Yesterday we celebrated my sister’s birthday and a friend’s birthday with a big family BBQ. As I looked around I realized how absolutely blessed I am that my family is present with me. My two brothers, who despite multiple tours to Iraq and Afghanistan, are home. My husband who was called up three times for duty in Iraq miraculously never had to go, due to what I consider answers to my prayers.
When you have a loved one in a war zone, you don’t focus on ethics or morality of war. You cannot. All you know is that you have a loved one in danger and your heart is sick.
When my brother Jake went in on his first tour into Iraq, NBC had an embedded reporter with his unit so that every night on the news hour his family could watch him get shot at. It literally made me sick to my stomach. This wasn’t drama. This was real and real people would die; both Americans AND Iraqis. When my brother John came home he had a video of what went down in the Battle of Fallujah. It was unedited, real deal, this is not Hollywood. And it made me deeply sad. I saw both Iraqis and Americans dying on the streets and all I could do was pray for their families as they grieved their losses.
So last night, as we all gathered around and sang, I thought of the men in my both brother’s units who did not get to come home and celebrate ever again. I thought about Medic Fralish, who will always be memorialized on my brother’s shoulder in the form of a huge tattoo. Fralish worked hard and succeeded in a saving a little Afghani girl’s life. I thought about PFC Bertalino. I thought about my brother’s drill instructor at the age of 26 who will never get to see his daughter grow up.
It is terrible that it is so easy for our country to send people to their deaths with no sacrifice from us required. The least we can do is bow our heads and pray for the dead today. And pray for our elected officials to use wisdom so that more people do not have to mourn.
It is terrible that it is so easy for our country to send people to their deaths with no sacrifice from us required. The least we can do is bow our heads and pray for the dead today. And pray for our elected officials to use wisdom so that more people do not have to mourn.
Amen to that.
The milblog BlackFive has an ongoing series of tributes “Fallen, but Never Forgotten” to those who have fallen in the line of duty,
According to Bishop Fulton Sheen, “the great French preacher Lacordaire once said the vocation of a soldier is next in dignity to the priesthood, not only because it commissioned him to defend justice on the field of battle and order on the field of peace, but also because it called him to the spirit and intention of sacrifice.” — I know some on this list would disagree, but reading these first-hand accounts I can get a sense of what he meant.
If you want to support our troops, Stars and Stripes has a good compilation of resources and charities. The website Spirit of America is a nonprofit that helps meet requests from American military and civilian personnel in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa who are involved in humanitarian projects.
Christopher, what is the source of that Sheen quote? It would come in handy for an essay I am working on.
Bishop Sheen was obviously a very confused person.
IIt was in his Wartime Prayerbook; beyond that, I’m not sure.
Bishop Sheen was obviously a very confused person.
It’s not difficult to read the story of Navy SEAL Michael Monsoor and not have a sense of what he’s referring to: a man who in love sacrificed himself, throwing himself on a grenade so his brothers could live.
Coincidentally(?), Michael was named after the Archangel Michael (the protector) — and actually died on his feast day.
It’s not difficult to read the story of Navy SEAL Michael Monsoor and not have a sense of what he’s referring to: a man who in love sacrificed himself, throwing himself on a grenade so his brothers could live.
If these are kinds of stories of “ultimate sacrifice” that inspired Bishop Sheen to make such astonishing statements, then it is unclear to me why he wouldn’t say the vocation of the priest is second to that of the soldier. How many priests did he (or we?) know that died “so that others might live” on a regular basis? With the exception of priests who were tortured, slaughtered and disappeared in Latin America for their defense of the poor, for example, because we all know that their sacrifices had no ultimacy because they were “just meddling in politics.” Right?
No, Sheen’s the wrong one to follow on these matters. When it came to war and peace he was a syncretist of the most dangerous sort.
RCM – Excellent reflection. Mikey here needs to learn from you.
Michael,
Archbishop Sheen encouraged those in the military to pray: “May there be no more wars, never any more. Change the hearts that are in men that they may feel like brothers and not kill one another.” (And yes, I think it is possible for a soldier to pray that with sincerity, since they know above all others both the horror of war and what it mean to take up arms in grave circumstances.
So take that into account when you “study” the man. He wrote the book during World War II; those involved in the cause for his canonization have campaigned to put one into the hands of all of those in the armed forces who desire a copy.
I’ve no wish to “hijack” RCM’s thread for a debate about Bishop Sheen — so this will be my last response to you.
