“War must be the last resort, because it’s always a sign of human failure.” So said the papal nuncio to the United States, Archbishop Pietro Sambi, in a recent interview with John Allen. This is a theme that I have stressed many times on this blog now, for I feel there is a major blindness among certain American Catholics who have adopted, without thinking, the theology of “liberation through military force”– a theology every bit as flawed and dangerous and its Marxist-inpired cousin. And yes, George Weigel, I’m looking at you.
In the zeal for military force, they often forget that war is a last resort, and is therefore–by definition– a sign of failure. And, following from this, no good can come of something that derives from failure and defeat (Blackadder has a good, complementary, discussion on this topic this morning). Another key point we often forget is how war affects those who fight it, even those wars that do pass the tough tests of validity. How many return from war forever scarred by their experiences? How many have done things in the heat of the moment that will forever haunt their consciences? In such vulnerable circumstances, the whispers of Satan in one’s ear seem to sound more appealing than ever.
This is why the glorification of the military and military service– so prominent in modern American society– disturbs me greatly. Why is it such noble service to do something that only arises as a result of failure? Why is it so honorable to face some of the most evil temptations known to humanity? Were the torturers of Abu Ghraib known to have sociopathic tendencies before they arrived in Iraq. I think not. Indeed, one account points to the sensitivity and mildless of one of the torturers, Sabrina Harman. Of course, this great evil stems directly from the unjustness of the Iraq war and the evil policies promulgated by its intigators.
What about World War 2, which usually does pass muster as a just war. Just look at the millions dead. Look the the ruined continent. Look at the mental and pschological devastation. Look at the tightening of the communist grip. And how noble were the supposed victors in that war? Can the glorification of the “greatest generation” be squared with war crimes of enormous gravity– the indiscriminate bombings of Dresden, Toyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki…? Remember, these acts are intrinsically evil, which means the underlying justice (or lack thereof) of the war is irrelevant.
And what about Vietnam? What about the wanton massacres of civilians by scared trigger-happy American soliders who had no place being there in the first place? Is this something noble? No, and I applaud John Kerry for coming back and saying as much. Of course, with the nationalist crowd, this was his greatest sin.
Nothing I am saying here should be interpretated as dogmatic pacifism. I believe in the just war theory, though I believe such wars are exceeding rare and, as Pope Benedict once noted, may no longer even exist in the modern era. But I do not believe military service is a noble and honorable endeavor. It is a great occasion of sin and evil. It is a profession that exists solely as a result of sin in the world, solely as a sign of human failure. This is something to repent, not cheer.
To close, I would remind everybody of the wise counsel once given by St. Basil of Caesarea. In trying to square Christian teachings with the miltary profession, be noted that soliders who kill in war should not be treated in the same way as those guilty of homocide. But they are not off the book either: “it is well to counsel that those whose hands are not clean only abstain from communion for three years.” I think it would be a good idea to resurrect this teaching, so show that the Church must stand apart from a culture that glorifies military service. Ironically, of course, those who do wish to ban people from communion in modern American would blanch at the thought of including soldiers.
April 7, 2008 at 12:02 pm
“Why is it such noble service to do something that only arises as a result of failure? Why is it so honorable to face some of the most evil temptations known to humanity?”
There are all sorts of things we consider noble service precisely because they arise as the result of failure. Policemen, firefighters, politicians, people who run homeless shelters and soup kitchens, all of them do what they do only because of failure. But that doesn’t mean that there service isn’t noble, just the opposite.
Likewise, I would think that the fact someone faces evil temptations for a good cause would be self-evidently honorable (whether wars do involve the most evil temptations known to humanity, however, is not so clear to me; unfortunately people are quite capable of committing horrendous evils during peace time as well).
April 7, 2008 at 12:19 pm
I thionk most American Catholics, as well as mnay world wide , would balk at this because the Catechism says
CCC 2310: Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense. Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.
So I suspect yes most American Catholics as well as others would sort of start asking questions about this communion ban
I also think even the most conservative of Catholics would balk at the idea of Catholics not being able to recieve communnion for 15 years if they fell to the temptaton of SSA or 6 years if they went and got a tarot reading. All of reach St basil recommend
April 7, 2008 at 12:35 pm
The communion point may indeed be a terrible idea. The broader point is that we need to continue “returning to the sources” and look at how the Fathers dealt with Christians who fought wars. Personally, I think the next big development in theology will be moving away from being too closely-aligned with the nation state and all that entails.
April 7, 2008 at 1:01 pm
As far as “liberation by military force” goes, the latest Econtalk podcast features Christopher Coyne talking about his book After War: The Political Economy of Exporting Democracy. I haven’t had a chance to listen to it yet, but from the summary, it sounds like he concludes that the best way to liberate the populations of repressive regimes is a non-interventionist foreign policy combined with free trade.
April 7, 2008 at 1:36 pm
In a better world, the bellicose George Weigel and Michael Novak would be doing for their intellectual transgressions continual public penance in front of the National Shrine in Washington D.C. until this senseless war comes to some responsibe end.
April 7, 2008 at 1:37 pm
There is no dishonor in fighting a just war but shouldn’t we be slamming our troops for participating in an unjust war? Does “my military superior told me to” remove moral culpability?
April 7, 2008 at 5:00 pm
“There is no dishonor in fighting a just war but shouldn’t we be slamming our troops for participating in an unjust war? Does “my military superior told me to” remove moral culpability?”
There is a good discussion of these issues in Francisco de Vitoria’s De Indis De Jure Belli. (Part III, paragraphs 20 through 31). Vitoria’s conclusions, in brief, are that a soldier should not fight in a war he believes to be unjust, but that if he is merely doubtful on the matter he should defer to the decision of the prince (i.e. the government).
April 7, 2008 at 6:47 pm
^ Even if the soldiers are excused by virtue of invincible ignorance, at the very least, we shouldn’t celebrate their mistake in judgment. If Obama were to become President, should we call on him to deny medals of honor to those who participated in the initial invasion of Iraq?
April 7, 2008 at 6:51 pm
I feel there is a major blindness among certain American Catholics who have adopted, without thinking, the theology of “liberation through military force”– a theology every bit as flawed and dangerous and its Marxist-inpired cousin.
