 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
True Image
Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 7th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 74 |
| First Name: | Anne | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Lifelong devout cradle Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon May 12th, 2008 12:01 am |
|
EMarshallBuckles wrote: JasPax wrote: EMarshallBuckles wrote:  Well daggone it! This here "Catholic closet" is startin' to get crowded what with President Bush and the Secret Service crammed in here with me! 
Then Ted wrote: "Hey Marshall, come on out."
_________________________________
I posted this before and got no response from Marshall. He must have been taking a nap !!! 
It is: You guys have to give Marshall some slack. After all, he's from a town that doesn't know what state it is in.  How about that Marshall?
That's a joke, son.
Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner! See, I usually tend to hang out in the Fellowship Hall, drinking Diet Coke, belching or go outside and put Mentos in Diet Coke watching the "whoosh" as it sprays upwards! And, yep, sometimes I get mail addressed to Rockville, Maryland but as long as they get the zip code correct, I get it! By the way, I use a Post Office Box, however, my actual street address is "Saint Peter's Church Road" (named after a local Methodist Church just down the road). Ironic, isn't it?! Ha, ha!
Well, guess I better go park my Baptist Barge outside so I can make more room "in the Catholic Closet" for Kim, President Bush, the Secret Service and me! Ha, ha!
OK, when I first read this post, I thought he meant Bristol. As in Bristol with the state line running through it. 
I didn't even think of Rockville MD - and I have been there frequently, since I used to live in the DC suburbs.
Anne
|
|
|
Steven Barrett
Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | Hadley, Massachusetts USA |
| Posts: | 974 |
| First Name: | Steven | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic, Episcopal communicant, Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon May 12th, 2008 01:20 am |
|
 Do you think the House of Bishops and Parliament will move an inch after what that German Cardinal said to them with no doubt the blessings of a German Pope?
Well, I might be hasty here: After all, how fast do you think Parliament will move to make sure the Royals can marry only Catholics, if there's no "suitable Protestant or Orthodox Greek/Russian available" should the Crown Prince decides to marry a maid named --- Fatima --- and her parents didn't give her that first name in honor of a little town in Portugal.
Perhaps as fast as a Lotus Formula One car racing at Brands Hatch.
If the Church of England had any pride left, (well, it does, but not the kind one should be really proud of, at least as a very good Anglican like C.S. Lewis would've described it ... ) they'd find a new Guy Fawkes day or Orange-related event to mark this (well-deserved) pasting. I only wish members of your quite discriminating first family could've been there to witness that event.
____________________
For anybody interested in reading commentary from a Catholic's socially conservative/fiscally liberal viewpoint, go to my new blog at http://www.politicsramble.com/ .
|
|
|
jacki
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 7th, 2007 |
| Location: | Essex, England, United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 73 |
| First Name: | jacki | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | baptised in the church of england (I am a brit) ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon May 12th, 2008 07:45 am |
|
we dont have a house of bishops - a house of lords which does include anglican bishops, but also every other aspect of faith here in the uk. Seats are set aside for the quasi bishops though.
As for the 'crown' prince do you mean the Prince of Wales? He is going to break the mould I think he is more open to others than his mother - he did marry the horse after all.
|
|
|
Steven Barrett
Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | Hadley, Massachusetts USA |
| Posts: | 974 |
| First Name: | Steven | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic, Episcopal communicant, Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 13th, 2008 05:14 am |
|
 
I'm having a helluva hard time trying to write this without laughing any harder. You really caught me on my slip of distinction between the (present) crown prince, the prince of whales and his son, the future heir with a brain.
He's the one I meant. Hell, I think everyone's given up on the prince of whales who married the "horse." As for that staged mea culpa before they made an "honest couple" out of themselves for a change, that was a beaut! I'm not even sure our soap opera script writers could've come up with something like that.
Yes, we have the confessional prayer at the beginning of the Mass, but the prayer the prince of whales and his horsey-dorsey squeeze had to gulp down was completely unexpected, at least by myself.
As for William, yes, I'm afraid they'll make damn sure he gets to marry a Catholic, no matter how many bottles of good scotch it'll take to cast that "yes" vote and live with it -- but on the other hand, as I said, there's no way in hell they'll put up with a future queen named "Fatima" if she's not named after a Portugese village that's much beloved in Catholic history.
Not after who could've been his putative future stepfather.
he did marry the horse after all.
 Jacki, that was great!