Archbishop Sheen encouraged those in the military to pray: “May there be no more wars, never any more. Change the hearts that are in men that they may feel like brothers and not kill one another.” (And yes, I think it is possible for a soldier to pray that with sincerity, since they know above all others both the horror of war and what it mean to take up arms in grave circumstances.
George Bush says similar things. Words often mean little. Democrat politicians often defend their policies by saying that they will contribute to a world where abortion is no longer needed. “Pro-choice is pro-life.” “War is peace.” Same logic. But I agree that there is no need to dwell on Sheen.
RCM – Yes, good post!
“Support our troops”.
This is a Catholic blog, so the only way this would make sense would be for it to not make sense, and refer to the Swiss guards. But I suspect you are bringing in an inappropriate nationalist dimension.
MM – I’d love to see a line of “Support Our Troops” auto magnets in reference to the Swiss guards. :)
No, it makes sense because we are Catholics who need to support human beings as human beings whoever they are, and whatever they choose to do.
Oh, that and those same troops you two have such animosity toward are family members of contributors, readers, and commenters alike.
No, it makes sense because we are Catholics who need to support human beings as human beings whoever they are, and whatever they choose to do.
Including Obama, abortionists, and Michael Moore? “Support our abortionists” is a slogan you would embrace?
I said as human beings. I’ll remember this line when you advocate not going after terrorists, or saving murderers from the death penalty… You’re something else.
Tim, I support “the troops” as human beings. I do not support them as troops. You are the one who is confused.
At least you admit it. That’s precisely the reason you really have nothing valid to say regarding this subject.
Again, you are obviously the one who is confused. I’ve had enough of you.
Does anybody here “support the troops” that are fighting the American occupation oif Iraq? If not, why not? What makes “your side” more moral than “their side”? As for me, I support neither.
Typical Michael J. If you say something enough times, maybe it will come true.
Did it not occur to you that if you actively undermine people like RCM’s relatives that you are putting them in danger?
Did it not occur to you that if you actively undermine people like RCM’s relatives that you are putting them in danger?
Undermine RCM’s relatives? What on earth are you talking about?
Man, read!
You don’t “support” the troops, and talk against their activities every chance you get. Doing so undermines them by giving aid to the “enemy” and getting congress losers to try to stop funding. Get a clue.
“Tim, I support “the troops” as human beings. I do not support them as troops.”
Pope John Paul II’s messages to members of the armed forces regarding their profession may be worthwhile reading here, insofar as it demonstrates that one can be in the armed forces and dedicated to the pursuit of peace. There is no indication that Benedict believes any differently.
Does anybody here “support the troops” that are fighting the American occupation oif Iraq? If not, why not? What makes “your side” more moral than “their side”?
I happen to support our troops where in fact they are bringing peace and restoring a sense of order and security, as they are presently doing in joint cooperation with the Iraqi police / army and the Sahwah Al Anbar. Iraq can scarcely move forward if its citizens are living under the perpetual threat of kidnappings and beheadings.
I have little doubt that their joint presence in Iraq at this moment in time is preferable to that of Al Qaeda.
Funny, Christopher, that the majority of Iraqis don’t see it that way. Are you claiming to know more than they do?
Morning’s Minion Says: “Funny, Christopher, that the majority of Iraqis don’t see it that way. ” You wouldn’t happen to have a methodologically-sound opinion survey that supports that assertion, do you?
Just a few reasons why I continue to “support our troops” and their presence in Iraq at this time:
ISF, SOI Presence Allows Families to Begin Moving Home, by Capt. Raymond Nutter. May 11, 2008.
Commander Says al-Qaida ‘Virtually Destroyed’ in Kirkuk: “Violence in Iraq’s Kirkuk province has dropped by 70 percent, and coalition and Iraqi forces have “virtually destroyed” al-Qaida in Iraq in the region, the commander of the U.S. brigade combat team in the area said May 12.”
Adwaniyah Opens School, Health Clinic April 6, 2008: “Adwaniyah citizens who were once afraid to leave their homes because of al-Qaeda in Iraq, freely gathered last week to celebrate the grand opening of a middle school and health clinic.”
Fallen Soldier’s Family Continues Mission of Love for Iraqi Children April 1, 2008.
Sight to the Blind: Soldiers Hope to Help Iraqi Girl See a Brighter Future March 31, 2008.
It’s plausible that Iraqis would prefer that the United States NOT be there and I’m sympathetic as well to that POV.