Careful… while I get what you’re saying: 1) Most Latin American liberation theology was not “inspired” by Marxism, but rather makes selective use of its method of critiquing capitalism. 2) Most liberation theologians simply ascribe to just war teaching which holds that violence is a necessary evil sometimes, but not the means of liberation. This is simply the mainstream Catholic view on violence, as opposed to the views of Weigel, et al. who do believe in “liberation through military force.”
Vitoria’s conclusions, in brief, are that a soldier should not fight in a war he believes to be unjust, but that if he is merely doubtful on the matter he should defer to the decision of the prince (i.e. the government).
Simply AMAZING that Vitoria says this. God forbid that if the soldier is “doubtful” that he listen to his Church! Confusion of allegiance, plain and simple!
April 7, 2008 at 7:39 pm
MIchael,
Vitoria wasn’t considering a case where the Church has weighed in on a conflict one way or the other, so the charge of a confusion of allegiance is not really applicable.
Cardinal Newman does address this question in his Letter to the Duke of Norfolk (in a section entitled, appropriately enough, “Divided Allegiance”), wherein he says, “were I actually a soldier or sailor in her Majesty’s service, and sent to take part in a war which I could not in my conscience see to be unjust, and should the Pope suddenly bid all Catholic soldiers and sailors to retire from the service, here again, taking the advice of others, as best I could, I should not obey him.”
Now one could, of course, accuse Newman of having a confused allegiance, even though the Letter to the Duke of Norfolk is considered one of the classic works on the Church’s view of conscience and authority. But be honest, if the Church were to declare fighting in a particular conflict righteous, you wouldn’t accept that as binding, would you?
April 7, 2008 at 8:23 pm
But be honest, if the Church were to declare fighting in a particular conflict righteous, you wouldn’t accept that as binding, would you?
Even if the Church were to judge a particular war just (the word “righteous” would probably not be used), it would not force Christians to fight in it. The Church could, however, forbid a Christian to fight in a particular war. It works one way but not the other.
April 7, 2008 at 9:54 pm
But the Church hasn’t forbidden anyone from fighting in the Iraq war.
April 7, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Point taken, Michael.
April 7, 2008 at 10:31 pm
But the Church hasn’t forbidden anyone from fighting in the Iraq war.
You’re right “the Church” as a whole have not, although at least one bishop has done so in his diocese. This is beside the point, as I was addressing the question I quoted above. My point is that if the Church said a particular war is indeed just, the Church in all likelihood would not require Catholics to agree, nor would the Church force its members to fight. The Church has always had its pacifists, and the Church now explicitly upholds pacifism as an option. On the other hand, the Church could theoretically judge a particular war unjust and find the matter so grave that she would forbid the faithful to participate, as Bishop Botean did in his own diocese regarding the Iraq War. This is what I mean when I say it works one way but not the other. Whether or not I would accept that Church’s approval of a given war as “binding” is irrelevant, because the Church would in all likelihood not force anyone to fight in it.
April 7, 2008 at 11:14 pm
I think it would be a good idea to resurrect this teaching, so show that the Church must stand apart from a culture that glorifies military service. Ironically, of course, those who do wish to ban people from communion in modern American would blanch at the thought of including soldiers.
I have said this repeatedly as well, having heard of the ancient “communion ban” from Stanley Hauerwas. How far we have strayed from the wisdom of the Church fathers. Now we have warrior priests in camo vestments who ride around in tanks with the soldiers with a cibourium at the ready. An absolute desecration of the Holy Eucharist, in my opinion.
April 8, 2008 at 2:54 am
I am against the war in Iraq. But let’s not be more Catholic than the Pope! Deciding whether something is sinful or sacreligious or whether someone should be allowed to receive Communion is not the perogative of Joe Schmo Catholic, which is something the right wing tends to forget when it comes to pro-abortion politicians, altar girls or communion in the hand. The military chaplaincy is one of the oldest ministries in the Church, and not only does the Holy Father tolerate it (as have all of his predecessors, as far as I know) he actually nurtures it through the various military dioceses. Catholics in the armed forces do confront an inordinate degree of temptation, and the last thing he would do would be to deny these souls the pastoral care of the Church.
The x number of years “communion ban” idea has to be one of the most pastorally disasterous strategies I have ever heard anyone suggest. There is respect for the Fathers and then there is archeologism (15 years away for a single act of sodomy, regardless of whether you’ve repented!) We benefit from the modern insights of St. Pius X and the Liturgical Movement regarding the reception of Holy Communion, as St. Basil did not. The spiritual consequences of going 3, 15, or however many years without the Eucharist are horrific, which is why we are commanded to receive at least once a year. The Lord said “feed my sheep,” not “starve them for a certain amount of time based on their past behavior.”
April 8, 2008 at 9:43 am
Magdaena,
Deciding whether something is sinful or sacreligious or whether someone should be allowed to receive Communion is not the perogative of Joe Schmo Catholic, which is something the right wing tends to forget when it comes to pro-abortion politicians, altar girls or communion in the hand.
Nevertheless, the Church has a longstanding tradition of excommunication. I’m not suggesting it is up to “Joe Schmo Catholic” whether or not someone should receive communion. I’m saying it’s up to the authority of the Church. The Church has that authority and indeed uses it at times. I’m not saying the Church should increase the general rate at which it excommunicates people, but I am saying that Church authorities should exercise the right to withhold communion when it is a matter, at the very least, of members of the Body of Christ killing other members, and also when the members are involved in unjust killing (which is always gravely evil — ALWAYS).
Catholics in the armed forces do confront an inordinate degree of temptation, and the last thing he would do would be to deny these souls the pastoral care of the Church.
The first temptation many of them succumb to is fighting in an unjust war.
Magdalena – Do you think abortionists should be allowed to receive communion? Are you against “starving” them as well?
April 8, 2008 at 10:41 am
[...] opinion piece stemming from this quote is on Vox Nova http://vox-nova.com/2008/04/07/war-and-failure/ And the original context for the quote is in this interview [...]