As for those quasi bishops, real bishops or dress-up bishops used for Masterpiece Theatre, I'm sure they must've raced off to whatever nearest pub they could find after hearing Cardinal Kasper's remarks.
I'm sure they weren't drinking Lowenbrau. Although it might not hurt if they did. Good night!
____________________
For anybody interested in reading commentary from a Catholic's socially conservative/fiscally liberal viewpoint, go to my new blog at http://www.politicsramble.com/ .
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5353 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 13th, 2008 11:56 am |
|
Steven Barrett wrote: the prince of whales
Lest we cause an international incident, I should mention that Wales is a country that is part of the United Kingdom, along with England, Scotland, and Northern Irleand. Charles is the Prince of Wales, a title given to the crown prince and successor to the throne.
Prince of whales implies that he has something to do with enormous marine mammals. While it may be true, it certainly conveys a completely different image. 
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
BD
Member
| Joined: | Wed Mar 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 46 |
| First Name: | Brett | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Non-denominational evangelical, Mennonite (Anabaptist), now Evangelical-Anabapti-catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 13th, 2008 02:19 pm |
|
This present war hasn't involved tactics, to my knowledge, that would purposely kill (arguably murder) many thousands of unarmed civilians. In fact, with smart bombs and the like, unintended civilian casualties have been kept to a minimum unknown to virtually all of the wars in history.
Dave, let me suggest one such tactic: the use of depleted uranium ordinance. It is toxic and potentially causing widespread injury to American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. It is worth investigating. If it is as dangerous as many argue, it violates the just means criterion.
Let me ask another thing: if you don't have to accept the moral council of the pope on this current conflict because the Pope is not privy to all the data, then what are you basing your decision on? You are not privy to all the data either. You have to trust our government officials, then. Should you? In this case:
Officials who continually and falsely (duplicity at its worst) linked 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. Officials who falsely claimed weapons of mass destruction as the main pretext for war in Iraq (though not the only pretext). Officials who falsely claimed the oil revenues would pay for the conflict and American tax payers would not be stuck with the bill. Why trust our government officals over against the pope when the rhetoric and data was either purposefully or unintentional false? Certainly there seems to be enough reason to at least question the veracity of our government's rhetoric and policy.
I can't believe that people as sinful as Christians could trust governments over against the moral guidance of the Pope solely because "governments have the data and security info" to make the decision. That strikes me as incredibly naive. Citing Romans 13 about the legitimacy of nations and their use of the sword is not good enough. Read Romans 12 too! Read them together and ask what guidance Christians have from both of these chapters. Why is it when one's home nation is involved in war, few ever cite Romans 12?
I think we Americans need to take more guidance from our international Catholic brothers and sisters in order to hold in check what tends to be our staunch Americanism. "We" need to make sure that the "we" that shapes our lives most deeply is the ecclesial we and not the national we. If we are not careful, we become idolaters.
p.s. And I told myself I was going to stay out of this discussion!
Last edited on Tue May 13th, 2008 02:25 pm by BD
____________________
Non abbiate paura!
|
|
|
Steven Barrett
Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | Hadley, Massachusetts USA |
| Posts: | 974 |
| First Name: | Steven | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic, Episcopal communicant, Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 13th, 2008 02:31 pm |
|
Cajunrick--you're right. I lost my diplomatic bearings and behaved in a very Carville-esque manner. Aw shucks, what I meant to say was "prince of whines," but since that other word sounded closer ...
Heck, I've got a great excuse in Jacki's very sly description of the future "consort-ess." That was way too much to laugh about on too little sleep last night when I came across it. Jacki's astute observation might strike Charles' missus as uncharitale, but dang, I still can't help laughing.
As for creating any diplomatic situations, how much worse could I make an already messed up foreign policy than it is now? Get Bush to put FEMA under Condi Rice's department and bring that "Brownie" guy back to "supervise" the distribution of all those EPA-condemned trailer homes?
Talk about using "weapons of mass destruction"! I wouldn't inflict THAT punishment on anyone in the Isles. Well, maybe some hard-core Orange precincts in Belfast or Londonderry.
