The BBC is running an interview with Darrel Vandeveld, an ex-military prosecutor at Guantanamo bay. A devout Catholic, Vandeveld became increasingly disillusioned with what the United States was doing, and went through a period of mental anguish. He then e-mailed Fr. John Dear S.J. for advice, and was told to simply quit. Initially stunned, he did so. Could you imagine if every Catholic in the US military had the moral courage to refuse to cooperate in evil activities over the past eight years?
(Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan)
Well, yes. We’re all called to do good and avoid evil. But are you suggesting that every Catholic in the US military has been engaged in evil acts or lacks moral courage? More to the point, are you saying that service in the US military is incompatible with the catholic faith?
These are interesting questions.
For a start, I would claim that anybody providing support to the torture regime and Guantanamo and elsewhere is guilty of formal cooperation with evil, and should refuse such cooperation.
On the broader question of the military, it is quite obvious that a soldier can never do evil, even if under orders, such as deliberately attacking non-combatants, torture, terrorize, wantonly destroy property etc. But what about a soldier to avoids these activities and yet serves in an unjust war (and the Iraq war is patently unjust)? Here, the cooperation is more remote, but it is still cooperation with evil. I personally think Catholics should exercise their natural right to selective conscientious objection and refuse to serve in such wars, even if such a right is not recognized by the US military structure. I see it as akin to health care workers refusing to participate, even remotely, in evil acts.
I see it as akin to health care workers refusing to participate, even remotely, in evil acts.
Hmm, I don’t recall that you contributed to the recent discussion of Bush’s plan to protect health care workers’ right of conscience, and Obama’s announced plan to rescind any such rules.
You should infer nothing from my lack of time and inclination to contribute to every single debate. For the record, I support a right of conscience for health care workers and the military. Do you agree?
From the linked article:
“I never suffered such anguish in my life about anything,” he says, looking back over the period.
“It took me too long to recognise that we had abandoned our American values and defiled our constitution.”
Thank you. It took Americans too long. I pray we have learned a lesson from this.
MM,
I largely agree with your response to my questions, and you might be interested to know that the military specifically endorses the obligation to refuse an unlawful order, and that soldiers are extensively trained in the law of war, including their obligations under the Geneva Convention.
As for participation in the Iraq War, whether it is unjust (as opposed to unwise) is for many soldiers an open question. My own son recently returned from 15 months of Army service in Baghdad. He left with a well formed conscience and returned with his conscience intact, despite occasional violent contact with the insurgency. He considers the war unwise, counterproductive, and ultimately futile, but does not believe that his actions amounted to cooperation with evil, remote or otherwise, nor do I.
You should infer nothing from my lack of time and inclination to contribute to every single debate.
Well, given how much time you have to write redundant criticisms of conservatives, it can’t simply be a lack of time. So it’s inclination: You aren’t inclined to take a public moral stand where Obama is in the wrong.
Clarification: You’re not inclined to criticize Obama with anything resembling the same vehemence and passion that you bring to the question (repeatedly mentioned in multiple posts) whether the National Right to Life Committee is consistent with Catholic teaching across the board.
MM,
What would you say to the argument that in order to have a functioning military, it is necessary to expect soldiers to significantly suspend their own judgment and follow orders? Also, even in an all-volunteer army, soldiers are not acting of their own free will. Many would not be going back to Iraq for the second and third time if they were free to make their own decision. Do you expect soldiers who consider the Iraq war unnecessary or unjust to go to prison rather than serve in Iraq?
All of us participate remotely in evil acts, so to expect soldiers or health care workers (or anyone else) to refuse to participate even remotely in evil acts is basically a prescription for bringing our economy and society to a halt.
Dvid Nickol,
If I recall correctly, during the election the author of this post admitted to remote cooperation with evil, although he believed there were proportionate reasons for doing so. In some ways – though with much greater personal risk – the same kind of rationale obtains for soldiers.
Wow. What a powerful story, MM. I was not aware of this guy.
to expect soldiers or health care workers (or anyone else) to refuse to participate even remotely in evil acts is basically a prescription for bringing our economy and society to a halt.
So, what’s the matter with THAT, if you truly believe (and I SHARE this belief), that this truly IS the “culture of death”? How else are you going to EFFECTIVELY stop abortion, for instance, unless you’re willing to bring this society to a grinding halt? Do you think that abortion is the ONLY phenomena of the “culture of death,” and do you think that abortion could exist on the scale that it does in this country, if it were not integrally connected to a vast system of attitudes which countenance such things as: the commodification of sex to sell merchandise; the vicious, anti-theological justification of vengeance and “closure” in the form of legal murder; the corruption of the intellectual integrity of youth by turning learning into the rat race of teaching to standardized tests; the gulling and gradual pauparizing of the poor by an unregulated and usurious banking system; the commodification of life itself by a health care system that excludes the CHILDREN of the poor from access to adequate medical treatment; the environmental degredation and destruction of the habitats of vast numbers of our fellow creatures, who are just as much a part of God’s creation as we?
Most of the people who write here think they can “fix” the problem of massive disrespect for life through the easy, quick and coercive violence of re-criminalization of abortion. Alas, would it were so simple!
Abortion and the whole host of associated evils will only ever be effectively stopped by a non-violent, non-coercive effort to convert this culture AWAY from the directions it seems hell-bent on. Instead of dabbling with the “law,” what modern society needs is saints who will forcefully demand of us all to stop and THINK about what we are doing to ourselves and to each other. If some of those saints emulate the behaviour of the early Christian centurion-martyrs who refused to participate in the godless criminality of the Roman war-machine, we should be only too grateful if their actions bring this society to such a grinding halt as would give it pause to REFLECT on what it is doing and where it is going!
