Verdad!

"Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity." - President George W. Bush, State of the Union, January 28, 2003
Saturday, April 26

A personal thank you note to Jim and Bill Cork for the note on their blogs. If you found my blog via either Bill or Jim's site, I hope you'll come back. If you stumbled across my blog on your own, please visit their sites as well. Jim is at jessnjim Cork, and Bill is at pro deo et patria. Both are well worth reading.

posted by Michael Lee on 4/26/2003 10:34:00 PM | link |


Just a point of personal clarification on yesterday's blog. Out of everything that Fr. Neuhaus wrote, I identify most with this particular statement: It is not easy to counter the complaint of those who say that the Holy See seriously confused the question of moral legitimacy in international affairs, sometimes leaving the impression that questions of war and peace, right and wrong, come down to how the Pope feels about things. I do not accept that complaint, but it is most particularly puzzling that, with respect to moral credibility and authority, some in the Curia seem bent upon hitching the wagon of the Catholic Church to the dubiously constructed institution that is the UN. On this point, I am one of those who despite my deep faith and confidence in the Holy Father, is struggling personally to understand the morality of what he did not say. My struggle, if you will, is particularly confounded because many people very close to me are substantially more troubled with the “non-statements” than I – and Fr. Neuhaus strikes to the heart of the issue they continue to use as evidence that the Church has lost touch. In fact, from my perspective on the ground here in New England, the Church’s response to the conflict over Iraq has only compounded (and confused) the heartache and frustration that still linger from the sexual abuse crisis of the past year. Of course, I for one never expected (nor wanted) the Pope to come out and say, “Yes America – attack Iraq. You have the God’s blessing.” I only hoped and prayed that he would minimally and unequivocally condemn Iraq for the brutality of its regime and its outright defiance of the tranquillitas ordinis. The statement has never come. And so I am personally comforted with this thought. Ultimately God’s ways are not our ways, yet with God all things are possible. A man named Job struggled through many, many crises throughout his life that he neither understood, nor deserved, and yet his faith and trust in God endured. Perhaps, in our own way, the Church here on earth is going through our own Job-like experience. I pray our faith and trust will also continue to persevere.