Yeah, if I was near Tetzel in the days leading up to Luther's pout, he'd be saying, "You couldn't find enough coins to jingle the coffer to get your way out of this one ... "Last edited on Tue May 13th, 2008 02:32 pm by Steven Barrett
____________________
For anybody interested in reading commentary from a Catholic's socially conservative/fiscally liberal viewpoint, go to my new blog at http://www.politicsramble.com/ .
|
|
|
Greg72
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 31st, 2008 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 5 |
| First Name: | Greg | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Vague theist to Catholic Church |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 13th, 2008 07:41 pm |
|
Interesting discussion. I'm afraid I can't resist a few comments.
Firstly about Mr Blair's conversion. There are a lot of us in the UK who are largely skeptical about his decision, mainly - as Jakki already noted - because of his historical support for abortion, embryonic stem cell research and a variety of anti-family policies. I personally doubt he has come to a new conclusions about these issues with his conversion as he has since stated that he has nothing to be ashamed of and his wife Cherie - who has always been Catholic - is on the record as saying she has stayed in the church despite its position on such things as abortion, because she would like to change it from within.
Second, I am intrigued and confused by dave's (and indeed from the various vibes I pick up from EWTN a number of devout serious catholics) continued and vehement defence of the invasion of Iraq. I understand that technically an individual may dissent on this and other issues and still receive communion - fine, such an allowance however does not constitute a great argument for it either. I also fully understand the soldiers themselves are doing a difficult job and trying to help - I don't think anyone sensible would criticise them for that. But the issues are complex and were so when the war was imminent and have been so in that region for a very long time. Nowhere in the arguments presented do I get a great sense of the complexity of the problems faced, the undeniable tragedies that have occurred and are still going on, or the difficult and murky history of teh West's relationship with that region.
The history is important because America and the UK and Russia and probably all countries in the Western World that have held influence over the last 150 years are all implicated in the problems we have in the Middle East today (as with Africa) because of intrinsically flawed (possibly even evil) economic and foreign policy decisions that have been made. People become terrorists and do evil things (they in themselves are not evil as previously quoted) because they think it is just. And they think it is just because they (or their families or their neighbours) have been badly treated somewhere along the line. This is not to excuse their actions but to understand and have compassion for them.
The question to me seems to be always - how do we respond? In looking for a suitable response to attacks or even more so to the threat of attacks - in the light of such complex situations where our own leaders have been implicated in the causes - where should we look for guidance? That same structure of government, or Jesus - the Church - the Holy Father.
Maybe things were different in America, but it was quite clear in the UK at the eve of the invasion that at best the intelligence information was unclear. The arms inspectors wanted more time. The press was full of serious reports about the flaws in the intelligence being put forward. Time has only further undermined the pre-war position. Maybe one Israeli says the WMD's were moved to Syria - is his word enough? Many more say different. Iraq was a collapsing regime. Saddam was a gangster who had had his day and was full of bluster about his capabilities. He had no links with terrorists. It is only since his regime collapse, with the complete lack of any post-invasion plan being in place, that terrorists had the chance to flood the country and wage a new war.
Time forbids me to go on and on, but I cannot conclude that this is a just war. The Second World War was just in theory because of the absolute need to defend against occupation but that doesn't mean that everything carried out during that just war is 'just' - eg. Dresden. Also I think - as Pope Benedict intimated during his previous role - that the idea of justification of war diminishes as technology increases and terrible damage can be done to civilian populations from a distance. Bombs cause such devastation and I feel they will always be the cowardly way to resolve any situation, whether coming from a terrorist or an elected government.
|
|
|
DrDave
Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | Mildura, Australia |
| Posts: | 228 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Cradle - Lapsed - Renewed Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 14th, 2008 12:06 am |
|
There are many, who argue that the bible says "Thou shalt not kill", and therefore any human being who IN ANY WAY causes the death of another is guilty of murder in the eyes of God and therefore going to hell unless they repent. Some even go so far as to apply "Thou shalt not kill" to animals, and some even to vegetables, preferring only to eat fruit that has naturally fallen from the tree, and therefore suffered a natural 'death'.
In our tradition however, "Thou shalt not kill" has always been understood to mean "Thou shalt not murder". With this distinction comes the possibility of killing in defense of self. Whether this be in the form of killing the person intent upon killing you in a one on one situation, killing in defense of another who is unable to defend themselves, killing someone who is a clear, present, and continuing threat - Capital punishment, and finally War.
When someone is killed, authorities will investigate to see if evidence can be found to support a claim of self defense, and if such a claim is upheld, then no criminal charges are laid, but in the end, only God knows what was in the heart of the person at the time they made the decision to act in a way as to cause the death of another. We may speculate all we like, but it is not our place to "judge".