April 8, 2008 at 11:00 am
Magdalena – At the very least, I would argue that the Church should not deploy its warrior priests in the case of an unjust war. To do so is to render its judgment of the war, as well as its overall moral authority, a farce.
April 8, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Michael,
Yes, I would be absolutely opposed to setting up a “waiting period” for those who are guilty of abortion or for any other sin. In my eyes it would almost rise to the level of an injustice or as I said, starvation. In the sacrament of reconciliation our sin is obliterated to the point that it is said that “God forgets” our sins. If God Himself is willing to “forget” then there is no point in His Bride, the Church, setting up a years-long waiting period in order to “remember.” i do not know the timeline, but I suspect that St. Basil lived and wrote in a time before the full development of our understanding of sacramental Confession and what it means to be absolved. We understand the Eucharist more fully today as well, and I can not imagine a pastor of souls prescribing a 3 or 15 year abstention for this sin or that sin, because it would lead to spiritual devestation in the Body of Christ. We can’t afford that kind of famine.
Doctrine has also developed regarding military service, to the point that the Church teaches that “those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.” If we are honest we can acknowledge that that’s hardly material for the confessional at all, let alone denial of the Eucharist. If the goal is to prevent the Church from being mired in the glorification of arms (a worthy goal, I agree) then there are better ways to do it than creating a sweeping interdict.
With regard to the presence of military chaplains – the Church leaves decisions about the justness of wars to the consciences of individual Catholics. Obviously we have to do more to form consciences properly and to make Catholics aware of conscientious objection, etc. Regardless, a priest’s place is with sinners. We can not point at a group of people and say, “We will not come among you, your sins are too scarlet.” The Christ who ministered among prostitutes would not scruple to be with soldiers who are serving in a war they may or may not believe, in conscience, to be just. I think from the Church’s point of view, the presence of a Catholic chaplain is not equivalent to “approval” of a particular conflict; instead the figure of the priest-chaplain should be viewed in the context of ministry. He is meant to be a sign in the midst of all the evil of war, a reminder of the victory of the Cross, and a source of spiritual consolation to the children of God. We can not condemn people for falling into a pit and then deny them the means to pull themselves out.
April 8, 2008 at 1:45 pm
those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.
Can we put this quote in the banner of the website, because this line from the Catechism is quoted by commenters in JUST ABOUT EVERY THREAD ON THIS BLOG.
Can we not think critically, and be SERIOUS about following the Lord and Church teaching, rather than throwing up a vague sentence from the Catechism to defend everything “our boys” do?
April 8, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Michael,
I hope you don’t think I am being unserious or that I am trying to defend everything “our boys” do. I wouldn’t, because I definitley don’t like everything they do. Like I said, I am against the war.
Do you really think that line from the Catechism is all that vague? I think it says very clearly that military service can be a positive contribution to the common good, IOW, wearing the uniform is not sinful and does not impede one’s walk with Christ; in fact, if duties are carried out honorably, they contribute to building His kingdom. I’m not saying that it’s AOK with the Church for soldiers to serve in wars they know to be unjust. But as a profession soldiering is no longer considered as negative as it was in early Christianity. Not at all. Our doctrine has developed with a greater understanding for the complexity of the issue.
The OP may feel that military service is something dishonorable, something to be repented of, and that is ok. I was just quoting the Catechism to illustrate how far the sensus fidei is from agreeing with him about the prudence of denying soldiers the Eucharist.
April 8, 2008 at 10:44 pm
I do think it’s a vague passage, and one that is frequently cited in order to let the troops off the hook. Not saying you are necessarily doing so, especially if you say you are against the war. However, the Catholic approach, sadly, is to make a universal statement like that passage from the Catechism and not apply just war teaching to actual conflicts, and to not ask tough questions about u.s. empire or the concrete truth about the u.s. military.
But as a profession soldiering is no longer considered as negative as it was in early Christianity. Not at all. Our doctrine has developed with a greater understanding for the complexity of the issue.
I think this is a problem. A BIG problem. I would disagree with your interpretation of doctrine in this case. It has in fact become less complex, especially as interpreted by american interpreters.
I am working on a paper now which asks the very concrete question of whether it is appropriate for american Catholics to be a part of the u.s. military, as it exists RIGHT NOW, looking at the entire military culture, what it actually does in the real world. The u.s. Catholic Church is not asking the tough questions. If we would, we would see that the u.s. military is a cult, a cult with its own process of discipleship which is at odds with Christian discipleship. Aside from the abstract question of whether or not military service is EVER legitimate, I think it’s important to ask questions about actual life in our own context, and our context is a culture of death with a military charged with defending it.
April 9, 2008 at 12:20 pm
I don’t know if this simply adds heat rather than light given the dispositions of those involved here, but having had the suggestion farther up the thread that any further Medal of Honor nominations for the Iraq War be denied by a president Obama (on the theory that participation in an unjust war can never be honorable) simmering at the back of my mind for the last couple days, I was struck by this post about a recent Medal of Honor recipient:
http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2008/04/i-will-go-in-their-stead.html
Is this an example of a cult which is directly contrary to Christian discipleship?
And come to that, is the inherent goodness of such an act really determined by the cause of the war? Wouldn’t a Weirmacht soldier who sacrified himself for others this way be worthy of admiration?
By all means, write your paper. That’s what grad students do. But ruling that whole areas of society are incapable of authentic Christian virtue sounds to me awfully… dualistic.
April 9, 2008 at 5:07 pm
It’s no more dualistic than St Ignatius’ two standards. It’s no more dualistic than the judgments we make about the morality of abortion. It’s no more dualistic than when the Church says one cannot be a Catholic and a Mason at the same time.
I’m sure there are non-Christian cults that would encourage their members to sacrifice their lives for the tribe, sure. I’m not sure what is specifically Christian about that.
April 9, 2008 at 5:08 pm
The image of Christ on that blog you referenced, Darwin, is from St Joseph’s Cathedral from my home diocese of Wheeling-Charleston. Nice to see a “familiar face.”
April 10, 2008 at 5:01 am
I am ashamed of all of you. Your very right to free speech in the country is defended by the very same ‘warriors’ you condemn.
