it’s also clearly a good thing. Especially because it was achieved entirely through good will and persuasion, not through any threat of force.

    Similarly, I’ve read about US units which have persuaded the central government to resume food shipments out to small Sunni towns which it had been refusing food to. Denying the will of the government? Maybe. A bad thing? No.

    Certainly, getting rid of the Baathist regime resulted in far more chaos than almost anyone expected at the beginning. I can understand why some would argue it wasn’t worth it. But I don’t see how comparing the current situation to forcibly marrying the victim of a child rape gets us anywhere in the conversation.
45. Mark D. says:

    March 8, 2008 at 4:18 pm

    T. Shaw,

    You rule, as much as I almost always disagree with you! Not about an irresponsible pullout though…
46. Mark D. says:

    March 8, 2008 at 4:21 pm

    T. Shaw,

    You rule, as much as I almost always disagree with you! Not about an irresponsible pullout though…As my Obama Lord told me at the Youngstown Rally, during which I was gleefully onlt two back from the front stage (with no lighter for an encore, however), “We have to be as responsible in getting out as we were irresponsible in going in.”
47. Gerald L. Campbell says:

    March 8, 2008 at 4:34 pm

    T. Shaw,

    My First Grade teacher was Mary Jo Estep who taught at Lincoln Grade School in Toppenish, Washington, located on the Yakima Indian Reservation. She was the only survivor of the last Indian massacre in the United States that took place in 1911 near Winnemucca, Nevada . She lived in my father’s apartment complex for nearly 25 years.

    Check out this story:

    http://www.colescoles.com/gallery2/v/Historical/Families1/Estep.jpg.html
48. Henry Karlson says:

    March 8, 2008 at 4:40 pm

    “Certainly, getting rid of the Baathist regime resulted in far more chaos than almost anyone expected at the beginning”

    Really? Cheney years ago realized it. People pointed out the problem of such an invasion at the time of its debates; they expected the chaos and mentioned it. So many people act like it is all hindsight, but they are the same people who ignored all the criticism of the invasion and the arguments against it before it happened. They criticized those who disagreed then, and then try to rewrite history, so they can act like they didn’t make arguments based upon what happened. Sorry, that doesn’t work.

    And yes, an injust war is the rape of a land; and the kind of looting which has taken place as a result of the war itself shows this. Now, you can show me some people have done good; I can show you people Stalin helped out, too. Does it make what he did just or right? No.
49. DarwinCatholic says:

    March 8, 2008 at 5:37 pm

    Henry,

    Well, there’s expected and there’s expected.

    I remember listening to NPR before the invasion and they were interviewing people on the street about how it would go. Probably the most pessimistic person they interviewed said, “If we lose a thousand people there and have to stay more than a year, that would be a disaster.”

    Now at the time, I thought that was idiotic. I figured we would be getting off fairly well if we got out with under 10,000 killed an 5-10 years on the ground there. So in that sense — I’m not surprised.

    I did not in the least expect US military authorities to decide to give free reign to looting and revenge killing right after the initial liberation — so the breakdown in Bagdad was more than I expected. Take your pick. Personally, I expected much more fighting and bloodshed, but rather less chaos.

    On the flip side, I remember some in the anti-war faction predicting before the war that there would be a humanitarian crisis and millions would starve within the year. That didn’t happen either. So clearly, it’s been better than some expected.

    I’ll cede the point if you really feel strongly about it.

    You’re eliding the difference between “not sufficiently justified” and “fundamentally unjust” though, and that’s making your whole line of argument an exercise in assuming the answer.
50. Michael Iafrate says:

    March 8, 2008 at 5:48 pm

    The u.s. bishops tended to use language like “not sufficiently justified” while the popes and Vatican officials used language that was more like “fundamentally unjust.”

    The former gives the impression that such an invasion would have been justified if we could have only dug up some more information or some other reason to go to war. Like the Bush administration continually did by changing the reasons why we went to war.

    The latter does not allow for that kind of game playing. Just wars must be defensive wars. Pre-emptive war is not in the Catechism, as Ratzinger pointed out, and thus fundamentally unjust.
51. Jimmy Mac says:

    March 8, 2008 at 7:08 pm

    Jh:

    “How are (we) two steps away from the invasion of Iran? I find that highly unlikely because what would we INVADE Iran with???? We do not have the resources.”