When it comes to 'Just War', 'Corporate self defense' the same standard applies. The people entrusted by us with the authority to make the decision to go to war, George W. Bush, Tony Blair, John Howard, will all have to face their creator and answer for their actions. All that any of us on the sidelines, INCLUDING THE POPE, may do is speculate based upon the evidence available to us, and entrust all involved to God's mercy.
For the record, I will say that I have no real idea whether Iraq began as a Just War or not, I don't believe the justifications given out publicly at the time were valid, I doubt whether the three leaders mentioned believed those justifications at the time, but I simply do not know whether they had more pressing underlying causes that they simply felt that they couldn't "sell" to the public (they are politicians after all). I will note that all three won their next election!
As to when to get out of Iraq, I think that regardless whether what was begun back in '03 was justified, given what has already been done, we have an obligation to remain 'until the job is finished' (He says noting that Australia has just voted in a government that pledges to bring all it's troops home by Christmas)
Regards Doc
|
|
|
Steven Barrett
Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | Hadley, Massachusetts USA |
| Posts: | 974 |
| First Name: | Steven | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic, Episcopal communicant, Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 14th, 2008 01:18 am |
|
Greg,
First off, welcome to the Forum. But I've gotta get some things off my chest and mind about this Dresden bombing.
Dresden was anything but the non-threatening city many of the post war revisionist historians would like the rest of the world to believe. It was indeed a war-manufacturing city, with many Meisen porcelain conductor mini-factories working day and night to make the conductors necessary for keeping the war effort going. (Let's not forget the Nazi arsenal in missles and jet airplanes, real threats to Allied air forces and cities, especially London.)
Dresden was also an enormously significant target because of the vast railroad facilities located just to the west of the downtown area. And, of course, the city boasted two very large passenger rail stations, both of which still remain standing and in much better shape, but no thanks to the DDR.
Speaking of the DDR, the former German "Democratic" Republic, that former puppet Communist version of the old Prussian state, did it's very best at propagating a half century of lies and half-truths concerning the bombing of Dresden in February 1945. A half-truth is a half-lie, thus a lie, and the East Germans were excellent in this respect, making the West look like pikers. They had a stake in perpetuating Nazi lies because many of the Reds running East Germany after the War were amongst the most incorrigible Nazis. It was all part of their overall plan in making the West look like bloodthirsty thugs, especially during the Vietnam War years. Remember, they were all playing their relative roles in the continuance of Brezhnev's Empire: You might even recall a sizeable Vietnamese population living in East Germany, not entirely willingly, no doubt.
Back to Dresden, the Gauleiter and his deputy goons neglected to ring the city with sufficient anti-aircraft emplacements, thus rendering the city utterly defenceless alright. But the Allies didn't entirely know that until the raid had effectively began and the real horrifiying evidence surfaced in early May after the city (which was the very last) surrendered on on VE Day, May 8th.
I've read stories about the brave people there who somehow managed to miminize some of the damage caused by the fire sticks during the first wave of bombing, but of course, they were no match for the heavier Lancaster bombers sent by the Royal Air Force. So, let's just agree now, that "Bomber Command" did not purposely and intentionally choose to obliterate a known defenceless city for the sheer hell of it in order to make a point, as the Reds got away with spreading that lie for almost half a century.
I got this from a fairly recently published book I read a couple of years ago, and my apologies for not having it glue to memory. But if you diligently look around, I'm sure you'll find what I'm sharing with you. And I'll admit, it was new to me, as well. However I wasn't terribly surprised to see the extent of how well-crafted the East German lies were woven into history so intricately.
Dresden also suffered from the gross and deliberate negligence of the city's gauleiter. She had no effective fire control, save for -- inexplicably enough -- rounding people, many of whom were refugees -- into a large park located near the main railroad station, and into both primary passenger stations that were both large and easy to locate because of their large glass-sheds.
Also, in the Altstadt area, where all the beautifull buildings are located and thankfully rebuilt, many of the residents were herded into the old marketplace and urged to use a large man-made cooling pool (so-to-speak) thinking that might help them. Nonsense and the gauleiter knew damn well it was nonsense with fresh memories of Hamburg's and Cologne's fire bombings to remind him of this futility. Also, being a "good Nazi," we can rest assure he was "following orders" and went lock-step along with Hitler's scorched earth plan towards the end of the war when all looked hopelessly lost for the Nazis. They sure as hell got what they wanted, didn't they?