I meant “phenomenon of the culture of death” in the post above. Sorry, but I’m obsessive about grammar; it’s a teacher’s prerogative to be.
DIGBY FOR PRESIDENT 2016 !!!
Seriously.
(and the Iraq war is patently unjust)
No it isn’t.
“Digby” isn’t interested; he’s become permanently expatriated.
Great post. Exactly, exactly right.
But if you’re torturing or murdering gays or providing legitimacy for those who do, you’re doing God’s work.
There are certainly occasions when one can “die for one’s country”, although those are rare. The last time was World War II. Of course, I’d probably bail anyway, I’m not that attached :P
Generally, one doesn’t “make the final sacrifice”, give the “full measure of devotion” for the country, but for the *$#!ing president. That is simply a lie people have been sold on since time immemorial. It is drilled into them, in this country, from childhood on, via the Pledge of Allegiance and such (every day ?? I had not known that). Duty.Honor.Country.The few.The proud. What a crock. Fighting in an unnecessary war is a disservice to one’s country. Anybody unquestioningly devoted to a leader, or, in this case, a “Commander in Chief” is a tool, in both senses.
Military drill has as its goal the destruction of individuals, reservations, independent thinking, the production of machines. If someone expected me to shout “SIRYESSIR” I’d be amused. It’s so idiotic as to defy belief. I avoided mandatory 9 months by coming to the US :P
The other day I mentioned the song “Arlington” by Trace Adkins. Google the lyrics. It defies belief. Happy about being dead cause “I made it to Arlington”. Anyone who signs up for the military signs up for doing whatever strikes the president’s fancy. This has no necessary connection to honor, heroism and so forth.
The insidious cycle of the Bush argument goes like this: If you want a withdrawal of troops, you’re not supporting the troops. (The terrrists win. The terrrists hate us because we’re free. Mind you, I want them gone, but that has nothing to do with Iraq). IF you want a withdrawal it means the troops have died in vain. Clearly, more troops need the chance to not have died in vain.
The “Arlington” song also says “Son, this is what it cost to be free” (as I said, a different matter in WW II). It is a conservative paranoia that everyone is after our freedom. Perpetual war for perpetual peace.
Soldiers and their families are basically forced to believe in the not-dying-in-vain lie. How could they cope with them actually having died in vain ? The did die for Bush, nothing else. A grand scheme of bringing democracy via 6 years of war.
I’ve never understood the 21 gun salute. Isn’t that reminiscent of how they died ?
The pomp and circumstance, the folded flag and what not, that does impress the indoctrinated. In Europe, military culture is basically dead and soldiers are viewed with suspicion. I certainly would shoot anyone threatening me or my family, but no country is worth dying for. My parents-in-law said if there’d be a draft, it’s off to Canada with their sons. I agree. No way I’m raising a kid to sacrifice it for the grand schemes of some ****ing politician. And I certainly hope no child of mine would join voluntarily. I’d be arrested for flag code violations and general rioting at the funeral.
There’s a well known Austrian song that pokes fun at the military, the basic theme being that in civilian life he was nobody but now in uniform he thinks he is somebody.
One most not view all soldiers as victims. Many sign up exactly because they want to fight. Others of course do so because they come from bad backgrounds or are steeped in military culture via the family. Many fully identify with “the mission”, vote Republican etc. Understandable to some degree, that identification, how else to bear it ? Of course the irony is that Republicans who are said to “support the military” are the most likely to send them to their deaths.
I wonder how an Austrian with American children could have them become Austrian citizens without living there. It’s probably not possible. But, whatever it takes. Nobody in my family is dying for no goddamned president if I can help it. We’ll stay with Michael I. LOL
The funny thing is now that I am on the right meds, I’ve shed a lot of my “American persona”, including what I call “my American pounds” heh! I always was like this except for a 3 year interlude. I blame my former doctor :-P Maybe the same pill could be applied to die-hard conservatives ? Mind you, I still love the country, but there are some unpleasant things going on, to put it mildly, from the absurd incarceration rate for non-violent drug offenses to starting wars at frequent intervals. Down to the same freakin’ mall existing every 20 miles.
MM wrote:
Could you imagine if every Catholic in the US military had the moral courage to refuse to cooperate in evil activities over the past eight years?
If such actions were truly evil (and not simply labelled evil by political opponents), then it would be remarkable, praiseworthy, and nothing but beneficial. I’d add: If the same sort of “conscientious refusal” were to take place among the currently abortion-tolerant, we could see abortion end tomorrow, as well; if every Christian in the USA were to write to their favourite liberal candidate and say, “We like you and many of your positions, but unless you drop your tolerance and/or support of abortion (and other objective and grave moral evils), we will not vote for you,” the landscape of the USA would be startlingly better.
Y’know… just once, I’d love to see someone on the political “left” walk and chew gum at the same time–to decry abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem-cell research, etc., with at least the same vehemence that they decry (and rightly so) true abuses by the military, true corporate scandals, true ecological damage, and the like. Until that happens, their efforts can’t help but ring more hollow, and limp more badly.
That’s right – as soon as Mary is finally recognized as the Co-Mediatrix, we’ll be able to turn our full attention towards having the murder and torture of gays appended to the corporal works of mercy. Why should the mullahs have all the fun? Frank is insightful.