April 10, 2008 at 8:54 am
I am ashamed of all of you. Your very right to free speech in the country is defended by the very same ‘warriors’ you condemn.
Oh brother.
April 10, 2008 at 10:17 am
Laura– A large majority, if not most, countries in the world offer at least the same rights to free speech as the US– what makes it stand apart? This is the American exceptionalist nonsense we need to keep a lid on.
April 10, 2008 at 11:17 am
“Now we have warrior priests in camo vestments who ride around in tanks with the soldiers with a ciborium at the ready. An absolute descecration of the Holy Eucharist, in my opinion.”
Military chaplaincy has been around for hundreds of years. The Church has approved of this. In fact, the largest diocese in terms of land mass is technically the Archdiocese for the Military Services of the U.S., which ministers to the U.S. military all over the world!
Besides, I cannot take anyone who has a site entitled “Catholic Anarchy” seriously. The two terms are a contradiction. The Church stands for a moral order, which is the exact opposite of anarchy.
April 10, 2008 at 11:31 am
In fact, the largest diocese in terms of land mass is technically the Archdiocese for the Military Services of the U.S., which ministers to the U.S. military all over the world!
The military archdiocese isn’t territorial. The land mass of the archdiocese is precisely zero. Rather than ‘is technically’ you mean ‘could be seen as’.
April 10, 2008 at 12:54 pm
One of those dreadful military chaplains, a man known as the “grunt padre” of Vietnam, was awarded the Purple Heart and the Medal of Honor. He is also a candidate for sainthood:
http://www.vincentcapodanno.org/
April 10, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Military chaplaincy has been around for hundreds of years. The Church has approved of this.
And your point is… what? That the Church has never explicitly approved of evil? That the Church has never sinned? Please.
Chaplaincy indeed has been around for a long time. But it has not always existed in the history of the Church.
Besides, I cannot take anyone who has a site entitled “Catholic Anarchy” seriously.
Great way to shut down a discussion. Deal with my ideas, not the name of my website.
I can’t take anyone seriously who believes the Church has never done anything wrong.
The two terms are a contradiction. The Church stands for a moral order, which is the exact opposite of anarchy.
I also cannot take seriously anyone who dismisses an entire tradition of political thought but who obviously knows absolutely NOTHING about said tradition. Anarchism also stands for a moral order, just like the Church.
One of those dreadful military chaplains, a man known as the “grunt padre” of Vietnam, was awarded the Purple Heart and the Medal of Honor. He is also a candidate for sainthood…
And Donna’s point is… again… what? That whatever the Church is doing, or has done, must be 100% correct? God forbid. Can we not be self-critical? The Church must always be self-critical and ask itself if its activities are faithful to the Gospel or not.
April 10, 2008 at 8:27 pm
What is my point? Gee, I thought it was pretty obvious, even to The Smartest Man In West Virginia.
MM made a disparging remark about “warrior priests” who wear fatigues and grub around with the unclean monsters in the tanks and choppers. Well, Servant of God Vincent Capodanno wore fatigues and rode in tanks and choppers – because he was out there giving last rites on the battlefield and dragged wounded men to safety. Chaplains in fatigues aren’t wearing them to look macho, they’re wearing them to blend in.. A Chaplain is already an easy target for enemy troops because he’s the only one out there without a weapon. Wearing a black and a Roman collar in a combat zone would be like painting a bullseye on your back.
From the Capodanno website:
However, it was in battle where Fr. Capodanno excelled and inspired. He would find out from friends in military intelligence which unit was most likely to encounter the heaviest contact and volunteer for those assignments.Marines would find him walking dangerous perimeters and keeping company with them in distant jungle outposts. The Grunt Padre could be seen leaping out of a helicopter in the midst of battle. He would care for the wounded, bless troops, and give communion to Catholics, before taking off for another battle zone.
On September 4, 1967, the helicopter carrying him to the site of battle crashed during a large-scale offensive named Operation Swift. The 5th Marines found themselves in dire straights, outnumbered 5-to-1 by 2500 North Vietnamese regular troops.Although wounded three times in the course of the battle, Fr. Capodanno refused to be medi-vacked. Like a ray of hope in the midst of the storm, he went up and down the line caring for the wounded and anointing the dying.During the fierce fighting, the chaplain spotted a wounded corpsman hit by a burst of automatic fire and unable to move. Fr. Capodanno ran to his aid and began to care for his wounds. A Viet Cong machine gunner opened fire. With 27 bullet wounds in his spine, neck, and head, the Grunt Padre fell in battle, serving his men to the end.All over Vietnam, the Marines mourned their Padre
Hence, the Purple Heart. And the Bronze Star. And the Medal of Honor. And the petition for canonization.
Should Fr. Capodanno have refused communion to these men, most of whom were frightened teens in daily peril of their lives? Should he have stayed safely in the rear, leaving them to die alone in the dirt, because that’s really what such human scum deserves?
Like Laura, I am ashamed of you. Oh, I know you don’t feel it. Your dominant emotion seems to be a feeling of superiority. Yes, you’re all so spiritually and morally superior to Servant of God Capodanno.
April 10, 2008 at 9:28 pm
MM made a disparging remark about “warrior priests” who wear fatigues and grub around with the unclean monsters in the tanks and choppers.
Get your facts straight. I made that comment, not MM.
Chaplains in fatigues aren’t wearing them to look macho, they’re wearing them to blend in.
Since when are clerics supposed to “blend in”?! The vocation of the priest is precisely one of witness, not of “blending in,” especially not blending in with a killing machine.
Funny, how many on the right will criticize priests for not wearing the collar so that they don’t “stick out” in public. Yet when it comes to “blending in” with the military — of all places! — it’s quite all right.
Hence, the Purple Heart. And the Bronze Star. And the Medal of Honor. And the petition for canonization.
The purple heart and bronze star and medal of honor are rewards from the nation-state for raising the morale and soothing the religious consciences of men who, to the state, were nothing but killing machines. Capodanno served the state well, for sure. He deserves the awards of the state, if this narrative is true. Whether or not this makes him saintly is another matter entirely, and I recommend you reflect on both sets of honors separately. The state and the Church are often at odds, and their “saints” do not always correspond.