Thankfully not as bad as the propagandists got away with for so many years when it came to casualty figures. For years I recall reading about the 300,000 or so people who died. Then it was dropped to about half that figure. When the Honnecker regime fell and the truths started coming out, we learned that only 35,000-40,000 people died in the combined night/day raids that February. Horrible as it was, and there's no escaping this truth or the horrific way these people died. But it wasn't the Allies who started the war. And we mustn't ever, in a million lifetimes, forget what occured in death camps the Nazis built all over Poland and how many people they exterminated as routine policy every day and night from the moment they invaded Poland. Hate to put it this way, but World War II was indeed a battle of desperate survival: Our way or the barbarian's. That we had to use what's nowadays more politically correct to judge in ex post facto fashion as "politically incorrect," -- too bad. Hitlerite Germany got what it deserved.
It was the American bombers the following day that added the final coup de main and finished off what the Royal AF started the night before. But I am so fed up and sick and tired of seeing all the blame the west first propaganda for the Dresdens of history when so little about the Bergen Belsens, Buchenwalds, Theresenstadts, Dachaus, Auschwitzes, Sachsenhausens, etc. are willifully left out. The German rail system, battered as it was, was still in many respects the most efficient system existing to have been able to keep routinely shuttling cattle cars filled with condemned Jews, et al, and Allied POWs. Thus, Dresden was indeed a fair-target.
The late American author, Kurt Vonnegut, who was captured during the Battle of the Bulge shortly before and witnessed the bombing in Dresden luckily escaped alright. But let's not forget that he was essentially left to die not by the Allies, but by his Nazi captors. Dresden was full of refugees, but only because the Nazis deliberately herded them there in the nick of time knowing full well who'd take the brunt of responsibility if anything horrible happened to them. It did, but the Truth of what happened was also made victim, as well.
Then of course, there's that ever so syrupy hogwash about the so-called "Florence of the Elbe" and sentimental slop about Dresden enjoying some "sister-city" arrangement with a corresponding British city. After the Blitz? Who can possibly believe this to this day with a straight face given what we now know about the Nazis?
The Bombing of Dresden was no easy feat. Dropping extra bombs on Mainz and other closer cities enroute home were (relatively) less risky. The city was far and away the most remote major Axis target, and it was bombed due to strategic reasons alone in conjunction with the final operations we had in play with our then Russian allies. In fairness to the Russians, whose conduct in East Germany was utterly barbaric, they did have valid strategic and tactical military reasons for seeing Dresden flattened. And what thanks did we get from them and their East German, North Vietnamese, American and European symps who stabbed us in the back during our war over in SE Asia.
As bad as Dresden was, and it was indeed, other cities suffered even worse, (Darmstadt, a city near Wiesbaden where I lived in the early sixties) was at least 80 pct. destroyed shortly after Dresden was hit. After! And, it had even less significance! But Darmstadt didn't have the good offices of the KGB, Stasi and many willing dupes in the west to give witness to her sufferings.
Sorry for me to have gone on for so long, but out of honest respect for those who died in that raid, on the mission, and from lack of proper after-care when the raid was over, I felt it necessary to stop what I'd originally planned to write to set some things straight.
When you look at Dresden nowadays, she's regained a lot of her lost beauty. But you know something? Much of that lost beauty wasn't just the result of Allied bombs. What the Allies didn't do with their bombs, Red architects, the cultural bolsheviks and planners of blandness par excellance finished off (so they thought) the inner city in hopes that their deliberately and cynically planned bland and boring renewal projects would add to the West's shame.
I've seen how cities in West Germany, especially Nuremburg, Munich, Berlin and Frankfurt came back -- but they were on free soil. Big difference. Big, HUGE Difference. Ya?
Last edited on Wed May 14th, 2008 01:35 am by Steven Barrett
____________________
For anybody interested in reading commentary from a Catholic's socially conservative/fiscally liberal viewpoint, go to my new blog at http://www.politicsramble.com/ .
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5353 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 14th, 2008 01:27 am |
|
Greg72 wrote: Second, I am intrigued and confused by dave's (and indeed from the various vibes I pick up from EWTN a number of devout serious catholics) continued and vehement defence of the invasion of Iraq.
I think you may have misunderstood. The Catholic Church says that government has the right to determine whether the conditions exist for the declaration of a just war.
From the Catechism:
2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.