Tony claims, incredibly, that the Iraq war is not unjust. Sorry, but this is classic cafeteria Catholicism on the right, the same kind that defends torture. Two popes and the universal church held this war to be unjust. And they did so by applying reason, ackowledging that the just war principles in no way applied to this particular conflict. It was a vengeance-driven adventure, pure and simple. Just consider the “last resort” criterion alone. There is no possible way that the Iraq war was a “last resort” to anything.
Y’know… just once, I’d love to see someone on the political “left” walk and chew gum at the same time–to decry abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem-cell research, etc., with at least the same vehemence that they decry (and rightly so) true abuses by the military, true corporate scandals, true ecological damage, and the like. Until that happens, their efforts can’t help but ring more hollow, and limp more badly.
Vox Nova seems dedicated to proving that American Catholics, including those “weekly mass-goers” so dear to to the pollsters, generally have only a tenuous allegiance to Catholic teaching on social issues. When bloggers invoke those teachings, it’s usually done to defend some political interest that is far more important to them than anything the Church has to say. That is true of most posts about culture and society on conservative Catholic blogs, but MM’s unusually strident liberalism make his selective invocation of Church teachings on Vox Nova especially evident–and bothersome to more conservative posters.
When I first began reading Vox Nova, I thought it had drawn a community of Catholics who were willing and able to put their faith ahead of their political leanings. At this point, I have my doubts that there is any community of politically minded Catholics who really support the “consistent ethic of life” our bishops insist should be our guide in making decisions about social issues. Between First Things Catholics and Commonweal Catholics, there does not seem to be any common ground at all. To me, that is the saddest lesson of the election just past.
Ron,
Look at this post, please. Who among the “liberals” or Democrats I am supposed to support holds these views on the American military?
By the way, I refuse to use the term “liberal” simply because both current US political traditions are rooted in liberalism, making the term pretty meaningless. Likewise, there are very few real “conservatives” in America today– glorification of the nation state and the free market don’t cut it.
MM wrote: Two popes and the universal church held this war to be unjust.
The first is true (as private opinions); the second is false (and–with all due respect–nonsensical). The Church (in Her teaching authority) can certainly set down iron-clad principles by which the morality of an action is judged (e.g. genocide, abortion, contraception, etc.), and the Church (by Her moral authority) can enforce discipline on Her members (e.g. denial of Holy Communion to contumacious public sinners, excommunications, orders to clerics and religious who are under holy obedience, etc.); but Her own canon law specifically says that the responsibility for discerning and applying the “just war” principles lies with “those who have responsibility for the common good”. That was, in fact, President Bush (despite the “he’s not our legitimate president!” screed from certain members of the political left).
Pope John Paul II (who promulgated the new Catechism, quoted here), and Pope Benedict XVI (as Cardinal Ratzinger) made this point painfully clear: the “Iraq War” issue is not a “non-negotiable” issue, and Catholics may in good faith hold differing positions on the issue. Not so with abortion, ESCR, etc.
I’ve posted this many times, but it always seems to be neglected, lost, or otherwise forgotten:
Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
I note the Holy Father’s phrase, “to repel an aggressor”–and the argument that Iraq was not an aggressor is also noted (though controversial). But nothing removes the plain fact that the War against Terror is simply *not* intrinsically evil, nor are its opponents justified in saying that its proponents are somehow certainly “doing evil” (or that such support is somehow even remotely comparable to tolerance of abortion, euthanasia, or some other intrinsic evil).
Decry the WOT, and I may well agree with you; claim that those who disagree are necessarily doing wrong, and you’re simply incorrect. Claim that rejection of the WOT justifies tolerance of intrinsically evil activities, and I’ll wonder what happened to your sanity (or, depending on the person, your honesty).
Paladin:
Sometimes I wonder if some people have actually read any Catholic moral theology beyond a one-page private letter from then-cardinal Ratzinger to Cardinal McCarrick in 2004 on a rather narrow subject (fitness to receive the Eucharist) and assuming a shared understanding of the background conceptual matter so that it did not have to be spelled out?
You seem to be creating a false distinction here. Simply because an act is not intrinsically evil does not mean you can ignore what you erroneously refer to as a “private opinion”. Intrinsically evil means evil in its object, regardless of facts and circumstances. But here is some news for you: the act can be evil in its particular facts and circumstances. Let me try an extreme example, and since it seems customary for extreme examples to bring in Hitler, let me ask this: were Catholics in 1939 free to hold that opinion that Hitler’s war was a just war? Could any rejection of Nazi agrression be put down to a mere “private opinion”. And yet– if you choose to read the text above the way you do, this is the obvious interpretation. Welcome to the world of moral relativism, and we all know where the current pope stands on that one!
No, the point is this: war is not intrinsically evil because there are circumstances when it can be just. These circumstances are narrow and highly circumscribed, and are laid down in the Catechism, which also notes that the nature of modern warfare raises the bar significantly. If the war is not just, it is an evil war. Evil is evil, intrinsic or extrinsic, and must be avoided.
Are there grey areas in the application of the just war principles? For sure. But not in the case of the Iraq war. And here I’m just focusing on one of the principles– last resort. It was most certainly not a last resort, hence it was not a just war, and hence it was an evil endeavor. All it takes is the application of the intellect. The war was unjust not because two popes said so, but because an objective application of the principles lead to this pellucid conclusion.
MM wrote:
Sometimes I wonder if some people have actually read any Catholic moral theology beyond a one-page private letter from then-cardinal Ratzinger to Cardinal McCarrick in 2004 [...]
It might also be good to wonder if, by “Catholic moral theology”, you mean *orthodox* Catholic moral theolgians, as opposed to Schillebeeckx, Rahner, Kung, and the like. It does little good to read “moral theology” if the specific content is wrong…
[...] on a rather narrow subject (fitness to receive the Eucharist) and assuming a shared understanding of the background conceptual matter so that it did not have to be spelled out?