That said, while some may dislike the presence of Americans, Iraqis undoubtedly have more to fear from the presence of Al Qaeda in their neighborhoods, which I suppose is why former insurgents are presently working with U.S. Forces to oust Al Qaeda from Iraq.
Speaking also in terms of the present saftey of Chaldean Christians in Iraq, the current collaboration between U.S. troops with the ISF and the Sahwah Al Anbar is beneficial (See The Vatican, The Anbar Awakening and the “Protector of the Chaldean Catholics” for some background).
Pope John Paul II’s messages to members of the armed forces regarding their profession may be worthwhile reading here, insofar as it demonstrates that one can be in the armed forces and dedicated to the pursuit of peace. There is no indication that Benedict believes any differently.
As usual, Christopher, you cite a universal principle (“one can be in the armed forces and dedicated to the pursuit of peace” — which armed forces? in which circumstances?) without looking at the reality of what u.s. soldiers are actually doing. Citing stories from the “official website of Operation Iraqi Freedom” does not impress me. Surely JPII does not mean that military service is always in keeping with Christian values.
As usual, Christopher, you cite a universal principle (”one can be in the armed forces and dedicated to the pursuit of peace” — which armed forces? in which circumstances?) without looking at the reality of what u.s. soldiers are actually doing. Citing stories from the “official website of Operation Iraqi Freedom” does not impress me. Surely JPII does not mean that military service is always in keeping with Christian values.
Soldiering is a legitimate profession.
Insofar as soldiers in Iraq are doing the stories that I have just cited — as also the example of what Radical Catholic Mom cited — they have my wholehearted support.
John Paul II spoke of participation in humanitarian efforts and securing the peace as a function of being a soldier; it can be argued those are roles they are both fulfilling at this moment in time.
Besides, I’m not looking to impress you anyway. Your opinion of our troops is transparent and I doubt you’d even read the stories I cited. It was chiefly for the benefit of those who appreciate our men and women in service.
Soldiering is a legitimate profession.
No, the Church says it CAN BE a legitimate profession.
John Paul II spoke of participation in humanitarian efforts and securing the peace as a function of being a soldier; it can be argued those are roles they are both fulfilling at this moment in time.
Only if you ignore the fact that the Church’s just war teaching condemns this war.
The fact that JPII said that humanitarian efforts are part of a legitimate soldiering profession does not mean that that is what the u.s. troops are doing in Iraq.
Look, you simply don’t take Church teaching seriously enough that you would actually apply it to reality. You stay on the level of universal teaching without actually applying it.
No, the Church says it CAN BE a legitimate profession.
I concur with the qualification.
The fact that JPII said that humanitarian efforts are part of a legitimate soldiering profession does not mean that that is what the u.s. troops are doing in Iraq.
I believe the present position of the Catholic Church with respect to the war was articulated by the USCCB:
I concur with their assessment. Do you?
I agree with everything in that quote, yes. Of course no where do the bishops say that what is required is ongoing military presence to meet these goals.
Pray for victory!
Of course no where do the bishops say that what is required is ongoing military presence to meet these goals.
[ahem]:
I fully agree with the bishops’ recommendations.
I fully agree with the bishops’ recommendations.
Too bad you didn’t agree with their recommendations from the start, or else this mess would not have happened.
And ‘ahem,’ there is nothing in the text that says a u.s. military presence is needed.
Judging by the reports and the continued presence of Al Qaeda — and the general fate that Iraqi citizens typically meet when AQ dominates a particular neighborhood (ex. Anbar Province prior to 2006, as compared to the present) — it seems to me that a military presence is needed (temporarily, I should clarify) to foster a ‘responsible transition’ and withdrawal at the earliest opportunity consistent with that goal.”
But then, like the Bishops, I don’t have specific competence in political, economic or military strategies, so I’ll leave it up to General Petreus and Congress to determine when best to determine said “responsible transition.”
But then, like the Bishops, I don’t have specific competence in political, economic or military strategies, so I’ll leave it up to General Petreus and Congress to determine when best to determine said “responsible transition.”
This smacks of the old sacred-secular division of labor that so many have critiqued.
Okay, I’m trying to understand the above exchange:
Christopher Says:
May 27, 2008 at 8:51 am
…
I happen to support our troops where in fact they are bringing peace and restoring a sense of order and security, as they are presently doing in joint cooperation with the Iraqi police / army and the Sahwah Al Anbar. Iraq can scarcely move forward if its citizens are living under the perpetual threat of kidnappings and beheadings.
