(Cross-posted at The Catholic Blues)
Recently Father Zuhlsdorf described US warships as “gorgeous” and “amazing”, naming those slain by these warships as “educated”. After receiving criticism, Fr. Z explained: “I do not apologize . . . [America] pulled many other peoples’ fat out of the fire with the blood of her soldiers, sailors and marines. Pope Benedict in his first Message for the World Day of Peace pointed out the importance of military intervention at times to establish the proper framework for true peace.”
But did Fr. Z read all of the Pope’s World Day of Peace message, “In Truth, Peace“, where he stated that “[lies] are the framework for menacing scenarios of death in many parts of the world . . . truths are what make peace possible”?
Lies include calling machines made for slaughter – battleships – “gorgeous”. Battleships are not beautiful. They are ugly. They are huge chunks of metal formed and shaped for one purpose – the deliberate destruction of human life. This is not gorgeous. It is horrifying. Though Catholics might accept violence as necessary, a Catholic can never accept violence as beautiful.
The Pope’s words on military participation would be littered with words like ‘noble’ and ‘glorious’ if he thought as many militarists do. Instead, Pope Benedict expresses gratitude toward “the many soldiers engaged in the delicate work of resolving conflicts,” but only insofar as they perform their duties “properly, [do] they contribute to the establishment of peace.” He calls their work ‘delicate’ and ‘demanding’, and reminds the chaplains who serve soldiers to be “heralds of the truth of peace.”
These are the words of a Pope who saw that “the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups” ought to make us ask ourselves “if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a just war.” (Zenit) Why does the Pope see battleships and wonder whether these weapons can perform the “delicate” work of peacemaking, while many Americans see these weapons and call them beautiful?
Ignorance.
“In Truth, Peace” attempts to pierce our ignorance (a spiritual work of mercy) by reminding us that “to impose on others by violent means what we consider to be the truth is an offense against the dignity of the human being, and ultimately an offence against God in whose image he is made.”
The ‘delicate’ work of peacemaking, done ‘properly’, does not create body counts, nor does it attempt to force truth upon enemies. Rather, peacemaking resolves the conflict by defending all life – both friend and foe. The Vatican supports UN peacemaking operations because of their limited rules of engagement. Peacemakers risk their own lives in an effort to reduce violence. Killing is seen as a failure, even if condoned as the last resort of defense.
But why call war a failure? Why attempt to limit the destruction of war? Why train peacemakers instead of infantrymen? Why has “the Holy See expressed its support for humanitarian law,” claiming that treaties regulating war “ought to be considered as one of the finest and most effective expressions of the intrinsic demands of the truth of peace?” We see the answer in the Pope’s challenging stance on weapons:
“how can there ever be a future of peace when investments are still made in the production of arms and in research aimed at developing new ones?” “What can be said, too, about those governments which count on nuclear arms as a means of ensuring the security of their countries?” . . . one can state that this point of view is not only baneful but also completely fallacious.” (In Truth, Peace)
And so we return full circle to Truth. What is the truth of peace? Why does the Pope call peacemaking a delicate task? Why does the Pope question modern weapons and warfare? Why does the Pope call upon us to respect humanitarian laws regulating warfare? Why does the Pope call reliance upon nuclear weapons baneful, and ask that we cease production of new weapons?
Because war and weapons promulgate the lie, the myth, of redemptive violence:
With the conviction of her faith in Christ and with the awareness of her mission, the Church proclaims “that violence is evil, that violence is unacceptable as a solution to problems, that violence is unworthy of man. Violence is a lie, for it goes against the truth of our faith, the truth of our humanity. Violence destroys what it claims to defend: the dignity, the life, the freedom of human beings” (JPII and CSDC)
Monstrous weapons like battleships are a lie. They propose peace, but they promise war. May all the faithful of Christ see the truth of peace, may we listen to our Magisterium, and never mistake “gorgeous” lines for what they really are: ugly lies.
My Comment Policy: Off-topic or overly personal comments will be deleted ruthlessly. :)
The are no contradictions/lies if the terms are being used equivocally. There are better things to post about.
