For those in need of more things to ponder in this election year, Intentional Disciples has a great post with a link to The Journal of Catholic Legal Studies, replete with articles helpful toward the formation of conscience. I started with the article by Joseph L. Falvey, Jr., entitled Reflections on Just Wars and Just Warriors.
It seems that every time I turn around these days, I come across Catholics of one of two minds: "It's obvious, it's clear, it's a given: the war in Iraq is justified and morally right." Or "It's obvious, it's clear, it's a given: the war in Iraq is an abominable crime against God." I sometimes feel like a ping pong ball, to be honest, as I listen to both views. (The one thing I'd love to shout to both groups is "Do you know some believers think very differently on this?")
Among the many things this article clarifies, it points out that three different statements were made by three different Bishops in the United States: a military Bishop, a Byzantine Bishop, and the head of the USCCB. The first said "you, Catholic military, may fight in this war in good conscience." The second said "this was is completely unjustified and no one may partake in it or support it legitimately." The third said "people may be of different minds about this war, and indeed they are." It makes it clear that people under the Byzantine Bishop are indeed barred from fighting in or supporting the war! But it also makes the point that even Bishops may look at all of the same facts and come to very different conclusions.
But, do we look at the facts, or are we swayed by strong feelings of how we would like the world to be, if we were the ones deciding whether to go to war?
5 comments:
Didn't JPII oppose this war? And don't all the bishops follow him?
The article points out the JPII expressed grave concerns about whether all diplomatic efforts had been made to avoid war. However it also points out that there was never an actual condemnation of the war itself, but rather an expression to the effect that the charism of determining whether all necessary efforts were made belongs to those heads of state who actually make the war declarations. So, in this author's view it did not amount to a statement that was binding in conscience of the faithful, rather a stern warning to heads of state.
JP II did see the war against Iraq as an unjustified use of militart force, as did BXVI, even prior to becoming pope. Prior to our attack, there was a massive U.S. gov't effort, led by Wiegal and Novak, who went to Rome at the invitation of then Ambassador Nichols, to argue that pre-emptive wars, like the one the administration was proposing for Iraq, fit just war criteria, this was rejected out-of-hand by the Vatican. Both JPII and BXVI believe(d) that we have a moral obligation to remain until peace and stability are restored. You can see this rejection of the use of pre-emptive force clearly enshrined in the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 501.
The U.S. bishops also opposed a war against Iraq, and did so quite publicly.
And you know, this statement: "The third said 'people may be of different minds about this war, and indeed they are,'" is not exactly a show of support for the war! Just because the bishop observed that "people" may be of different minds, doesn't mean that the head of the USCCB thinks that the war is just or justified...nor does it even mean "may" as in "are justified" -- it could simply mean "might." It also doesn't mean that every opinion concerning the war is justified. I also think that just because, as Deacon Scott points out, "JP II did see the war against Iraq as an unjustified use of military force, as did BXVI, even prior to becoming pope," doesn't mean that it is wrong for a U.S. soldier to fight in the war -- is this correct? Also, generally, what we MUST believe (and live) as Catholics (you know, in order not to be ex-communicated) is quite limited. What we ought to believe (and live) in order not to fall into sin is a much broader category. What the Church suggests, as a guide to conscience, is a yet larger body of beliefs. "The Church [or the Pope] says..." should not be used a club, or in order to multiply rules to live by. The question becomes, how do we use our freedom? Do we cling, out of love, to our Pope and his bishops, or do we follow out of intellectual laziness ("I don't have to think about this because the Church has already done the thinking for me"), fear, or to feel superior to others? Or do we too easily reject our bishops' views because we feel we can reason better? People who make statements concerning moral questions, insisting that everyone follow "because the Church says..." need to ask themselves what it means that the Church says something. What it means to them, and what they hope it means to their listeners.
Firstly, I'd hoped this post would draw people to read and interact with the article, long though it is, because it seems well-researched.
Secondly, for the record, my own position on rather murky and it kind of depends who I'm talking with (I tend to take the opposing view, just to try to understand).
Third, I get the idea of adhering to the Pope's views, even if they are not per se dogmatic formulae. What troubles me a bit is when people appeal to this only where it fits what they already assert as their view. Know what I mean?
I always come back to this thing we've talked about in SoC of whether "good Catholics" must pray the rosary daily. Certainly JPII made many, many strong statements encouraging everyone to do so, so if we go by "adhering out of love," let's do it! Let's have our Holy Father's heart! But then let's not be selective.
Really, I think the crux of the argument is whether the Holy Father truly stated that his view was advisory, but that the "charism of discerning" the matter lies with the heads of state. This would seem to indicate that he was pointing to others for the final decision, and for responsibility for it.
Rambling thoughts from the owner of a still-recovering tummy.
Post a Comment