Yep.

From the viewpoint you are advocating, Pius XII was very wrong, as would any pope be who advised soldiers to “fight with valor and charity on whatever side they found themselves.”

Yep.

Pius’ position, as reflected here at least, has no concern for the truth, unless his conception of “truth” is that fighting is itself the only “good” that matters.

The question here, from the Michael’s viewpoint, would not be whether Pius XII was correct to remain neutral. It was the way he remained neutral. Presumably Michael would argue that Pius II should have said, “Don’t fight in this war, no matter what side you are on.” Instead, he said, “Fight with valor and charity” to those on both sides.

I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Yes, I think Pius’ position was wrong. It obviously doesn’t jive with my pacifist commitments, but it doesn’t even jive with Roman Catholic just war tradition. It’s simply an all-out pro-war-no-matter-what position.

Also, be careful not to fall into this position of neutrality nonsense. There is no “neutral” position. Pius was not being “neutral” by telling everyone to fight their balls off.

This man, of course, is going to be made into a saint.

So what? The absolute pacifist Dorothy Day is going to be made into a saint too.

It seems to me you are making an extraordinarily serious indictment of the Catholic Church.

I was recently looking up information about Pius XII, and I came across this passage in Paul Johnson’s A History of Christianity:

Pius XII advised all Catholics everywhere to “fight with valour and charity” on whichever side they happened to find themselves. Later, he deffended his early war-statements by claiming that both sides construed them to be in their favour. In that case, what was the point of issuing them?

Here’s another interesting passage I just found from The Church and Nazi Germany by Guenter Lewy:

In modern times, the Pope, being the head of a world-wide Church, had usually found it necessary to steer a neutral course. An armed conflict, especially one between Catholic citizens of different nations, undoubtedly created a serious evil of a spiritual nature in which the Pontiff, as a supreme moral leader, was entitled to intervene and to pass judgment on the rights of the warring parties. But such an intervention would have incurred a serious risk to undermining the status of local Church hierarchies who, out of patriotism or tactical considerations, usually sided with their own country’s war effort. To denounce as unjust a war of an aggressor nation containing a large Catholic population would have subjected the Catholics of that country to conflict of loyalties in which the victory of the nationalistic sentiments over a universal morality of peace and justice would probably have been a foregone conclusion. The ability of the Papacy to provide moral leadership being limited by what the faithful can accept, the Holy See had, therefore, traditionally refrained from declaring a particular war as just or unjust. Instead, the Vatican had allowed the ecclesiastical authorities of each belligerent country to support their own government and had merely counseled the Catholics of the countries at war to fight humanely and with charity toward their enemies. . . .

After England and France had declared war on Germany the Catholic bishops of those two countries added their voice to that of the Polish bishops and called for a crusade against Nazi Germany for freedom and human brotherhood. The Archbishop of Bambrai called France’s fight a “war in defense of civilization, of the law of nations, human morality, liberty, in short, of humanity.” The British episcopate declared similarly that Britain was defending a just cause and fighting for truth and Christianity. The German bishops for their part, as we have seen also were convinced that they were fighting a just war. Of course, by definition, and as all Catholic theologians are agreed, no war can be objectively just on both sides. If one side defends rights, the other is necessarily violating rights. But Pius XII remained aloof: he told all Catholics that they should fight with valor and charity on whatever side they found themselves.

From the viewpoint you are advocating, Pius XII was very wrong, as would any pope be who advised soldiers to “fight with valor and charity on whatever side they found themselves.” I should note that this is actually a separate issue from the usual arguments about Pius XII and the Nazis. The question here, from the Michael’s viewpoint, would not be whether Pius XII was correct to remain neutral. It was the way he remained neutral. Presumably Michael would argue that Pius II should have said, “Don’t fight in this war, no matter what side you are on.” Instead, he said, “Fight with valor and charity” to those on both sides.

This man, of course, is going to be made into a saint.

Our church leaders are the individuals we talked about in another post. They are separated from us and each other through the individualistic history of tradition expressed in the clothing they wear and the isolation of the theology they write in the body and buildings they inhabit which they cling to for dear life.