Nate,
I understand what you’re saying, but I think you’re being a bit over the top, or at least misdirecting your criticism at the wrong things. It is entirely possible to recognize the aesthetic ‘beauty’ of an object while neither endorsing nor admiring its intended purpose. I don’t think there’s anything at all wrong with noting that a warship has ‘graceful’ lines.
Much more troubling to me, frankly, is the euphemism ‘educated’ for ‘attacked’. Now that’s irresponsible, deeply morally troubling, and worth challenging the author on. But not for saying nice things about the physical appearance of an inanimate object.
RM
Nate,
I would ask you to read the following excerpt from the CCC:
2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:
- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
- of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;
- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.
It is a real injury to unjustly harm the reputation of another.
Fr. Z. is a good man.
ben,
Nothing that Nate has said even remotely approaches being calumnious.
It is a real injury to unjustly harm the reputation of another. Fr. Z. is a good man.”
I don’t think Nate would speculate on whether or not “Fr. Z” is a “good man.” He is simply commenting on the man’s words, presented in public.
Who Knew A Catholic Blogging Priest that like Naval Ships could excite such angst
This post isn’t meant to focus on Fr. Z, but rather on the ideas presented, especially the ideas present in the papal peace message of 2006.
Robert, I can see what you are saying, but part of the lie of violence is to present it as something noble and beautiful, That is a big deal.
We can forgive Nate. Obviously he has not witnessed the sublime beauty of the A-10 Warthog’s gatling gun in action.
There is an intimate bond between men and their ships that others without that experience may not be able to understand.
A bed four feet in the air that is barely wide enough for your shoulders… A cold dampness that settles into your bones so that you can’t get warm, the rolling of a deck beneath your feet… These things forge a bond between a crew and their ship that IS beautiful.
No matter how unpleasant some of the experiences, I assure you that the USS Ainsworth, FF 1090 has an almost sacred place in my heart.
You should read “Sacred Vessels.” It traces the futility and endearing qualities of Battleships.
For the record, my ship was inside of the Iowa’s guns on at least two occasions that I remember… WOW!!! Talk about awesome weapons of war!!! At night, the shells would race overhead… Objectively beautiful. If you like fireworks, you will have a sense of the objective beauty that they represent.
Peace.
Combat weapons are often beautiful and graceful — ergonomically and aesthetically designed for maximum effect with minimal exertion. Witness, for example, the Japanese sword — who amongst you can say “This is an ugly tool!”? A “terrible beauty” to be certain!
The same may be said of the Erma MP-40: beautiful!
And the Persian shamshir (aka “scimitar”);
And the Cold Single Action Army (Peacemaker);
And the M-1860 cavalry sabre;
And the M1 Garand;
And the M-1911 A1 Automatic Combat Pistol;
And battleships and destroyers;
And the M1 Abrams main battle tank — possibly the “sexiest” battle tank since the Tiger I and Tiger II
I draw the line with the M-16 which I carried for 20 years — definitely not a beautiful weapon regardless of its (later) efficiency; and the M9 Beretta 9mm which I (fortunately) never had to carry. These are two exceptions of “terrible beauty.”
–Guy Power
Si vis pacem, para bellum
“If you wish peace, prepare for war”
Change 1:
Cold Single Action Army > Colt Single Action Army
Carrier groups don’t kill people. People kill people.
And the P-51 Mustang is one of the most beautiful machines ever built. F-15′s are pretty sweet too, but never had the chance to strafe Nazis.
And where would the free world be without the B-17? Guten Morgen’s Minion doesn’t have the same ring to it.
The padre committed no sin in his remarks, but if feels the need for penance, I’d suggest reading the latest from “The Sage of Batavia” — Ain’t My America: The Long, Noble History of Antiwar Conservatism and Middle-American Anti-Imperialism.
Tough talk is fun and even necessary in this age of almost universal effeminacy, but I can think of nothing tougher and more truly manly than “Antiwar Conservatism and Middle-American Anti-Imperialism.”
[heavily edited for being too personal . . . ]
Fr Z should have been honest and said “my bad – I was just appreciating the beauty of the ship – the justness/necessity of war and violence are other issues with which i have at times both agreed and disagreed with US foreign policy” . . .