The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
The last statement (emphasis added) is the operative phrase: Those who have responsibility for the common good represent the government. Of course, that does not mean government is always right or that every war is just. Many people believed the Vietnam War was unjust, and they eventually prevailed. Many people also believed World War II was unjust, and they were ultimately proven wrong. The same can be said of every armed conflict since Cain killed Abel.
Few people would argue that an invasion of Rwanda, Darfur, the Balkans, or other countries where genocide is/was being practiced would be unjust. There is talk today of an invasion of Myanmar (Burma) in order to provide relief supplies to the victims of the cyclone who are being fed rotten food by a government that is confiscating foreign aid for its own benefit.
So the question here (as it involves Catholic theology) is not whether the Church has the right to express its opinion on the moral justification for a war (it does), or whether a government has the unlimited moral justification to conduct war (it does not), but rather who has the right under moral law to determine whether a war is just. That responsibility belongs to "those who have responsibility for the common good".
Please note that I have (deliberately) not expressed my own opinion in this thread on the moral justification for the war. I may have expressed it elsewhere on this forum (I don't remember). The government of the United States made a case before Congress and the United Nations explaining the reasons for the impending invasion, citing each of the criteria mentioned above. No question that some of their contentions were later proven wrong, and we could argue until the cows come home about whether the loss of life (American and Iraqi) is worth the sacrifice. My son-in-law did two tours in the desert, but he came home safely, so my perspective is not the same as others. I am proud of his service and sacrifice, and I truly wish he had not had to go.
My heart goes out especially to the children whose parents never came home; the parents whose children never came home; those who lost spouses, limbs, friends, and family.
I assure you, the case made by the government for the invasion of Iraq was much more compelling than the case made to justify the abortion of five million infants a year. There is such a thing as a "just war"; there is no such thing as a "just abortion". And it offends me greatly that the people screaming the loudest about the war in Iraq are the same ones demanding a woman's unlimited "right to choose".
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1665 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 14th, 2008 07:36 pm |
|
Okay, guys: this thread has gotten off-topic in a huge way. It was originally about President Bush possibly converting, remember? This forum, too, is not intended to be for the airing of political discussion. There are plenty of places for that. We're here to explain the Catholic faith to new and potential Catholics, and to support them in their newfound home / beliefs.
So it isn't wise or in accordance with board and CHNI policy for us to have a huge discussion on the War in Iraq. Someone made a remark about folks being a "real Catholic" if they listen to the pope regarding his opinion on this war. So I felt compelled to put up a paper explaining how individuals are at liberty to have different opinions on that (even disagreeing reverently with the Holy Father), and shouldn't have their status as a "Catholic" questioned in so doing.
Rick has done the same in the post above this one: explaining that the Church gives governments the right and prerogative to determine when war is justified. That brings it back to Church teaching, which is why we are here: what this forum exists to explain and defend.
Someone commented on my own position on the war. He can visit my blog (see below) if he wants to discuss that further (and my own political opinions do not fit all that easily into any one category, by the way). My blog is for open-ended discussion, dialogue and debate, and exchange on papers that I post. It is devoted to apologetics (and sometimes other topics: philosophical, political, ethical, music, etc.), and isn't limited by the more specific mission that this board has. This forum does not exist for debate purposes: on anything (let alone just highly charged ethical-political issues).
No harm done; I'm just trying to clarify the purpose of the board and to keep things on track and on-topic.
Last edited on Wed May 14th, 2008 07:40 pm by Dave Armstrong
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 2000+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
Steven Barrett
Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | Hadley, Massachusetts USA |
| Posts: | 974 |
| First Name: | Steven | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic, Episcopal communicant, Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 14th, 2008 11:35 pm |
|
Dave,
Thanks,
Steven
____________________
For anybody interested in reading commentary from a Catholic's socially conservative/fiscally liberal viewpoint, go to my new blog at http://www.politicsramble.com/ .
|
|
|
BD
Member
| Joined: | Wed Mar 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 46 |
| First Name: | Brett | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Non-denominational evangelical, Mennonite (Anabaptist), now Evangelical-Anabapti-catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 15th, 2008 03:42 pm |
|
War in general is not just a political hot topic, but a theological issue which sheds light on our understanding of the gospel. As a committed pacifist (based Christologically, not politically) and Protestant, I am desperately trying to understand Church teaching on this topic. I appreciate Dave's recentering of the discussion in light of the purpose of this forum, and I would like to say that the war issue is one of my last wrestling points with Catholic tradition. So, for me, this discussion is very helpful indeed.