Should he have stayed safely in the rear, leaving them to die alone in the dirt, because that’s really what such human scum deserves?
No human being deserves to be used as a killing machine. Fr. Capodanno would have served his Church better by helping those guys get out of the military, not by soothing their consciences with the Holy Eucharist.
Your dominant emotion seems to be a feeling of superiority. Yes, you’re all so spiritually and morally superior to Servant of God Capodanno.
I’m a sinner just like Capodanno. Where have I claimed to be morally superior to him? Only because I have criticized military chaplaincy? Because you criticize me, does that mean you think you are morally superior to me? Like the following comment?
Gee, I thought it was pretty obvious, even to The Smartest Man In West Virginia.
Can we lay off the cracks about my home state? Who is the one acting “superior” to whom?
I will not apologize for refusing to idolize soldiers, as you do, simply because they are soldiers.
April 10, 2008 at 9:31 pm
I believe military chaplains should serve one core functions: for soliders to confess their sins.
April 10, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Funny, how many on the right will criticize priests for not wearing the collar so that they don’t “stick out” in public. Yet when it comes to “blending in” with the military — of all places! — it’s quite all right.
Well, walking around on the streets of an American city is a tad bit different than running around on a battlefield, wouldn’t you say? You’re awfully cavalier about the risk to someone else’s neck.
I am not a physically brave person. I wouldn’t have the courage do what Capodanno did. I strongly doubt you (or 99% of us would), but at least I don’t mistake cowardice for enlightenment.
You are one of C.S. Lewis’ “men without chests.” Keep on sitting in your study, dreaming your silly anarchist dreams, and disparging better men than yourself.
April 10, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Somebody got her ‘intellectual courage’ up after her pre-testing the insults with her thread-buddies over at the Blog Site formerly known as the Cafeteria is Closed.
April 10, 2008 at 10:12 pm
St. Basil was not promoting some oddball notion about personal responsibility for violence during wartime. Public penance for violence during military service, even in what were regarded as “just wars,” was codified in manuals for confessors (penitentials) into the 2nd millenium. (St. Thomas’s rationalizations for violence in service of country helped put an end to the practice.) An excellent recent treatment of this subject is available in Bernard Verkamp’s The Moral Treatment of Returning Warriors in Early Medieval and Modern Times. Verkamp does not think contemporary attitudes toward military service are healthier for soldiers or for society than these long-forgotten ones were. I agree.
April 10, 2008 at 10:19 pm
“Intellectual courage?” Where do you get this stuff from? Running onto a battlefield to give last rites and communion is brave. Jumping on a grenade to save your buddies is brave. Blogging and writing comments on a blog thread is not, unless you’re writing things critical of the government in China or Iran – because, contrary to what MM says, a lot of the world really doesn’t have free speech.
I am sorry for dissing WVA. It is a very pretty state. Weird senators, but at least they’ve been voting right in Presidential elections lately.
April 10, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Donna – Keep up the superiority bit.
Mark – She may have whipped up some kind of “courage” over at Gerald’s place, but I would hardly call it “intellectual.” Not that Donna is not capable of actual critical thought. I think she probably is. She simply isn’t demonstrating it when she idolizes soldiers and makes demeaning comments about a person’s place of origin.
April 10, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Another important use of quotation marks is to indicate or call attention to ironic or apologetic words. Ironic quotation marks can also be called scare, sneer, shock, or distance quotes. Ironic quotation marks are sometimes gestured in oral speech using air quotes:
My brother claimed he was too ‘busy’ to help me.
Quotation marks indicating ironic use of a term should be used with care. Without the intonational cues of speech, they can obscure the writer’s intended meaning. They can also be confused easily with direct quotations, so some style guides specify single quotation marks for this usage, and double quotation marks for verbatim speech.
April 10, 2008 at 10:37 pm
“men without chests?” That’s me, and proud of it. None of the phoiny macho culture for me, thank you very much– a culture that the pope recently condemned, by the way. I realize that this conytemporary American values brawn over brain, but I’ll take brain any day of the week, thank you very much.
April 10, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Er, Mark, I used quotation marks because I was quoting you.
Michael, you told me I wasn’t reading carefully enough before, but you seem to be having the same difficulty. No I didn’t “whip up some kind of ‘courage’” (see, Mark, I used quotation marks! Because I’m quoting Michael!) at Gerald’s because, like I said before, blogging and making comments on a blog requires no courage at all. None on your part, none on my part. I don’t claim to be brave – that is part of the reason I admire those who are so much.
April 10, 2008 at 10:52 pm
MM: I knew a fair number of ex-military men in DC who used the GI bill to get good educations. Brains and brawn are not always mutually exclusive.
April 10, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Donna,
It’s sad that you are unable to see that courage extends far beyond and above the military battlefield–particularly as we have all sufferred tremendously during these past seven years under an administration whose modus operandi is the manufacture and exploitation of fear.
Perhaps this explains the frequency of your visitations to/citations from Little Green Footballs, Weekly Standard and their like.
April 10, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Mark, as you know, I admire those who rescued Jews during WWII. I admire those who are now languishing in Chinese and Cuban and Iranian prisoners for daring to speak out against the government. I admire Ayaan Hirsi Ali for risking her life to warn of the dangers of radical Islam. I admire the few Islamic moderates who have publicly condemned terror and the jihadis. I admire the man the Pope baptised on Easter Sunday. My admiration of bravery is not limited to the military, but it certainly includes them. And a reluctance to acknowledge.their bravery – even the heroism of Servant of God Fr. Capodanno, who ministered on the battlefield to dying men – and to see it as a virtue strikes me as the action of mean-spirited people. I’m not saying you have to be in favor of the war. MM might be proud of being a man without a chest, but C.S. Lewis hardly meant it as a compliment.
April 11, 2008 at 12:35 am
ron chandonia, thank you for the great reference!
April 11, 2008 at 3:51 am
Speaking of courage, I think this quote from Jean-Marie Cardinal Lustiger is great, and helps show what true courage Christians are required to engage.