Are you suggesting that some sort of “context” would change the plain meaning of, “There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia”? Moreover, don’t you think that “fitness to receive the Holy Eucharist” has anything to do with the objective evil of the act itself, in addition to subjective guilt? An “appeal to context” really doesn’t help you, here.
Simply because an act is not intrinsically evil does not mean you can ignore what you erroneously refer to as a “private opinion”.
You’ll note that I encouraged nothing of the sort. Knowing that a Pope’s statement is a “private opinion” does not at all imply that I wanted it ignored; I did, however, want to correct your apparent view that “this settles the matter, and proves the objective immorality of waging the War in Iraq”… because, among other things, such an idea directly contradicts the Holy Father’s statement about “legitimate diversity of opinion”, and it contradicts both the Catechism (CCC 2309) and Gaudium et Spes (79).
But here is some news for you: the act can be evil in its particular facts and circumstances.
True. You would need, then, to prove that such was the case… and an appeal to the private opinions of the Pontiffs, valuable though they be, does not settle the matter enough for you (or others) to suggest that participation in the Iraq War, etc., is “definitely unjustified, and sinful in the eyes of the Church”.
let me ask this: were Catholics in 1939 free to hold that opinion that Hitler’s war was a just war?
Hitler made it his stated goal to conquer the surrounding countries (and annex them under the rule of the Third Reich), to eradicate the Jews (and others whom he found “undesirable”) from existence, and such. I’m still waiting (above and beyond the liberal screed about “blood for oil”, and other vacuous nonsense) for someone to show how President Bush made it his stated goal to “conquer Iraq for oil, power, etc.”, to target innocent civilians, etc. You seem to be arguing from the effects, not from principles…. and that simply won’t do, if you truly want to prove the WOT “immoral”.
Could any rejection of Nazi agrression be put down to a mere “private opinion”.
Given Hitler’s stated objectives, no. Had Hitler shown a “kinder, gentler face” in the beginning (as he doubtless did–if you abstract from Mein Kampf!), and had some other country sworn to work tirelessly for the destruction of Germany (think of Iraq and Israel, Iraq and the USA, etc.), then there would certainly have been room for legitimate disagreement–up to the point where Hitler showed his true face, and all ambiguity was eliminated.
And yet– if you choose to read the text above the way you do, this is the obvious interpretation. Welcome to the world of moral relativism, and we all know where the current pope stands on that one!
The irony in that sentence, coming from one who flatly rejects that same Holy Father’s direct claim that abortion and “just war issues” are in completely separate categories, is noteworthy.
If the war is not just, it is an evil war. Evil is evil, intrinsic or extrinsic, and must be avoided.
All war is evil; the Catechism makes that very plain And certainly, evil must be avoided whenever possible. But the whole point of “justifiable war” is that some circumstances make it necessary to tolerate such (unintended) evil.
But not in the case of the Iraq war. And here I’m just focusing on one of the principles– last resort. It was most certainly not a last resort, hence it was not a just war, and hence it was an evil endeavor.
The phrase “last resort” is your paraphrase (and an inaccurate one, at that), and it appears nowhere in the Catechism; the CCC states:
“all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective” (CCC 2309)
The fact that you disagree with President Bush about the impracticability of “waiting for terrorists to enable more suicide bombers in Palestine, etc.”, “waiting for Iraq to develop WMD’s [according to the evidence available at the time] and smuggle them into the USA, etc.”, and so on, doesn’t affect the matter. You hold that the Iraq War was unjustified; fine–that’s your opinion. But “no one is bound under pain of sin to agree with it, or with any other private opinion–as all Holy Fathers of recent memory have made abundantly clear.
You seem to be suggesting that the War in Iraq was launched under circumstances in which alternatives were neither impractical nor ineffective; but nothing you’ve offered has come close to proving that… and I don’t envy you the chore of finding such a proof. It won’t be found in pronouncements by the Holy Fathers (important though those are); even a Catholic president could theoretically have been justified in going into Iraq, if he/she gave full weight to the Holy Father’s comments, and (in best conscience) went to war anyway.
Perhaps you could try finding a comment from Pope John Paul II, or from Pope Benedict XVI, saying that the launching of the War in Iraq was undeniably sinful? That would settle the matter quite quickly, I think.
“Morining’s Minion” doesn’t understand that as the situation on the ground changes, a war that began unjustly can become righteous.
Bravo Paladin.
This post is a great example of the attempt to reinforce one’s own fallible political judgments with Divine Authority that is the unexpressed and perhaps unintentional purpose of Vox Nova
Funny, Zach, that’s what the secular leftists say about pro-lifers.
Paladin:
Are you suggesting that some sort of “context” would change the plain meaning of, “There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty…
Of course. These are not intrinsically evil, so whether they are evil or not depends on context. That’s why I raised nazi aggression. As for the death penalty, the context by which it is licit is so narrow (no other bloodless means to protect society available), rendering it wholly unjust almost 100 percent of the time. As for war, we rely on the just war principles, which too are not simply open to any subjective interpretation.
I repeat, the Iraq war is objectively unjust not because two popes said so, but because undelrying principles cannot be squared with the particular facts and circumstances.
Do I deny that abortion and war are in different categories? No, I affirm it. But evil is evil, whether intrinsic or extrinsic.
