Posted on 02/14/2003 12:54:54 PM PST by Pyro7480
February 13, 2003, 11:10 a.m.
The Pious & the War
Iraq and justice.
By James V. Schall, S. J.
|
ith the exceptions of Archbishops O'Brien and Hannon, both military chaplains, and the generally positive statement of Archbishop Pell in Sydney, we have apparently a worldwide clerical chorus against war. The common theme is, "I don't have enough evidence," a theme echoed by French and German politicians, among others. A sub-theme is that things might get out of hand. Islam might "arise." Or, all preemptive strikes are bad. The main problem is the wicked Americans and their pride. Danger is subjective. Iraq does not really exist as a threat. Terrorists are, at best, a minor danger.
In January, the Italian Jesuit journal La Civiltà Cattolica published a screed against the hapless Americans. The Anglican Bishop of Oxford does not have enough evidence. The Vatican is against war. Several patriarchs are against war. The American bishops are against war. Every cleric who is anyone is against war. Solemn, apocalyptic words of warning come forth daily, as though orchestrated. Principles of morality are invoked as if they could only be used by one side. Suddenly, it seems to the pessimist, it is not just the Muslim world that is run by clerics. One hardly knows what to make of it all.
In our darker moments, we can imagine a discouraged American president, surrounded by clerical doubters, finally caving in at a Prayer Breakfast. "All right, Reverend Fathers and dear Pastors, since you know more about defending the rights of peoples and our country than I do, since you have more information than I do about what is going on in Iraq and the world, since your methods are more effective, I hereby turn the safety of the nation over to your competent hands." Of course, it would not take a moment's reflection to realize that we could not be safe in the hands of the no-war-at-this-time party, however well intentioned it may be. Their advice is just that — advice, not policy, let alone a basis for action.
Not only would such an alternative be unconstitutional and imprudent, it would be against the stated principles of most Christian social thought — that matters of war and peace are in the hands of chosen leaders who have a right and duty both to spell out their reasons and to act on them. The idea that no action can take place till the last cleric or moralist is convinced of a problem is a formula for disaster. But all human action takes place in some obscurity. And of course, this is not merely a "clerical" issue. Many a politician, journalist, and academic in various countries agree with it. And this is the rub. It is not just a "moral" statement. It is a moral statement enmeshed in political realities that have to be attended to. The opposite of these particular well-intentioned "moral" admonitions is not necessarily an "immoral" alternative.
There is a well thought out, clear, empirically based case that not to do anything in the present moment would be immoral. This case was made by President Bush in the State of the Union address and Secretary Powell in his speech to the U.N. It is impossible to read these statements without seeing that they are written and spoken with high moral purpose and their authors fully cognizant of the facts at issue. No side has a monopoly on the ethics of the matter: It is certainly not the exclusive preserve of the clergy. The American leaders do not conceive of themselves as operating in a moral vacuum. The "I-am-still-not-convinced" position has the advantage of not actually having to do anything to protect anyone from danger.
But the responsible politician has no such luxury. The president has spelled out the number of times since 9/11 that further attacks have been prevented. We live in a period of illusion if we think that further attacks have not come forth because bin Laden, wherever he is, or his friends, have changed their minds or their methods. Targets in Europe and the United States have been selected. Our efforts to defend ourselves have worked. The conclusion is not that no danger is near, but that danger has been thwarted and must continue so to be.
We are calmly but clearly told of biological and nuclear materials, of delivery systems, and of human bombers. The danger is not from mass armies crossing over the seas. It is about cowardly, vindictive, ideological movements whose personnel have managed to recruit mostly from within the Muslim world people to carry out their spite. There are many hiding places in our midst, many weapons, many volunteers. Our political ideology holds that everyone is equal and that all systems are equally different; we understand only with difficulty that we have enemies; we are reluctant.
What is remarkable to the clergy about the president, I suspect — what confuses those who have no real responsibility to protect anyone — is that he can act on principle. The clerical world is a world of inaction in that Aristotelian sense that "thought of itself causes no action."
Putting the best possible light on the clerical voices, we might say that they have been helpful in making sure that the actors in war and peace make every effort to know the situation, the law, the principles, and the proper means. On the other hand, there seems to be a strange lack of reality coming from a quarter that has often spent the past decades warning us to see the actual problems. In part, we have absolutized "war" to the extent that it has become an abstraction of evil instead of an element in the analysis of justice.
The "humanitarian" war advocates of recent years have often made every effort to suggest that it is our "obligation" to intervene in extreme cases, any place in the world. We have been blamed mostly for inaction. Now, these same voices demand inaction. Perhaps it is true, as Franklin Roosevelt said, that we all hate war. But the question remains: Is there something worse than war, something worse than not preventing what needs to be prevented? If it takes a war to prevent this something worse, and we do prevent it, it will always seem, to the anti-war faction, that no real problem existed, because they could not see the evidence for it.
Those who do see the evidence are in charge. There is a certain comfort in that.
— James V. Schall, S.J. is a professor of government at Georgetown University and a Jesuit priest.
Amen, Fr. Schall.
I read in our Diocesan newspaper that Michael Novak went to the Vatican recently to try to explain why he and others thought that this war COULD be considered a 'Just War'. He even made a point of invoking the Catechism of the Catholic Church which puts these matters squarely in the hands of CIVIL authorities.
It was either Archbishop O'Brien or Archbishop Hannon, at the most recent Bishops meeting who pointed out that NOT going into Iraq and disarming Sadaam would be analagous to the Good Samaritan coming upon the scene before the attack, not doing anything to help until after it was over, THEN helping the Israelite.
Fr. Schall is certainly wrong about Archbishop Pell. In the newspaper the Australian on Feb 4, Archbishop Pell wrote the following:
"Have the US, Britain and Australia given sufficient cause according to such an updated list of criteria for a just war? Not yet. Our leaders have yet to give us clear evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and terrorist links...
"A unilateral pre-emptive strike, without international sanction, would be a two-edged sword, a dangerous doctrine, destabilising the international order. We are told inaction could be more dangerous, but clearer evidence of this is necessary...
"Hussein is a tyrant to his own people, an oppressor of the Kurdish minority who has used weapons of mass destruction against Iran and the Kurds. He has defied for 12 years the 1991 UN peace condition that he disarm. It is claimed Hussein pays financial subsidies to Palestinian suicide bombers, and until recently subsidised the Abu Nidal terrorist group. A branch of al-Qaida is fighting a guerilla war against Hussein's enemies, the Kurds, in northern Iraq. Experts insist there is much more evidence. Enough of this should be made available...
"The 20th century saw a terrible deterioration here. In World War I civilian casualties were 5 per cent and in World War II 50 per cent. In Vietnam, civilian casualties rose again to 60 or 70 per cent. An overwhelming imperative for the allies must be to avoid civilian casualties in Iraq. "Due process is always important in Australian courts and due process is important internationally. This means working through the UN, an imperfect instrument of conflicting national interests, where many nations have poor human rights records. But the UN is all we have...
"While international support cannot decide the morality of invading Iraq, legitimate moral authority is one criterion for a just war. More public evidence is needed to demonstrate that the allied cause is just and to obtain Security Council backing...
"To my mind, it is morally justifiable for the Australian navy to enforce the embargo on Iraq and for Australian troops to pressure the Iraq dictator to comply with the UN peace conditions he accepted in 1991. These are honourable activities. But the public evidence is as yet insufficient to justify going to war, especially without the backing of the UN Security Council."
A troubling thought emerges: Does this include JPII?
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.