The courage of love will give up all of this and go to the front lines where the battle takes place. That leader will risk losing his life in order to gain it. He will love the person who may kill him in order to convert him. He will have no enemies.

The leaders of the church rarely “give their blessing,” of course, but insofar as they usually remain pastorally silent, they sin. Their role is precisely to give concrete moral guidance to disciples.

It is presumed that the soldier is honorably doing his duty unless a totally compelling case can be made against against the side he is fighting for. What you would like to see, I take it, is the presumption that soldiers are wrong to fight unless there’s an absolutely clear-cut, objective case for their side.

That is indeed what I want. If you don’t think this is what should take place, then it does not seem to me that you take human life very seriously at all.

But that’s not what we have today.

Again, you are pointing to human and ecclesial weakness, i.e. sin.

Michael,

Of course what I was saying is that there is no absolute prohibition against war.

Also, it seems to me there can never be a “just war” — that is, a war in which both sides are justified in fighting. When an aggressor launches an unjust war against another country, that other country is justified in defending itself. So what is an unjust war for one side may be a just war for the other side.

It is simply not a teaching of the Church that violence is always and everywhere forbidden, and that self-defense must be limited to passive resistance. In the case of self-defense, passive resistance is permitted but not required. If force is necessary to protect the lives of others, then it is a “grave duty.”

The Fifth Commandment is not “You shall not kill.” It’s “You shall not murder.” (And, indeed, when it originated, it may have meant “You shall not murder anyone in your own tribe.”)

The crux of the matter, of course, is who decides when it is “necessary”?

And it seems to me that this has led to the Church being more permissive rather than less. Instead of suggesting to those in the military that they should think long and hard, because in all likelihood, the war they are fighting in is unjust, the bishops and priests on one side of the war give their blessing to soldiers on their side, and the bishops and priests on the other side of the war give their blessings to soldiers on their side.

It is presumed that the soldier is honorably doing his duty unless a totally compelling case can be made against against the side he is fighting for. What you would like to see, I take it, is the presumption that soldiers are wrong to fight unless there’s an absolutely clear-cut, objective case for their side. But that’s not what we have today.

The crux of the matter, of course, is who decides when it is “necessary”? Just war principles indicate that the state obviously gets to decide because they are the ones with the guns. But the very existence of just war teaching shows that what the state decides stands under a higher source of judgment. Just war principles obviously exist because states cannot be trusted to act out of anything other than self-interest.

The very existence of just war theory clearly indicates that war is not forbidden.

On the contrary, the “theory’s” existence — as well as the specifics of the “theory” — indicates that most wars are in fact forbidden.

That is not what has been said. What has been said is that even in necessity, when it is permitted, it doesn’t come without a price, and without a need for the soldier to make penance for what killing they did in combat. Many early fathers forbade soldiering, but most gave soldiers who killed a time out from communion. http://incommunion.org/?p=409 is a good discussion of St Basil on this issue.

Once again, I would recommend you read the link I gave to my post on war. You have not followed my point exactly yet. There are several issues involved. One is the Christian response, in the perfection of love, the kind of response expected of us as we become more and more holy. The second is the humanitarian issue. Ellul does a good job in distinguishing the two in his works — so as not to confuse the ways of humanity and idolize it.

Thanks for the link. I will look more deeply into the issue. But the fact remains that what Henry is arguing for is not currently the teaching of the Church. The right to use force instead of nonviolent resistance in self-defense is firmly established.

Even John Paul II upheld the right to execute dangerous criminals if there is no other way to protect society. (Of course, pro-death-penalty Catholics have interpreted “absolute necessity” and “very rare, if not practically nonexistent” to mean “just a matter of prudential judgment.” Consequently, they defend George Bush’s signing of every death warrant put before him — 152 of them — as not really problematical. It is stunning to think that something “very rare, if not practically nonexistent” could occur 152 times in a not-quite-full term of one governor.)

And if the Catholic Church has ever even hinted that soldiers are not permitted to engage in combat and kill when necessary, I would like to see someone cite an authoritative source. The very existence of just war theory clearly indicates that war is not forbidden.