You end with an assessment of the last resort criterion. Good. Not sure what you mean by the reference to Palestine, but you raise the issue that the administration lied aboutr WMDs and the impending “mushroom cloud” over US cities. They were told otherwise by people with knowledge in the region. They were told otherwise by the Vatican delegation led by Cardinal Pio Laghi. And anyway, the proper way to deal with this situation would have been to allow the UN inspectors the appropriate time to do their work.
No, sorry, the unprovoked invasion of a country simply because the US needed vengeance is a gravely unjust war, and we are still living with the consequences.
Paliadin,
Your standards are exceedingly low. This is moral laxism. Just because one can find the Iraq war just and be fit to receive communion does not make it just or the right thing to do. You yourself admit that war is at best a necessary evil. Therefore there should be a strong presumption against declaring any war the right thing to do.
MM wrote:
I repeat, the Iraq war is objectively unjust not because two popes said so, but because undelrying principles cannot be squared with the particular facts and circumstances.
Then perhaps we could cut to the chase, and examine your stated reasons for thinking so (i.e. these “facts and circumstances”)?
In past replies, you suggested that the Iraq War was unjust because it wasn’t “a last resort”; I replied that your paraphrase of “last resort” was inaccurate (the actual conditions say, “all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective (CCC 2309)”, and I described how President Bush could conceivably and coherently have decided that the war was justified, based on the apparent impracticability of allowing a sworn enemy to shelter Al Qaeda members in his country, to continue to produce (apparently) WMD’s, to threaten Israel with annihilation, etc., and based on the apparent ineffectiveness of relying on a corrupt UN process to handle the situation. More on the U.N. point, below… but the main point stands: if you’re suggesting that the case for “impractical and ineffective” is provably and utterly impossible, then–with all due respect–at least in this particular point, you’re very much off-base.
Do I deny that abortion and war are in different categories? No, I affirm it. But evil is evil, whether intrinsic or extrinsic.
Right… and I’m not advocating an embrace of either. (You’ll note that I’ve never expressed enthusiasm for the Iraq War, regardless of whether it was justified or not.) But a majority of the Vox Nova contributors seem to have a very easy time expending extraordinary efforts to rail against the War, corporate corruption, the death penalty, etc. (which are all good targets for resistance–don’t get me wrong!); but their efforts to rail against abortion, euthanasia, contraception, embryonic stem cell research, etc., are so very much less fervent (compared to the former issues) as to be almost comic (if it weren’t so heartbreaking)… and, given the far more extreme gravity of the latter issues, I can’t fathom why this is the case–save for the hypothesis that Vox Nova is sympathetic to issues dear to the “political left” and unsympathetic to issues dear to the “political right”.
You end with an assessment of the last resort criterion.
No. I end with an assessment of the criterion of the “just war principles” which speaks of other means being “impractical or ineffective”. That does not necessarily exclude preemptive action (think of shooting a gunman that’s loading a gun and getting set to fire on an innocent civilian, but hasn’t yet done so; a strict “non-pre-emption” view would require that one wait until the gunman fired at least one shot), no matter what your favourite moral theologians might say.
Good. Not sure what you mean by the reference to Palestine,
I was thinking especially of Saddam Hussein’s practice of giving “financial grants” of up to $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers who killed Israeli civilians; but I’m sure there are other examples.
but you raise the issue that the administration lied aboutr WMDs and the impending “mushroom cloud” over US cities.
I’d very much like to hear a proof of the claim that the administration “lied”, above and beyond your personal feelings (and those of the mainstream media) about the matter. Do remember that “lied” means that someone knows (with moral certainty) that [x] is true, and says that it is not true (or vice versa); if the administration were misinformed, misled, or even inept, your case about “lying” would be in ruins.
They were told otherwise by people with knowledge in the region.
And they were told the opposite by those who also had knowledge of the region.
They were told otherwise by the Vatican delegation led by Cardinal Pio Laghi.
Now, I must ask you to consider this reasonably. The fact that a civil government didn’t heed the advice of a particular city-state, when its own intelligence contradicted the city-state’s information (and when the civil government had no reason to presume that the city-state’s information would be any more reliable than the information they already had on hand), really doesn’t seem extreme or irresponsible. Do you really expect the Department of Defense to say, “Let’s call off the offensive against Saddam, because the Vatican diplomats say that he’s not making WMD’s”? Whyever would they take the Vatican’s word for it, when their own sources had apparently compelling evidence which indicated otherwise?
And anyway, the proper way to deal with this situation would have been to allow the UN inspectors the appropriate time to do their work.
There was ample evidence to suggest that the UN, and all its efforts involving Iraq, was corrupt–do you remember the Oil For Food scandal?–and that, among other factors (e.g. anti-U.S. and anti-Israel bias of many U.N. member states, etc.), and that none of the results could be trusted with anything like enough certainty on which to base military plans.
No, sorry, the unprovoked invasion of a country simply because the US needed vengeance is a gravely unjust war, and we are still living with the consequences.
Given that “unprovoked” and “simply because the US needed vengeance” is mere opinion–and divergent from objective reality–I hope you understand why I can’t consider that claim convincing. Were they literally true, I would certainly agree with you.
Michael Enright wrote:
Your standards are exceedingly low. This is moral laxism. Just because one can find the Iraq war just and be fit to receive communion does not make it just or the right thing to do.
I’d caution you against an incautious and equivocal use of the phrase “right thing to do”; MM and I were discussing the moral responsibility of those who participate(d) in the War in Iraq (see main post, re: the military official at Gitmo who was advised to quit, and did). Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the War in Iraq was unjustified, this doesn’t at all affect the fact that it might have been launched in good faith. One can’t assign culpability retroactively, like that; if the Bush administration had faulty information, fine–that’s a fact we would presently know… but that’s a far cry from the claims that the whole affair was somehow a “premeditated evil”, and that President Bush “lied” (MM’s word).