    That was no problem when we invaded Iraq, was it? How did Rummy put it: “As you know, you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want,”

    Spoken like a TRUE chicken hawk!
52. Jay Anderson says:

    March 8, 2008 at 9:54 pm

    I see that I misread what the letter said. It reads “If meet with him you must, …” Sorry about that.

    I still think that sentence is rather presumptuous, though, in telling the Holy Father how he should conduct his meeting with President Bush.
53. Michael Iafrate says:

    March 8, 2008 at 11:34 pm

    Jay – Again, as one who is actually a part of the Catholic peace movement, unlike yourself, this obviously reads like a plea to the Pope rather than as a command.
54. RPFN says:

    March 9, 2008 at 3:14 am

    Too late to add my signature to the letter?
55. Henry Karlson says:

    March 9, 2008 at 3:52 am

    Jay

    The problem is — it is now a plea instead of a demand; and it is quite possible for us to ask the Pope to do things and explain why. Indeed, it is something quite traditional. And there have even been times when people have told the Pope things he should do — and were right to do so (look to St Catherine).
56. Michael J. Iafrate says:

    March 9, 2008 at 3:29 pm

    So let me get this straight. People who support the evil of abortion and/or politicians who do are calling for the Pope to not visit the president of the US who largely opposes abortion. These same people want us to meet with Castro, Ahmadinejihad, Chavez, and various other oppressive, human rights violating, terrorist sponsoring leaders.

    Not sure you succeeded in “getting this straight.” You’re not making any sense here. For example:

    These same people want us to meet with Castro…

    Who the hell is the “us” you’re talking about, Matt? John Paul II met with Castro, thus “we” DID meet with Castro! Your allegiance, though, is with the u.s.a., not with the Church and you can see this in how you use the words “us” and “we.”

    ps. I note the first name is dissenting bishop Gumby.
    pps. oh, and not to be forgotten is Sr. Joan….

    Both of whom remain in good standing with the Church.

    Matt, you seem to share TeutonicTim’s laziness of thinking.
57. Matt says:

    March 9, 2008 at 8:46 pm

    The list of lefties signing that are among those saying Obama is the Catholic choice for president of the US. Obama wants to meet with the above mentioned terrorists. Presumably those lefties want “us” to meet with them, therefore they are being incredibly hypocritical for objecting to the Pope meeting. Did the same lefties give His Holiness demands for the meeting with the murderer Castro?

    bishop Gumby and Sr. Joan have objectively separated themselves from the Church for teaching heresy. It requires no declaration from the Vatican. They are not “in good standing”.

    Please refrain from petty games about the meaning of “us”, it really is beneath even you. Try and be polite. Politicratus tells me that being impolite is bad.
    God Bless,

    Matt
58. Padrevic says:

    March 9, 2008 at 10:16 pm

    Matt,
    I think it is quite rude of you to refer to Bishop Gumbleton as “bishop Gumby”. You might disagree with him, you might not like him but as far as I can tell he has been a Bishop longer than you have been alive and like it or not he is still in good standing with the Church and your disrespect is shameful. Who knows maybe you were just trying to take a cheap shot at him because of the stance he has taken but he is still a Bishop and as such he still deserves the title and respect it is due.

    I know you are fond of saying “God Bless” at the end of your post…do you think that takes you off the hook for the mean things you say (you are not the only one) and division you create? I think you can either try to dialog in here of just go cause trouble elsewhere…I realize that it might not seem like dialog, but since you are insistent of trying to stir up trouble, I think some in here have lost patients with you, I know mine wears thin at times, but let us strive for honest dialog in here, it is a wonderful forum and hope that the less than charitable attitudes I see in here will come to a end soon.

    enjoy Lent
    peace to all
59. Mark D. says:

    March 10, 2008 at 1:53 am

    “Obama wants to meet with the above terrorists.”

    Matt,

    Intellectual honesty is a precondition for genuine dialogue.

    Repeating these talk radio convolusions and outright falsehoods to yourself may give you a temporay mental balm you ‘need’ to get by in your ultimately unsatisfying narrow ideological universe, but it does nothing to deem you a worthy conversation partner in this or any thread.