I understand the teaching that God has given over to governments the responsibility to decide when and how to wage war. I understand how the so-called "Just war theory" is meant to help in that endeavor. What has always puzzled me is that I do not know of one case where the theory was implemented and a war was avoided. So, if it has always worked to rubber stamp conflicts with the label of "justified" then what good is the theory?
I think part of the problem is that when we say government officials have the authority to declare war, we think the discussion is over. Authority to declare war certainly is theirs, neither citizen, priest, nor pope can do such a thing. We need to be equally clear that at times the Church has the moral authority to reject the claims of political entities seeking to justify armed conflict. But what happens too often, as far as I can tell, is that the Church voice gets segmented to that of "opinion" since the "real" authority has already spoken. But it is the Church that should aid in discerning whether any declaration and enactment of war is justified or not, I would argue. The decision whether a conflict is just or not is not the government's alone. When a pope speaks, we should listen and pray, rather than (it appears to me) make a quick move to say how the pope is just giving his personal opinion.
I have been deeply encouraged to read papal encyclicals and Church teaching that has made it most clear that the pacifist voice is one of the ways to morally respond to war. To build a "civilization of love" as John Paul II admonsihed, we must consider war with the most serious moral inquiry and with pleading for God's mercy on our lips. I have never once felt that the American Church approaches war with this required disposition. I hear more "hoorah" than kyrie eleison. I've witnessed Christian being called unpatriotic and treasonous by other Christians because they do not support the war in Iraq. Do the critics understand that there is Church teaching to support these witnesses for nonviolence? To be fair, I've witnessed Christian pacifists shame Christian soldiers who are acting our their conscience too. So, the problem here is never one-way. But if I saw Christians as a whole start to consider each other as one ecclesial body and not according to autonomous national identities, and if this Church had mercy on its lips rather than damnation for each other...then we could start building this civilization of love. It just drives me nuts to consider Christians killing Christians in the name of nation-states. That's suicide. But what drives me nuts even more, is Christians killing non-Christians, thus robbing them of the opportunity to know and love Jesus. I would rather die than steal that opportunity from someone.
So this is one central theological issue that is a major part of my discernment of conversion.
"Christian nonviolence...does not consist in surrendering to evil - as claims a false interpretation of "turn the other cheek" (Luke 6:29) - but in responding to evil with good, (Romans 12:17-21), and thus breaking the chain of injustice. It is thus understood that nonviolence, for Christians, is not mere tactical behavior but a person's way of being, the attitude of one who is convinced of God's love and power, who is not afraid to confront evil with the weapons of love and truth alone. Loving the enemy is the nucleus of the 'Christian revolution'..." - Pope Benedict XVI, during an address at St. Peter's Square, February 18, 2007
____________________
Non abbiate paura!
|
|
|
Annie
Banned
| Joined: | Wed Feb 14th, 2007 |
| Location: | Columbus, Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 731 |
| First Name: | Annie | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | nothing, Quaker, Mennonite, Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglican, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 15th, 2008 03:43 pm |
|
| Thomas Aquinas wrote a lot about both just war and capital punishment. Start with him.
____________________
Annie
Ora et labora
|
|
|
BD
Member
| Joined: | Wed Mar 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 46 |
| First Name: | Brett | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Non-denominational evangelical, Mennonite (Anabaptist), now Evangelical-Anabapti-catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 15th, 2008 03:49 pm |
|
Annie wrote: Thomas Aquinas wrote a lot about both just war and capital punishment. Start with him. I don't mean to be trite Annie, I promise. But it seems to me that we Christians must start with Jesus and seek to emulate the costly discipleship he calls us to. This does not mean we don't then read Augustine and Aquinas and seek their guidance on how to be faithful to Jesus. We must do that. But Jesus Christ is our Lord, so let's start there.
____________________
Non abbiate paura!
|
|
|
Annie
Banned
| Joined: | Wed Feb 14th, 2007 |
| Location: | Columbus, Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 731 |
| First Name: | Annie | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | nothing, Quaker, Mennonite, Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglican, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 15th, 2008 04:12 pm |
|
| It's not trite, it shows a lack of understanding of how Catholics use the Magisterial teachings.