You yourself admit that war is at best a necessary evil. Therefore there should be a strong presumption against declaring any war the right thing to do.
Of course. But you’re assuming (implicitly) that the Bush administration did *not* do as you suggest; you’re apparently presuming that President Bush “jumped the gun” and “knowingly launched a war without just cause”. Such claims make fine copy for the New York Times (and other bastions of yellow journalism), but they simply won’t do, for making a solid moral (and logical) case.
Perhaps I could summarize by asking this: do you think that President Bush launched the Iraq War capriciously? If so, on what basis do you say that? (If it’s on the basis of after-the-fact evidence, then it would hardly be fair of you, would it? 20/20 hindsight is fine, but it’s no basis for retroactive blame.)
Pardon the off-topic question–and please know that I’m not offended (Vox Nova has every right to run its blog as its members see fit)–but: are some of my comments being moderated because they’re viewed as troublesome, or because there’s some automatic protocol (e.g. anything with a hyperlink, or specific keywords, etc.), or something else altogether?
[Generally it's a function of using certain trigger words, though multiple links in a post will also do it. - Ed]
Let me spell this out clearly. I always thought that the war was unjust. I never thought the criterion were met. As I stated above, I think the presumption is against war. I don’t think that the evidence presented ever beat the presumption not to engage in a war. I will focus on two reasons: we did not know Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and we did not know he would actually use them.
We didn’t know Iraq had wmds. We may have had some intelligence that indicated so. However, it was a controversial issue. A case may have been made for this. But we were not certain of it. In fact one or two weapons inspectors said they did not have them. We cannot say that we have the elimination of wmds as our just cause if we are not certain that Iraq actually had wmds. The just war criterion are not met if the danger is only possible. We have to know that the danger actually exists.
Second, even if we did have beyond a doubt evidence that Saddam actually had wmds we did not know that he would use them against us or our allies. Actually, I would think that he probably would not do so. If he gained a nuclear weapon, it would give him great power. Actually using it would mean that he would be giving it up. Using wmds against the US or its allies would be suicidal. There are a lot of reasons to think he wouldn’t use it against us, there are few reasons to think he would.
What I am saying is that the case could not be made on strict terms that the just war conditions could be met. The Bush administration was quite honest about this, they called it “preventative war”. There was not a clear and present danger like an army waiting to invade. Instead there was speculation that Iraq may at that time or in the future obtain a wmd and maybe they would use them against us. That Iraq would send a wmd to the US was speculation. The just war requires more than a speculative danger.
It is not up to the opponents of a war to prove it was unjust. The burden of proof is on the proponent of a given war to overcome the presumption that the war is unjust. You can’t overcome this presumption with speculative evidence that an attack might happen sometime in the unknown future. We can’t even go on probabilities of an attack. You actually have to know it will happen. We did not.
Also, I am quite tired of hearing about the fact that it is permitted for proponents of a give war are not unfit for receiving communion. It is permitted to support the war? So what. Just because a thing is permitted does not mean it is necessarily correct. Just because the Pope did not bind people to oppose the war on pain of mortal sin does not mean the war was just. I am tired of people citing this as evidence for the war.
Finally, I will not engage in speculation about the President’s intent. I don’t know why he engaged in war. I don’t think that the just war criterion were met. And that makes it unjust and equivalent to murder.
“Morining’s Minion” doesn’t understand that as the situation on the ground changes, a war that began unjustly can become righteous.
I’m not sure I understand exactly how that works. Can an action that is an objective evil suddenly become not just no longer a sin, but an act of righteousness? How? And on what grounds?
Quick answer: It’s no longer the same “action” at all. Action 1: Launching the Iraq war in 2003 based on intelligence that turned out to be faulty. Action 2: Staying in Iraq 5 years after Action 1, so as to help maintain civil order and help prevent a bunch of terrorists from killing innocent people via car bombs and the like. I do understand that many people here think Action 1 was immoral, but few seem to acknowledge that making that point (about something done in 2003) does not tell us in any way what today’s policy should be.
Michael Enright wrote:
Let me spell this out clearly. I always thought that the war was unjust. I never thought the criterion were met. As I stated above, I think the presumption is against war. I don’t think that the evidence presented ever beat the presumption not to engage in a war.
Fair enough… and you’re entitled to those opinions, and they’re well within the parameters of views allowable for faithful Catholics (in and of themselves). However, do remember that: (a) I was discussing this with Morning’s Minion, who used somewhat different words and points–so it shouldn’t be surprising if my past posts didn’t yet address your specific slant on the issue; and (b) since the claims have been made (by MM and others) that the war was “objectively unjust”, it’s not unreasonable to ask proponents of that idea to supply proofs, rather than opinions and conjectures (fervent and sincere though they be).
We didn’t know Iraq had wmds. We may have had some intelligence that indicated so. However, it was a controversial issue. A case may have been made for this. But we were not certain of it.
I trust you realize that moral dubiousness is not a function of controversy; abortion is a “controversial” issue, even among (heterodox) Catholics, but that doesn’t affect its status as a grave and objective evil. As for the case in question, the administration was apparently convinced, beyond reasonable doubt, that launching the war was a moral imperative–at least partially because of Saddam’s past history with WMD’s, his apparently certain ambitions for acquiring new ones, his professed hatred of the United States, and his proven willingness to use WMD’s on innocent civilians. (The matter of Saddam expelling the UN inspectors didn’t help the matter much, either, if memory serves.)