posted by Michael Lee on 4/26/2003 10:01:00 AM | link |


Friday, April 25

Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, publisher of the magazine First Things, has a truly eye opening article out from his current issue. Writing before war broke out, but understanding that by the time his article is published it would most likely be well underway, he offers a sort of ex-post facto preview to the post-war religious reckoning that is now beginning to take shape. It’s a nine page article that deals first with Catholicism, and later with the Protestants. I dropped in some key passages regarding Catholicism below. If you’re interested in his take on Protestants, click here to read the article in full. My intent by posting excerpts from his article is not to give recourse to those who are angry at the Pope and/or the Catholic Church. Granted there are many, but for those who read Fr. Neuhaus regularly, he is an overwhelmingly uplifting writer. No, the intent here is to give as broad coverage as possible to a clear and unapologetic analysis of the Iraq crisis within the Catholic Church. Furthermore, in keeping with Fr. Neuhaus’ optimism, we Catholics can and should now turn to prayerful to thanks to God for the rapid and just conclusion to the conflict (contrary to what so many Catholic Bishops and Clergy predicted), followed by a very deep examination of the collective conscience within the Church at large. Here are my selected snippets of the article: On the Pope Up until the first rocket hit Baghdad, the Pope was urging us to pray that Iraq would be disarmed without resort to military force. For months he tirelessly repeated that war is always a defeat for humanity, a failure to maintain the peace of right order. St. Augustine called the peace of right order tranquillitas ordinis. In addition, the Pope urgently reminded us that in history nothing is inevitable, and that with God all things are possible. On Just War Doctrine, and its Catholic detractors ...In just war doctrine, the Church's competence and responsibility is to set forth the pertinent moral principles. As No. 2309 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church makes clear, the application of those principles to specific cases is the responsibility of political leaders. It is true that religious leaders can claim that the principles are being ignored or misapplied, but in the latter case they do so at the considerable risk of exceeding their competence and undermining their credibility. The questions raised to religious spokesmen are inescapable: On the basis of what expert knowledge do you advocate policy x against policy y? By what authority or by whose authority do you speak? In the judgment of the U.S. and many other governments, Saddam posed a grave and imminent threat to America, to world peace, and to the lives of innumerable innocents...heads of government who are convinced of the correctness of that judgment would be criminally negligent and in violation of their solemn oath to protect their people if they did not act to remove such a threat. In the slogans of street demonstrators, but also in statements by churchmen, the opposition positions advanced frequently came down to little more than defamation of presidential character. It was not an edifying spectacle...War, if it is just, is not an option chosen but a duty imposed. And so the arguments went back and forth...The almost total absence of reference to such recognized [just war] authorities in statements by Catholics, including bishops and curial officials in Rome, was impressive. Of course there are novel elements in any historical circumstance, but it is particularly unseemly for Catholics to talk like neophiliacs, so enamored of the new that they forget the centuries of reflection that is the Catholic moral tradition. On the Roman Curia The day after military action began, the evening news headlined, "Vatican condemns both sides for war." Spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls said the Pope received news of the war with "deep pain." The official statement explained: "On the one hand, it is to be regretted that the Iraqi government did not accept the resolutions of the United Nations and the appeal of the Pope himself, as both asked that the country disarm. On the other hand, it is to be deplored that the path of negotiations, according to international law, for a peaceful solution of the Iraqi drama has been interrupted." On the one hand, on the other hand. What Saddam did was regretted; what Bush did was deplored. Some pounced on this as an instance of precisely that false evenhandedness of "moral equivalence" that John Paul so sharply opposed during the Cold War. Others deplored that in none of the statements issuing from the Holy See was there any reference to the totalitarian oppression and massive violation of human rights by the Saddam regime. The suggestion seemed to be that there were two heads of state, Saddam and Bush, who disagreed about how to implement UN resolutions, and the latter was guilty of abandoning the search for a peaceful solution by resorting to war. Moreover, there was no mention of the fact that in the 1991 Gulf War the U.S. had the backing of the Security Council and therefore had presumably satisfied the requirements of "international law," and yet in 1991 the Pope condemned military action against Iraq in what George Weigel, author of the monumental biography of John Paul II, Witness to Hope, calls "apocalyptic" terms. It is not easy to counter the complaint of those who say that the Holy See seriously confused the question of moral legitimacy in international affairs, sometimes leaving the impression that questions of war and peace, right and wrong, come down to how the Pope feels about things. I do not accept that complaint, but it is most particularly puzzling that, with respect to moral credibility and authority, some in the Curia seem bent upon hitching the wagon of the Catholic Church to the dubiously constructed institution that is the UN. The life and mission of the Catholic Church will continue long after the UN is a historical footnote along with, say, the Congress of Vienna. The experience of the last quarter century seems to have been forgotten by some. When, for instance, the Pope was playing a crucial role in bringing about the end of the evil empire of the Soviet Union, the UN was more than simply useless. Why now is it the bearer of moral authority in international authorities? If indeed that is, as some contend, the position of the Catholic Church. In the debate leading up to military action, there was much understandable talk about the terrible consequences of war. The question of consequences bears strongly, of course, on the just war criterion of proportionality. One was struck by the ways in which the Bush Administration addressed the Iraq crisis with explicit reference to just war doctrine, including proportionality. Protests in Europe-more precisely, in what is now called Old Europe-frequently alluded to American inexperience and "cowboy" impetuosity. Such statements would be insulting were they not so demeaning of those who make them, including prelates associated with the Holy See. As it is, we must exercise a measure of patience with societies that have run out of steam and resent the vibrancy of America. A cardinal tells me that I must understand that his brethren in the Curia reflect the dominant views of their own countries, which are usually of the Old Europe. No doubt, but the Church is supposed to be universal, as in "catholic." And, on the morality of action and tranquillitas ordinis There are times when Catholics, and all Christians, must choose between complicity in great injustice and fidelity to moral truth. That choice has over the centuries produced martyrs beyond numbering. For a curial official even to imply that coalition soldiers and others are facing such a choice is a reckless abuse of ecclesiastical office. Unless, of course, he really thinks that his view of the war is binding upon consciences. Were that the position of the Church, one would expect the Pope to say so, and the Pope has not said anything even remotely like that. It is to be feared that some churchmen are more enamored of being players in world politics than devoted to being shepherds of souls. ...There will always be disagreement over when the use of force is required to put to right grave disorder. Setting aside the principled pacifists, the inveterate Bush-haters, and those who are always on the side that is against America, there are millions of thoughtful people both here and abroad who are profoundly uneasy about, or strongly opposed to, the war in Iraq. I believe the war is just. Whether it turns out to have been wise depends upon contingencies that are known to none but God. There are great risks in such actions. There are, it can be reasonably argued, greater risks in inaction. The decision against military action is as much a morally fraught decision as the decision for military action. As people have tried to make their decision over the past weeks and months, the sounds of religion in the public square have, with few exceptions, not been helpful. More often than not, religious leaders have sown confusion, inflamed passions, and demeaned the traditions they are called to represent by appending them to partisan political positions. As of this writing, our nation is at war. The sound of religion that is now required is the sound of urgent prayer that our cause may be just; that, if just, it may prevail swiftly and surely and with minimal damage to innocents; and that, if it prevails, it may secure a greater measure of the tranquillitas ordinis that, in the City of Man so far from the final triumph of the City of God, is never more than approximate and always provisional. Couldn't have said it better myself.

posted by Michael Lee on 4/25/2003 03:52:00 PM | link |


This is amazing. A while back I wrote about the appalling, although not surprising, election of Libya to the Chair of the UN Human Rights Commission. In today’s National Review Online, Arnold Beichman reports that the International Criminal Court is going to put the United States on trial for alleged war crimes in Iraq. Legally it can't, because the US is not a signatory to the ICC, but when has the rule of law interested the Left when it comes to Iraq? I find this mildly entertaining. I mean, outside of the absolute absurdity of the claim, this will do little more than to bring about a new wave of anti-Americanism throughout those in the world who actually pay attention to the likes of the ICC. And, given the American public's recent subjugation to the blistering anti Americanism here and abroad, I see little legs for a story like this. I am surprised, however, that the National Lawyers Guild (the group bringing the suit) is willing to risk drawing this kind of attention to itself to be located in New York City. Perhaps if you’re interested, send them a letter at National Lawyers Guild, National Office, 143 Madison Ave 4th Fl., New York NY 10016 and encourage them to go back to Europe where someone might be interested in their work. Returning to earth, just remember this. Unlike his predecessor, President Bush has publicly denounced the ICC and stated he will not send the treaty which created it - a treaty which incidentally was signed by President Clinton - to the Senate for ratification. Frankly, he knows, as do most of us that despite all our detractors, all American's need is just one photo of a little Iraqi girl - free - kissing a US soldier on the cheek. Operation Iraqi Freedom was, without question, the right thing to do.

posted by Michael Lee on 4/25/2003 12:43:00 PM | link |

HOME