Posted on 01/09/2003 5:27:34 AM PST by logos
The "fog of war" tradition, in Homer, in Aeschylus, in Plato, (less in Aristotle), in Apollonius, and in Vergil, impels the wisest to seek wisdom in divine communication.
The Roman empire sought the same, but ran aground in the "fog of war". Shortly after her zenith, when it became clear that victorious arms had begun to fail at security and liberty, their justified imperial desire ebbed away from the vacuous sacral rites and temples and flowed to astrology--for the extradition of the "fog of war."
Does it not surprise us--a little--that Weigel, who lives in a world set "in the mystery of God’s providence," a mystery which no doubt perforated the shadows and fog of an ancient bedevilement--a fateful, irrational, and absurd fog--does it not surprise that Weigel omits from this important analysis the sacral rite of praying? Has he become King David in retirement?
Does it not surprise, that such an omission does surreptitious service as it turns the public re-bellum of man against the divine into an undisclosed duellum waged on the private stage of the world between reason and fate?
Finally, moral clarity in this time of war requires a developed understanding of the “location” of the just war tradition in our public discourse and in responsible governance.If the just war tradition is indeed a tradition of statecraft, then the proper role of religious leaders and public intellectuals is to do everything possible to clarify the moral issues at stake in a time of war, while recognizing that what we might call the “charism of responsibility” lies elsewhere–with duly constituted public authorities, who are more fully informed about the relevant facts and who must bear the weight of responsible decision–making and governance. It is simply clericalism to suggest that religious leaders and public intellectuals “own” the just war tradition in a singular way.
Arguably the emboldened phrase would include prayer on the part of "religious leaders" without thrusting it onto the shoulders of the leaders of government. It is curious, as you say, that he would omit prayer, even for heads of state, but of late it is truly amazing to watch the power of "politically correct" thinking as it colors public debate. Looking at the rest of his argument concerning the locus of "just war" action, rather than only "just war" discourse, he may have felt that while the duly instituted government is responsible for waging war, it is the clerics who are responsible for praying - and simply left it out of the equation, not wanting to supply a new tack to the naysayers.
But I'm really just guessing; I haven't the faintest idea why he left the activity of prayer out of his equations, unless he thought it so obvious not to need a mention.
I hope the following quote answers your question,
Moral muteness in a time of war is a moral stance: it can be a stance born of fear; it can be a stance born of indifference; it can be a stance born of cynicism about the human capacity to promote justice, freedom, and order, all of which are moral goods. But whatever its psychological, spiritual, or intellectual origins, moral muteness in wartime is a form of moral judgment–a deficient and dangerous form of moral judgment.
I don't think his argument (and is far superior what the ubiquitous internet scribes have to offer) can be saved by squeezing hope out of it--that he would have mentioned it, that he suggests it or implies it, that he means it all the same.
He provides a traditional response in defense of a theory of war. My critique is to say that his traditional response is typically restrictive. It swims happily (like a cleric incognito) in the presumption of a sufficiency in natural reason, meaning, natural reason can be wholly justifying with merely a tip of the hat to origins in the form of "whatever [they are]." This can only be done by assuming the stream of the river is in the right direction. In other words, the fog is lifted with positive thinking: it was a superfluous distraction: "Nothing human takes place outside the realm or beyond the reach of moral reason." Reason penetrates through thick and thin like a determined postman. What does a fog matter to him?
Not at all.
The quote about moral muteness comes from his article above.
Weigel lives what he preaches.
…this can only be done by assuming the stream of the river is in the right direction.
The principles of truth and morality, as history demonstrates, are objective, universal, and unchangeable. He who does not learn from history is doomed to repeat it.
This much should be clear for anyone who does understand: that the language of objectivity is frought with dangers beyond what reason can presume to manage.
You speak within a Christian tradition. Is it not in the very history of that tradition that the "objective" status of law has been demoted? By Christianity? Already when St. Paul began to write his big pill Romans? And then, as if tired of all that, inordinately raised again, flying on the coattails of Herr Doctor Kant?
And does history stop with Kant? What historical being is this Nietsche, who spat at every objective hope? And what of those stuffy academics, who turn a blind eye to that criticism, happily tooling away at their imperial structure of reason?
That's right. The Crusades.
We assert our right to self defense. Is it a just war? No, it is not a war at all. It is self defense and we gain nothing but the status quo and the ability to go on about our business unmolested.
There is no just war here. There is no war here at all. This is self-defense.
Augustine didn't have any intellectual problem massacring as many Muslims as possible in foreign lands even if said Muslims were peaceably going about their own business.
St. Thomas Aquinas. Friend of St. Louis.
As good as any other, if not better.
I think the argument against the universal value of objectivity because of its ties to a given tradition -- Christian or otherwise -- contains deceptive reasoning: that true objectivity must be untainted by any tradition. No such "animal" ever existed naturally among human beings. To the contrary, all the historical record shows how deplorable were the results of attempting to create it, e.g. Stalinism and Maoism.
The temptation to scrap everything and reinvent the wheel all over again seems to be tied to the pagan (or fallen) side of human nature.
Christianity, with its perpetual quest for truth and its deepest respect for heritage and tradition doesn't reinvent the wheel of moral philosophy over and over again.
I don't know any truer or purer form of objectivity than that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.