We have entered a period of extreme violence which is reaching its climax in the threat of the self-destruction of humanity. Men and women have lost their faith in personal action as being able to avert such collective forces. How brave Christians would have to be to believe in the effectiveness of a personal confession of failure concerning the respect for life that God requires of them!
We have entered a period when human reason has tried to set up conflict as a scientific law of progress in history. Men and women are dubious about the effectiveness of a personal love which shows mercy. How brave Christians would have to be to believe in the effectiveness of forgiveness which is received and shared and which gives the strength to love one’s enemies as children of the same Father in heaven!
We have entered a period of mass movements where everyone feels powerless to change a collective destiny and thus lose a sense of responsibility. Men and women are dubious about the effect on humanity of the offering up of their liberty in secret. What courage Christians are going to need to receive from Christ the penance and compassion of a contrite heart which unites them to the task of saving the world!
We have entered a time of collective guilt; men and women do not see that a personal word of repentance can have any significance. What courage Christians are going to need in order to receieve from Christ the savior the hope of pardon and the joy of deliverance where the Spirit anticipates the Resurrection!”
“A Trial Indicating the Spiritual Destiny of Our Times” in Dare to Live. trans. M.N.L. Couve de Murville (NY: Crossroad, 1988).152-153.
April 11, 2008 at 6:27 am
Fine words from Cardinal Lustinger, who lived to pen them because of the actions of Allied troops.
April 11, 2008 at 8:03 am
Now, he lived to pen them because of Christ…. you might see salvation in arms, Cardinal Lustinger saw it in Christ, and the Christian hope which transcended the worldly despair which leads to violence.
April 11, 2008 at 10:46 am
We see clearly now where Donna places her trust (i.e. faith).
“Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help and rely on horses, and trust in chariots because they are many and in horsemen because they are very strong, but they do not look to the Holy One of Israel, nor seek the LORD!” (Isaiah 31:1)
“Some boast in chariots and some in horses, but we will boast in the name of the LORD, our God.” (Psalm 20:7)
April 11, 2008 at 10:55 am
Well, apparently the Pope himself does not simply rely on prayer to protect him:
Building on their training in their traditional service in the Swiss military, members wear a long sword (officers a rapier or straight sabre) and receive instruction in the ceremonial use of their halberd on a four-sided pole which is held on their right during marches, drill, and regular formations in their official duties around the Vatican. Other weapons and regalia carried by higher ranking non-halberdiers include: a command baton, a partisan, a flamberge (a wavy two-handed sword), and breastplate with shoulder guards. The Guard also engages in yearly rifle competition and receives self-defense instruction, as well as basic instruction on defensive bodyguard tactics not dissimilar to those used in the protection of many heads of state.
Catholics are not Quakers.
April 11, 2008 at 11:01 am
Let’s be gentler on Donna. I think she has a thing for men in uniform.
Wasn’t there a Gang of Four song about that in the early 80s?
April 11, 2008 at 11:05 am
More about the Swiss Guard:
After the May 13, 1981 assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II by Mehmet Ali Ağca, a much stronger emphasis has been made on the Swiss Guards’ functional, non-ceremonial roles. This has included enhanced training in unarmed combat and small arms. The small arms are the same as those used in the Swiss army.
Mark: no, I have a thing for valor and courage.
April 11, 2008 at 11:33 am
Donna,
Then you and I should share a mutual admiration for men and women (particularly, a young Chicago politician, a few courageous journalists and the few very vocal bishops) who had the courage to speak out against the unjust, imprudent and unnecessary American use of military force in Iraq (and, most likely, soon in Iran) in our national time of fear and war mongering.
April 11, 2008 at 11:44 am
I’m sorry, Mark, I do not share your admiration for a politican with a 100% NARAL rating. And while I fully support the right of people to oppose the war, I do not agree with them. Nor do I think their opposition is particularly brave, since you and everyone else who opposes it is perfectly free to speak your minds without fear of being shipped off to an Alaskan gulag.
April 12, 2008 at 1:30 am
Now aren’t we generating more heat than light? I would love to see Fr. Capodanno canonized. If he is, would the Church be putting its stamp of approval on the Vietnam war? Of course not. Rather it would be an acknowledgement of Fr. Capodanno’s selfless devotion to his flock. I would imagine he would qualify as a “martyr of charity” in the manner of St. Kolbe.
The Church’s ministry to the military upsets some people,while other people see red because the Church has a ministry to those with SSA or to murderers on death row. Luckily it is not up to us to determine who is pure enough to be ministered to.
April 12, 2008 at 10:44 am
Well, Donna, it’s awfully big of you to grant Pope John Paul, Pope Benedict, and pretty much the universal Church the “right to oppose the war”. I guess they really don’t understand the concept of just war, or moral theology in general, do they?
And as for your position on abortion while still supporting the Iraq war– I’m sure Christ would dub you a hypocrite.
April 12, 2008 at 11:54 am
Magdalena, you continue to miss the point. Ministering to soldiers is not a problem because the soldiers aren’t “pure enough.” It’s a problem because when the Church does this, they are showing support for the war itself in its actions, despite what the Church SAYS about a particular war. This is plainly obvious; as much as it would be if the Church were to open up a chapel in an abortion clinic so that the doctors could attend daily Mass. It’s not about purity.
I find it odd that you would compare the Church’s ministry to soldiers and its ministry to death row inmates. The former is “ministry” to the state. The latter is ministry to the victims of the state. These are important distinctions which further show that you are way off if you think this is about purity.
April 12, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Setting up a three year period for estrangement from the Eucharist for those who have been “contaminated” by military service strikes me as an attempt to protect the Church from the “impurity” of those whose “hands are not clean” as St. Basil says. After all the goal is to make sure the Church “stands apart” from (IOW is not contaminated by) a militaristic culture, isn’t it?
The reason we wouldn’t put a chapel in an abortion clinic is because abortion is a sin. The current teaching of the Catholic Church plainly and clearly states that merely belonging to the armed forces is NOT a sin (notice I said nothng about this war or any other particular war). Catholics in the military are in good standing with their bishop and in full communion with the Holy See. I know this bothers pacifists intensely, but doctrine has developed and the sensus catholicus is quite clear. Even with regard to the Iraq war specifically, one bishop – one! gave it his official condemnation as a mortal sin to serve. Incidentally I don’t think he has condemned military service in general, has he?