In fact one or two weapons inspectors said they did not have them. We cannot say that we have the elimination of wmds as our just cause if we are not certain that Iraq actually had wmds. The just war criterion are not met if the danger is only possible. We have to know that the danger actually exists.
I think you may be underestimating the extent to which the available evidence pointed to the existence of WMD’s (and several were later found, actually–I don’t have the internet speed at home to check at the moment, but I do recall buried stockpiles of liquid ricin, or some such, encased in hollow artillery shells; I’ll look that up, if you like). Again, it’s easy to play Monday-Morning-Quarterback, in this case… but the evidence at hand was compelling enough to convince not only the president, but Congress, as well.
I’d also add that WMD’s–while certainly key items in the USA’s proposed rationale–were not the only factors. Saddam’s practices of hiding and protecting fleeing members of Al Qaeda, encouraging terrorist bombings of Israel through words and money (up to $25,000 to families of suicide bombers–see previous post), throwing out UN weapons inspectors at just the time that satellite data showed curious traffic of large vehicles from Iraq to surrounding regions, and other dynamics of interest almost certainly contributed to the overall decision.
But lest you misunderstand me, let me say this again: my main two-fold point was to argue that: (a) supporters of the Iraq war are not necessarily in “bad standing” with the Church (or in a state of sin, on that point), despite the advice of the chaplain in MM’s story, and despite the repeated insinuations by many Vox Nova contributors (perhaps in attempts to justify their votes for Obama); and (b) the vehemence with which many Vox Nova contributors decry the War in Iraq (and all its supposed “proponents”) contrasts with their underwhelming efforts (if any) against abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, etc., to an almost surreal extent. Were Vox Nova a physical newspaper, I should expect “IRAQ WAR = EVIL” as the banner headline on the front page, with one or two mild articles entitled “efforts to reduce abortions” somewhere near the bottom of page 45, in the “Lifestyles” section. Truly: doesn’t that strike you as somewhat odd… and as at least somewhat indicative of Vox Nova priorities? That sense of disproportion is what led me to post comments here, in the *first* place.
Perhaps this would help: I have no special interest in defending the War in Iraq, per se. I do have some interest in defending those who support it (including the President, and especially including those in the military who fight in it) from accusations of immorality and the like; and I have a vested interest in defending the truth against the screeds of any political party–be it on the “left” or on the “right”. And I most certainly have a vested interest in fighting the “creeping heterodoxy” that leads people to view “politically correct” causes with vigour, while viewing abortion, euthanasia, ESCR, etc., with an attitude of: “Meh. Yeah, I guess, but it’s important to be balanced about this; besides, many people don’t view the fetus/embryo as a person, ensoulment is an open question [sic], quality of life (and the “right to die” [sic]) is an important and non-irrelevant issue, and lots of benefits could be gained from ESCR, too.” To those who are infected with that disease, I can only say (and hope) with Christ: “Father, forgive them; they know not what they do.”
P.S. to Editor: thanks for the clarification!
What a bunch of pathetic hogwash. Just the same, I’m glad we live in a country that allows people to say whatever ridiculous things they believe to be facts. I’m glad our military has successfully defended our country and your rights to say those things. I’m also proud to have served in the U.S. Navy for 25 years and despite comments of pompous fools that service makes me no less a Catholic than anyone else. Lastly, saying something repeatedly (unjust war, or evil) doesn’t take something wrong and turn it into a fact. You’re entitled to your own opinions you are not entitled to your own facts.
Lastly, saying something repeatedly (unjust war, or evil) doesn’t take something wrong and turn it into a fact. You’re entitled to your own opinions you are not entitled to your own facts.
“Shut up, Popes!” – largebill
How about “Stop misquoting Popes!” – Largebill FTFY
If you actually review the various statements you would see neither made a declarative statement that this specific action was clearly unjust. Obviously, both of them (and hopefully all of us) are opposed to war in general. However, the Pope doesn’t get daily intelligence briefings from the CIA, NSA, etc and the Pope is not responsible for the safety of this nation. It can be argued that some of the intelligence later turned out to be less than totally accurate. You can not go backwards from there are assert that makes it an unjust action because the president based his decision on information available at the time.
Separately, for the misguided folks who asserted that Iraq under Hussein didn’t provoke or attack, I’d suggest studying some history. In 1990 Iraq invaded another country (Kuwait). The U.S. and a coalition of other countries responded and pushed the Iraqi army back into Iraq resulting in a surrender and a peace treaty. Guess what? Saddam did not abide by the terms of the agreement. I was in the Gulf a few times in the intervening years and our planes patrolling the southern No-Fly zone (to protect Kuwait and the Kurds) frequently had radar locked on them and often were fired upon. Don’t know about you experts, but that sounds like aggression to me. Folks with little perspective say we should’ve let the inspectors have more time to look for WMD. Saddam had been stonewalling and refusing to cooperate with the inspectors for 14 years. Yet some of you think he was magically going to change his behavior. Okay, let me know if you’re interested in buying a bridge. You can sit here in safety and pretend that if we didn’t take action in 2003 that the situation would have just resolved itself. If you are honest with yourself you’d admit that if we didn’t take action in 2003 the situation would have gotten worse and we’d have to deal with it at a point where Iraq was stronger and likely would have completed reconstituting their WMD program. Don’t know about you folks, but personally I’m glad we didn’t have hundreds of thousands of soldiers and sailors exposed to nasty stuff.