____________________
Annie
Ora et labora
|
|
|
BD
Member
| Joined: | Wed Mar 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 46 |
| First Name: | Brett | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Non-denominational evangelical, Mennonite (Anabaptist), now Evangelical-Anabapti-catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 15th, 2008 06:19 pm |
|
Okay...if understanding how Catholics use Magisterial teachings is an important step in my becoming Catholic, then I hope you won't just point out my lack, but help me overcome it.
____________________
Non abbiate paura!
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1665 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri May 16th, 2008 06:57 pm |
|
I'll be glad to help you out, best I can, Brett, in understanding how Catholics generally approach the issue. Pacifism is, it's true, one ethical tradition within the Catholic Church, but it has never been the predominant one (not by a long shot). Just War is the leading theory on war and peace issues. Catholics are not required to be pacifists. Individuals may do so if they wish, but they cannot compel any Catholic to believe and act likewise.
You said we should "start with Jesus." I'm more than happy to do that. I put together a paper years ago as a Protestant (in 1987), on the biblical teaching regarding war and peace. If we want to see what Jesus Himself taught, I have plenty of that in the paper:
A. Our Lord Jesus acknowledged the right of civil defense: " . . . let him who has no sword sell his robe and buy one" -- Luke 22:36.
B. Jesus accepted the notion of obedience to civil government in general when He said: "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" (in this particular instance, taxes, which, no doubt were used in part for maintenance of the Roman armies -- Matt. 22:21; Mk. 12:17; Luke 20:25).
C. In Jesus' short parable about counting the cost of discipleship, the example of a king going to battle was used (exceedingly strange, if warfare was an absolute evil -- Luke 14:31-33).
D. Jesus didn't rebuke a Roman centurion for being a soldier, but rather, strongly commended his faith and healed his servant -- Matt. 8:5-13 / Luke 7:1-10.
E. Lastly, Jesus, being the Messiah, who had largely a military function throughout the Old Testament, will come again in great power as an all-conquering warrior. He Himself taught this on several occasions: Matt. 16:27; 24:30; 25:31; 26:64, etc. For those accustomed to viewing Jesus as the meek and mild type who wouldn't hurt a flea -- which wasn't true His first time here, either -- the account of His return will come as quite a shock: ". . . in righteousness He judges and wages war and the armies which are in heaven . . . were following Him . . . And from His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may smite the nations . . . and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty" (Revelation 19:11-21).
The paper has ten major sections and lots of Scripture and sub-arguments. Here is another section:
Military Metaphors in the New Testament
These are quite common and are used in reference to spiritual warfare. Some of the more notable examples are: II Cor. 10:3-4 ("weapons of our warfare"), Eph. 6:10-17 ("Put on the full armor of God "), I Tim. 1:18 ("Fight the good fight"), and II Tim. 2:3-4 (". . . a good soldier of Jesus Christ"). Again, it makes no sense to use such terminology if such things are absolute evils. This would be the same as saying "Be a good mass-murderer of Jesus Christ" (since pacifists consider all wars, as far as I can tell, as just that). The very existence of such metaphors is inexplicable if the New Testament teaches total pacifism. I believe it is clear, for all who honestly look into the matter, that there is no radical break in morality and teaching between the two testaments of the Bible. The underlying reason for this is simple: God does not change. He merely reveals Himself more fully and progressively in history.
You wrote:
I think part of the problem is that when we say government officials have the authority to declare war, we think the discussion is over. Authority to declare war certainly is theirs, neither citizen, priest, nor pope can do such a thing. We need to be equally clear that at times the Church has the moral authority to reject the claims of political entities seeking to justify armed conflict. But what happens too often, as far as I can tell, is that the Church voice gets segmented to that of "opinion" since the "real" authority has already spoken. But it is the Church that should aid in discerning whether any declaration and enactment of war is justified or not, I would argue. The decision whether a conflict is just or not is not the government's alone. When a pope speaks, we should listen and pray, rather than (it appears to me) make a quick move to say how the pope is just giving his personal opinion.
Now, per my previous post, I do NOT want to see this thread becoming overtly "political" again, but we can discuss general principles of Catholic social teaching. That is part of our purpose in this forum, and I think you ask good questions, and are a very conscientious thinker.
When I formed my opinion of the current war (applying your observation to myself, to illustrate a point), it was an attempt to fully recognize and respect the Catholic Just War tradition. Thus, I consulted other thinkers who argued that the war could be justified by Catholic ethical principles -- go | | |