Again, would canonizing Fr. Capadanno make a statement either way about the Vietnam war? Definitely not! Was the Church condoning the war between the English and the French by canonizing St. Joan of Arc? She was at the head of the bloody army.
Like I said, it irritates other people that we have a ministry to homosexuals (by ministering to them, are we condoing sodomy or the gay lifestyle? Nooo, but try telling that to a wingnut).
I am positive that the Archbishop of the military service does not think of his role as “ministry to the State.” Instead I am sure he strongly feels that he has a ministry to the 1.4 million Catholic souls who constitute his charge.
April 12, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Setting up a three year period for estrangement from the Eucharist for those who have been “contaminated” by military service strikes me as an attempt to protect the Church from the “impurity” of those whose “hands are not clean” as St. Basil says. After all the goal is to make sure the Church “stands apart” from (IOW is not contaminated by) a militaristic culture, isn’t it?
You don’t believe in penance? It IS one of the seven sacraments.
You don’t think the Church should stand apart from military culture in any sense? Wow, there is a lot to the military that I’m sure you would want ti distance yourself from: torture, sexual assault, etc.
The reason we wouldn’t put a chapel in an abortion clinic is because abortion is a sin. The current teaching of the Catholic Church plainly and clearly states that merely belonging to the armed forces is NOT a sin (notice I said nothng about this war or any other particular war).
BUT MY POINT is that that the Church should AT LEAST not deploy soldier-priests for wars that the Church has judged to be unjust. Can you not AT LEAST grant that that should not be done? Killing unjustly is sinful. THAT IS WHY abortion is sinful. It is also why unjust wars are sinful. The Church should not speak out of both sides of her mouth in the case of an unjust war. It’s either sinful or it is not.
Catholics in the military are in good standing with their bishop and in full communion with the Holy See.
Technically, yes, but they are also going against the judgment of the Church. I see no reason why the Church should go out of its way to follow these guys around with the Eucharist in these cases.
Like I said, it irritates other people that we have a ministry to homosexuals (by ministering to them, are we condoing sodomy or the gay lifestyle? Nooo, but try telling that to a wingnut).
Who has a ministry to homosexuals? You mean the ministries that are (wrongfully) condemned by the Church?
I am positive that the Archbishop of the military service does not think of his role as “ministry to the State.” Instead I am sure he strongly feels that he has a ministry to the 1.4 million Catholic souls who constitute his charge.
The state certainly feels as though the Church is serving the state. This is obvious. It is also obvious that the 1.4 million Catholic souls you mention have taken a life and death oath to obey the STATE under any circumstances, rather than the Church. They have EXPLICITLY sworn to obey the STATE over and above the CHURCH. The U.S. military archdiocese does NOT serve “the Church.” It serves the state.
April 12, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Of course I believe in all seven sacraments, and of course I don’t want the Church mixed up with militarism, any more than I would want Her mixed up with nationalism or socialism or any other -ism. There is no need to be so personal.
Penance is supposed to benefit the soul of the penitent. A penance that involves a years-long forced fast from the Eucharist is not going to bear good spiritual fruit. Do you see how this would be a pastoral disaster? Can you imagine the souls that would be lost? Sometimes I get the feeling that your intellect is more engaged with the abstract, theoretical side of theology, and there is nothing wrong with that, but certainly you understand that bishops and pastors have to be concerned with the more “practical” side? Three year penances for military service and 15 year penances for sodomy may be satisfying from a particular theological perspective, but the spiritual consequences would be tragic. I don’t mean to suggest that your ideas don’t have practical relevance, they do.
Yes, the armed forces are sworn to protect the United States of America and its secular Constitution. Wouldn’t you be disturbed if there was a codicil instructing them to follow the orders of the pope? Incidentally, servicemen do not obey the state under any circumstance, in fact modern military law forbids them to accept illegal orders. The police, judges, and even the president of the United States take a similar secular oath.
We will have to agree to disagree about the Archdiocese for the Military Services. The archbishop and his chaplains have no input on military policy or strategy. Their sole concern is the spiritual welfare of Catholics in the armed forces. How this fits into “serving the state” I don’t think I’m able to understand.
The judgment of whether a war is just or not lies with the individual conscience of the soldier. It is our responsibility to form consciences properly, but it is not our place to invade the interior forum. Again, neither the Holy Father nor the vast, vast number of bishops have come out and said that serving in Iraq was a mortal sin, which they certainly would if they wished to make a definitive stateement that it was unjust. I think it was unjust to invade Iraq, but there is no point in pretending that this is the formal “teaching” of the Catholic Church or that every Catholic is bound to agree. They aren’t. And if someone legitimately disagrees with us, are we going to cut them off from their pastors, from the sacraments?
April 13, 2008 at 12:59 am
A penance that involves a years-long forced fast from the Eucharist is not going to bear good spiritual fruit. Do you see how this would be a pastoral disaster? Can you imagine the souls that would be lost?
I think telling Catholic soldiers that they bear no responsibility for killing human beings in an unjust war, that the fault lies with the president, etc. (this is what they are told) is a bigger and more serious pastoral disaster. No where have I suggested a forced fast from the eucharist alone. I think the Church needs to engage in serious ministry with soldiers coming back from battle. Part of that needs to include serious penance. Part involves de-militarizing them so they don’t abuse their wives and kids. THIS is the kind of ministry that soldiers need, not eucharist handouts on the battlefield to massage their consciences.
Sometimes I get the feeling that your intellect is more engaged with the abstract, theoretical side of theology, and there is nothing wrong with that, but certainly you understand that bishops and pastors have to be concerned with the more “practical” side?
How would you have any idea what my intellect engages? I know several soldiers and talk to them about these issues. I am committed to a type of theology that deliberately rejects overly theoretical theology. You have no clue.
Yes, the armed forces are sworn to protect the United States of America and its secular Constitution. Wouldn’t you be disturbed if there was a codicil instructing them to follow the orders of the pope?