    The choice is yours. Genuinely vying for truth and having the humility to discard our own falsehood is a lifelong process that does bring us together and ultimately will set us free.
60. Jay Anderson says:

    March 10, 2008 at 7:54 am

    Let’s just say I’d NEVER sign on to a letter like this regarding abortion were the Holy Father about to meet with a President Clinton or President Obama. I MIGHT go so far as to wrtite a blog post that says what I HOPE the Pope might do in such a meeting. But even that would seem rather presumptuous on my part.

    The Pope knows what he wants to say and what he wants to accomplish. I would never discourage him from meeting with the leader of any nation that he was visiting, nor try to influence his agenda in meeting with said leader.

    And, actually, I believe the timing of the trip is unfortunate coming as it is in an election year, because I believe both parties will try to make political hay out of it, spinning it for their own agenda, rather than letting the Pope’s message speak for itself.

    But, again, who am I to question when the Holy Father decides to come for a visit. I’m just glad he’s coming.
61. Lex injusta non est lex says:

    March 10, 2008 at 10:03 am

    Yes, this is very important but I would like to see an equally long pettition asking the Holy Father to condemn the scourge of divorce in America, fatherlessness in America and the missaplication of the authentic social teaching of the Church. One cannot do everything but in a country that is falling off the rails, no one point is sufficient in terms of social commentary.
62. Michael Iafrate says:

    March 10, 2008 at 2:21 pm

    Yes, this is very important but I would like to see an equally long pettition asking the Holy Father to condemn the scourge of divorce in America, fatherlessness in America and the missaplication of the authentic social teaching of the Church. One cannot do everything but in a country that is falling off the rails, no one point is sufficient in terms of social commentary.

    These are, of course, important issues. But issues of life and death, particularly when there is an immediate ability to stop the killing, seems to be a more pressing situation.
63. Athanasius Gardner says:

    March 11, 2008 at 3:44 pm

    There are a million Iraqis dead now who would not be dead if the invasion had taken place. (Please note before you shriek that the same methodology has been used as is used to calculate the death toll in Darfur). There are four million refugees and internally displaced persons who would not be such if the invasion had not taken place. Death squads, torture, etc are all just as prevalent as under Saddam, only arguably more terrifying since perpetration of the above is far more decentralised and anarchic. (Electric drills are favoured as torture implements by Shiite death squads from various pro-occupation militias, anti-occupation militias doubtless have their own preferred techniques). A secular state has vanished and the position of the Christian community is rapidly deteriorating. (Not that the ignorant fundamentalist berks backing Bush would would see them as true Christians anyway). The infrastructure has almost totally collapsed, and the healthcare system is in total meltdown. Meanwhile, amidst the carnage, progress is smooth towards the real business, the passing of a new oil law opening up the oil industry to American and British corporate penetration on more pre-OPEC exploitative terms.

    To repeat, once again for those with ADD, the US and UK continue to support a wide variety of tyrants and despots throughout the Middle East: not least the disgusting piece of filth that is Saudi Arabia, along with Egypt, Morocco, the quasi-feudal Gulf shiekhdoms left behind by the British when they pulled out in 1971 having previously crushed a variety of secular left-nationalist movements, etc etc. Only when particular tyrants prove problematic are they removed. Nasser was a despot, (but a popular one), but pursued his own course, and was therefore demonised. Mubarak is a despot, but our despot, and is therefore lionised (and given massive military and other aid, second only behind Israel). Ghaddafi is a despot, but now he is our despot, the destruction of Iraq having had the desired effect of terrifying him into line. Saddam was a despot, but he was our despot when he attacked Iran, and we gave him chemical and biological weapons, and helped him lay the foundations for a nuclear programme. When he invaded Kuwait (a fake country created by the British to deny Iraq a meaningful coastline and a loyal stooge of the West ever since its independence in 1961, and as devoid of democracy in 2008 as it was in 1990) he was no longer our despot. After we had pushed him out of Kuwait, smashed Iraq to bits, and his people rose up to get rid of him, he suddenly became our despot again and we let him put down the uprising in great bloodshed. From 1991 to 2003 we laid siege to Iraq with a medieval siege of sanctions, and bombed it repeatedly (we ran out of targets quite rapidly, with blackly comic results, we started bombing flocks of sheep, and I’m not making that up!): Iraqi society disintegrated, any hope of political change evaporated along with the Iraqi middle class, and a million people died as a consequence, including half a million children. Meanwhile Saddam consolidated his grip on power, barely kept the country alive with quasi-wartime rationing, and quickly disposed of the WMD given to him by his former Western friends, who said the opposite, lying so repeatedly that maybe they even started to believe it. And then of course Iraq was invaded, basically because it could be: not for liberty, but for oil, and hegemony, and strategic advantage. And as far as power is concerned, chaos and Iraqis dying all over the place is just fine, ‘cos its the oil we need, and the less Iraqis around to get in the way, the better.