Paladin,
Are you saying that at the time we entered war the President was certain that Iraq was planning an attack that they could have credibly completed against the USA? My understanding was that the “preemptive war” argument was that such certainty is not necessary. All we have to know is they are bad guys and they might some day attack us and we want to keep the bad guys from getting weapons. I don’t remember the claim that we know they will attack us ever being made. And you know, saying that we don’t have to be certain that they plan to credibly attack us is arguing for evil disregard of human life.
The reason that a Catholic can be in good standing and support unjust wars is because they could be mistaken as to whether or not the just war criterion were met. However, the arguments for war i.e. preventing an uncertain future attack, “democratizing the middle east, etc…. were attempts to justify a war absent a just cause. I’m really not sure how the president could have been certain that a credible attack was being planned.
Simply stating that Saddam was working on wmds, had little regard for innocent life, and hated the USA is simply not sufficient.
You seem to have two concerns. I will deal with the second one first. You are worried about “creeping heterodoxy”. I think this is because you associate those who strongly oppose the war with those who support abortion, or maybe don’t really mind it. However, being strongly against the war does not imply any position on abortion. These are two separate issues. It is funny though, I can’t seem to talk about war without some conservative person bringing up abortion.
On your first concern, I have to say I disagree with you. After 9/11 our nation was consumed with desire for revenge. We sung songs saying we will “put a boot in your ass, its the American way”. We keep singing songs about bombing Iraq or Iran, whichever we hate more at the moment. We treat war and the military as something to celebrate and honor. If the country really viewed it as a necessary evil, military action would be something to mourn, not celebrate. The truth is that in this war there is no set of facts that made me think that we knew that a credible attack against us was being planned. The decision to go to war minus that is evil.
This is not even beginning to address proportionality, probability of success, etc…
If you actually review the various statements you would see neither made a declarative statement that this specific action was clearly unjust.
You must have forgotten to actually READ the statements in question. That’s the only way you could possibly believe such things.
Are you saying that at the time we entered war the President was certain that Iraq was planning an attack that they could have credibly completed against the USA?
I say that this is a possibility (though “against the USA” isn’t necessary–wouldn’t you regard such a “credibly pending attack” against Israel to be sufficient? I don’t know of many who would regard that as quite so dubious…). Given my lack of access to classified documents, etc., in question, I can’t say much more than that… but since my point was to refute the claims that “the War in Iraq was certainly unjust”, it should do, for now.
My understanding was that the “preemptive war” argument was that such certainty is not necessary.
Let me be clear: I cannot speak for the President directly, nor do I support the general, unqualified idea of a “preemptive war”, so-called (i.e. against a country with no history of explicit aggression against us or our allies, who happens to be amassing nasty weapons). But it’s my understanding that, at least in the eyes of the US administration, such was not the case. Saddam Hussein’s regime was a sworn enemy of Israel (our ally) and of us; he’d been defying the U.N. inspectors for over 10 years, and all credible evidence suggested that he was trying to amass WMD’s (of which he’d demonstrated his willingness to use). Given that the international community had forbidden him to possess such weapons, having deemed him untrustworthy (think of a felon forbidden by the government to own a gun), this was a problem… and when “stern warning after stern warning” from the U.N. was met with a middle finger from Saddam, it’s neither unreasonable nor unjust that something had to happen that was more than mere words on paper. But again, I have no special interest in defending the Iraq War, per se; I mention these points only to refute those who seem “absolutely certain” that the War in Iraq was unjust. It might have been; I’ve no idea, frankly. But I do know that no airtight case has been made against it–at least, not in my hearing.
You are worried about “creeping heterodoxy”. I think this is because you associate those who strongly oppose the war with those who support abortion, or maybe don’t really mind it.
That’s not really an accurate way of putting the case. For me, it’s not a function of “word association” (or “political topic association?”); it’s a measure of proportion and contrast (i.e. vociferous and energetic about “political left” causes, mild and lackluster and even dismissive about other causes–it’s like Sherlock Holmes’ “dog that didn’t bark”), coupled with the fact that a distressing number of those who champion politically “left” issues actually start “apologizing” for those who are pro-contraception, abortion-tolerant, pro-euthanasia, pro-ESCR, and the like… and some of these same “left champions” actually argue those positions themselves! Even a cursory read of (with all due respect) Vox Nova posts (from contributors and admirers) shows that this is the case, and not rarely.
However, being strongly against the war does not imply any position on abortion. These are two separate issues.
True. Speaking for myself: I don’t rely merely on any sort of “knee-jerk extrapolation” (i.e. “you’re against the war, so you must be pro-abortion”); I have a bit more respect for logic, than that! No… it’s the complete *absence* of measurable motivation for fighting a far more grave and sweeping evil (i.e. abortion), coupled with a willingness to vote for an almost mind-numbingly abortion-tolerant politician (Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Boxer, etc.) in their enthusiasm for their pet issues, coupled with a distressingly common tendency to argue the abortion-tolerant (or ESCR-tolerant, etc.) position, coupled with a tendency to be very dismissive of what they call “the Institutional Church”, among other things, that leads me to my conclusions on the matter.
It is funny though, I can’t seem to talk about war without some conservative person bringing up abortion.
Well… given the circumstances, I can hardly blame them. If the Titanic is sinking, and some crew members are focusing a disproportionate amount of energy on insisting that no foul language be used while departing, that lack of right proportion (a.k.a. “cluelessness”) could rightly invite some consternation. Speaking for myself, it’s downright horrifying to see an “anti-war champion” meet the issue of abortion (which overwhelms any war, in evil, ferocity, barbarism, and sheer numbers) with something akin to a resigned shrug of the shoulders… or even opposition! There seems to be something in the “politically left” mindset that disarms one’s horror and resolve to fight such inhuman crimes… and I can’t help but grieve it.