I have little doubt that their joint presence in Iraq at this moment in time is preferable to that of Al Qaeda.
Morning’s Minion Says:
May 27, 2008 at 10:29 am
Funny, Christopher, that the majority of Iraqis don’t see it that way. Are you claiming to know more than they do?
Now, first of all, MM seems to be saying that the majority of Iraqis either are not “bringing peace and restoring a sense of order and security” or that the majority of Iraqis believe that Iraq can “move forward if its citizens are living under the perpetual threat of kidnappings and beheadings” or that the majority of Iraqis do not believe that “their joint presence in Iraq at this moment in time is preferable to that of Al Qaeda”.
Now, what MM basis this claim as to the beliefs of the majority of Iraqis on, I’m not sure.
One thing he is not basing his assessment on is the BBC’s March 2008 survey of Iraqi public opinion:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/14_03_08iraqpollmarch2008.pdf
This shows that currently Iraqi opinion is evenly split over the question of whether it was good or bad that the US invaded Iraq:
Q8. From today’s perspective and all things considered, was it absolutely right, somewhat right, somewhat wrong, or absolutely wrong that US-led coalition forces invaded Iraq in spring 2003?
Mar08
Absolutely Right 21%
Somewhat Right 28%
Somewhat Wrong 23%
Absolutely Wrong 27%
It also contains some interestingly contradictory findings, such as that a majority (53% — see Q21) say that the US surge has made security worse, and yet a larger majority (63% — see Q22) say that they would like US forces to remain until the situation is more stable, or even longer.
Also, by margins of 70-80% Iraqis said that US forces _should be involved in a laundry list of items including (see Q34) training the Iraqi army, providing financial aid, and engaging in operations against al Qaeda and other foreign jihadists.
Of course Michael J. is more qualified than General Petreus to discern the best way to protect the people of Iraq and transition the responsible ones into self sustaining power.
Michael is apparently still angry that Pope Benedict missed his “beautiful, hopeful” opportunity to smack down Bush, and instead, left us with that blast of “God Bless America ” ringing and ringing and ringing in our ears.
Michael, the next time you curl up with some native feminist liberation theology, I’d chase it down with a dose of some sustainably and locally grown fair-trade chamomile, instead of whatever other “herb” you might be in the habit of relaxing with, if you know what I mean. It might help you ratchet down the paranoia. You might also try anthologizing for us all your racist assumptions about Neanderthals and any other indigenous peoples you deem deficient. That way, the next time you presume to lecture others about racism by displaying your own, the irony will be even more delicious.
Finally, I’d save your hectoring of Bishop Sheen for later. Don’t get me wrong, it’s pure comedy gold, but for that very reason you should wait until a few weeks before Catholic blogging nominations go out. I’m telling you: ka-CHING!
HA – As you probably know, you have been assigned to “moderation,” but I personally approved your comment so the rest of us could have a laugh. According to you, Benedict is an american patriot, and I am a racist drug user. Amazing.
Nice to know that there is censorship on a Catholic blog that is supposed to espouse open thought. Apparently the contributors here can’t take their own comments?
I wasn’t aware that censorship was wrong. Feel free to see the comment policy. Your IP address hasn’t registered a previous comment. The proper venue to address administration issues is via email.
Nice to know that there is censorship on a Catholic blog that is supposed to espouse open thought.
Open thought, yes. Being a jerk, no.
I personally approved your comment so the rest of us could have a laugh.
Thanks, I’m here all week…
I certainly wouldn’t keep reading here if not for the occasional lol’s this site gives me, so I suppose it’s only right that I get to reciprocate every now and then. Also, you’re greatly stretching my comment — i.e., a single inadvertent racist remark does not a racist make, though coming right after you had flagged another remark as racist, it deserves a riposte. But for the record, the tongue was obviously in cheek. As for my claiming that Benedict is a patriot, I’m not really sure where you got that either, but I would refer everyone here to your comments within Feddy’s “God Bless America ” thread to supply any needed context.
Lastly, now that you mention it, my second paragraph somehow “disappeared” when I posted it last week on your own thread. Funny how that happens. I guess censorship (not that there’s anything necessarily wrong with that) is a little more problematic depending on who is looking over your shoulder, or maybe the comments all of a sudden became funnier the second time around, but honestly, no hard feelings either way.
HA – As M.Z. said, feel free to check out our comment policy. Happy that VN brings you, at least, amusement.