    This obsession with abortion to the exclusion of all other political issues has once again produced some amusing results in terms of hate figures de jour that the angry rightists (and please note, in my definition, as with anyone outside the great republic looking in, Republicans are far right, and Democrats are centre right to far right) string together. Iran, as with all other Islamist tinged polities bans abortion, while being pretty repressive at the same time, while the US does not. Chavez, whatever you make of him, has now won over half a dozen elections and referenda, and survived a US backed coup in 2002, compared to Bush, who of course lost in 2000, but ended up in power anyway, and is allied to the returned Ortega in Nicaragua, who has also more or less banned abortion there, mainly to give people who have no interest in any other issues an excuse not to be motivated to try and overthrow him as before. As with all right-wing politicians in the US Bush mouths anti-abortion rhetoric to use guillible fools as voting fodder, then does nothing about it, to ensure that said fodder can be whipped up into a hysterical frenzy and summoned foaming to the polling booth at future opportunities. And if we define terrorism as “the use of violence, or the threat of violence, by non state actors to achieve political goals” and “state-sponsoring of terrorism” as the support of such non-state actors by state actors”, then all states, including the US, do this all the time. It’s called foreign policy. Osama bin Laden was on our payroll once. Luis Posada Carriles is another example that comes to mind. He blew up planes too. If Castro is to be called a murderer, then so are most political leaders.

    The US was not, is not, and never will be in the “overthrowing tyrants” business, except when it suits its interests. That’s how the mind of great power run rampant works, whatever the rhetoric. Even Hitler was smashed primarily because an autarkic Nazi-dominated Europe (and much else) cut off behind high trade barriers was in the long run harmful to US economic interests since the dynamism of the US economy could no longer be contained in or satisfied with the home market alone, but had to burst those bounds and break open the world to its products, and remake the world in its own image, far more consistently than even the British had ever done before. (Hence “anti-imperialist imperialism” in relation to the old European empires, and the desire to break down the barriers of Stalin after breaking down the barriers of Hitler, the Cold War lasting as long as those barriers held steady before they finally disintegrated).

    So many of the posters here fail to see the wood of the long term pattern for the trees of particulars. Wake up and smell the coffee! Political and socio-economic reality is not “bunk”, or “one damn thing after another”, rather it has patterns, dynamics, structures, rules of the game, and laws of motion. Crude empiricism is no help here. The scope of scientia extends to society as well as to subatomic particles, for there is one world, not two.
64. How very ‘definitive’! « Vox Nova says:

    March 14, 2008 at 4:33 pm

    [...] Commenting on a letter to Pope Benedict XVI signed by over 1200 Catholics and non-Catholics, which Michael Iafrate posted here at Vox Nova, Hartline launches his misguided salvo: A who’s who of Church dissidents and [...]
65. Pie and Coffee » Items says:

    April 23, 2008 at 11:45 am

    [...] I’ve seen essentially nothing about the fact that the pope failed to mention the war, despite many Catholics asking him to do [...]
66. Follower of Jesus says:

    February 18, 2009 at 8:31 pm

    I can tell you that these are many of the same people who want talks with Iran. I know one of whom is a retired minister who has long ago given up on his faith. Having turned from it, he is embracing every other way possible to achieve a utopia on earth; to find a peace that has eluded him for the past four decades.
    There is no world peace without peace within. The many who dispise the U.S. involvement in the Middle East look askance at the vitriolic hatred expressed by Muslims toward Israel. They, too, have no peace within themselves, doing violence to each other if not to their enemies.