Your thinking here is truly bizarre. I am not in favor of the u.s. military taking an oath to the Pope, no. I am in favor of Catholic soldiers being Catholics first, thinking with the Church, and only engaging in wars that are judged to be just by the Roman Catholic Church. Most soldiers do not take Church teaching on particular wars seriously, or they would not fight in them. This is simple.
Incidentally, servicemen do not obey the state under any circumstance, in fact modern military law forbids them to accept illegal orders.
Not only was this war illegal, it was against the teaching of the Church. Most Catholic soldiers ignored it. In practice, Catholic soldiers obey the state, even when the war is unjust and illegal. This is a matter of concrete practice, verifiable data.
We will have to agree to disagree about the Archdiocese for the Military Services. The archbishop and his chaplains have no input on military policy or strategy. Their sole concern is the spiritual welfare of Catholics in the armed forces.
Your dualistic thinking is dangerous. The military archdiocese’s concern is the spiritual welfare of Catholic soldiers, yes, but this spiritual welfare includes what the soldiers do with their bodies. The Catholic faith is embodied faith. You cannot separate one’s “spiritual” life from the physical. When chaplains show “concern” for the soldier’s “spiritual life” while ignoring what he is doing with his body (allowing it it be used as a killing machine in the unjust destruction of human life), then the chaplain is involved in grave sinfulness.
…I think it was unjust to invade Iraq, but there is no point in pretending that this is the formal “teaching” of the Catholic Church…
Baloney. Just war teaching IS the formal teaching of the Catholic Church. Break open your catechism. Ratzinger noted the obviousness of the Iraq War’s “unjustness” when he said that a preemptive war does not appear in the Catechism. Cut and dry, official, formal Catholic teaching.
Your last paragraph is so soaked in liberal individualism. I fully believe in the primacy of conscience. But breaking with the Church’s thinking must be done in seriousness. It’s an exception to the rule. Especially when it involves the taking of human life, an activity that you seem so cavalier about.
Again, neither the Holy Father nor the vast, vast number of bishops have come out and said that serving in Iraq was a mortal sin, which they certainly would if they wished to make a definitive stateement that it was unjust.
Two reasons why it has not been emphasized: 1) Participating in an unjust war is so clearly a mortal sin, it needs not be emphasized any more than Ratzinger and JPII did. Catholics throughout the rest of the world, more than americans, are sure of the gravity of the sinfulness of the u.s. war in Iraq. Indeed, most people of good will throughout the world agreed with the Church. As Ratzinger said, using the Catechism, it’s obvious. 2) Most u.s. bishops are content to issue vague denouncements of the war but are sadly too cowardly to do what Bishop Botean did, which is to make the obvious pastoral judgment. Who knows how many priests and bishops did counsel u.s. Catholic soldiers privately, if they ever gave a damn to seek counsel, that fighting in the Iraq War would be a mortal sin. I hope a few did. But most of our shepherds, at least in their public role, failed us.
April 14, 2008 at 12:08 am
Michael,
You have a lot of good ideas but you limit your effectiveness when you couch them in, again, overly-personal langauge. I promise I am not trying to be cavalier about anything. Please do not take what I said about your intellectual engagement personally, I did not mean to be offensive. My intention was to point out that barring servicemen from the Eucharist is an unrealistic pastoral strategy which no bishop is going to adopt. Complaints about the vague denouncements and the cowardice of US bishops for failing to adhere to a particular pastoral plan echo the right-wing ridigity on the pro-abort politicians issue, and that’s way below you. I think that you are a serious Catholic striving to know the truth in charity, and I hope you will extend the same consideration to me. I do not think I have given you any reason to doubt it.
Other countries which at some point had military servicemen in Iraq include Catholic nations like Spain and even Italy. Cardinal Ruini celebrated the funeral Mass for 19 Italian servicemen killed in Iraq at St. Paul’s Outside the Walls. As far as I know, not one national bishop’s conference, in fact not one other bishop any where has made the kind of statement that Bishop Botean did. They strenuously (and courageously) objected to the commencement of armed conflict but none, none but him have made any negative statement regarding the moral position of service personnel. How have all these bishops in communion with the Holy See, and the Holy Father himself, missed the obvious pastoral judgement? Are they all, including Papa Benedict, cowards? Could it be that in reality the situation is more complex than you understand at this time?
How do you know that soldiers have not “broken with the Church’s thinking” “in seriousness?” How do we know what is going on in the interior forum? We can not deny access to the sacraments based on speculation on what may or may not be going on in someone’s conscience. Again, I think here is where (forgive me) your theology is taking you to an impractical place.
April 14, 2008 at 1:11 am
How have all these bishops in communion with the Holy See, and the Holy Father himself, missed the obvious pastoral judgement? Are they all, including Papa Benedict, cowards? Could it be that in reality the situation is more complex than you understand at this time?
It’s not complex. The Catholic Church has historically looked to its own institutional survival above all else on these sorts of occasions. The Church, on an official level, will denounce war, but it usually will not jeopardize its existence by going too far. The Church must remain a “good citizen” of the nation-state. This is the case no matter which country it finds itself. It’s a mixture of communal cowardice and historical precedent.
Again, I think here is where (forgive me) your theology is taking you to an impractical place.
I’m not looking to develop a “practical” theology in the sense that you mean. I’m interested in a faithful theology. A faithful theology of war and peace — and a corresponding pastoral practice — MUST hold soldiers accountable for what they do with their bodies. Invoking the “sacredness of the conscience” won’t do. u.s. Catholic soldiers are part of a system that distorts their consciences purposefully. I think my soldier friends would agree that the very purpose of military training in the u.s. is to distort the conscience.
May 30, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Hi
The Church has been propagating that its teachings are peaceful but when confronted with a rational situation then they would leave the Bible aside and follow Just-war Doctrine enacted later and which is extra-biblical.
Kinldy visit my blogiste and read two posts
“Would Jesus Support War?”
and “A peaceful man that Muhammad was”
You may if you like give your peaceful comments and or have a peaceful discussion if you so choose.
You are welcome.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim