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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

And as for your position on abortion while still supporting the Iraq war– I’m sure Christ would dub you a hypocrite.

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.

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.