Support of the Iraq war by American Catholics

[Desert Walker]

I've been reading some of the statements of JPII about going to war in Iraq.

One thing he said was this (paraphrase):

"At this moment in history, a resort to war is incapable of solving the problems of mankind."

He said this stuff BEFORE our soldiers actually hit the ground. Bush did not comply with the Voice of mankind's conscience, the Fisherman.

Instead George Walker Bush propelled our nation forward from one of the sinful philosophical assumptions of the intellectual wing of the Republican Party: preemptive national defense. This concept is EXACTLY the same concept of "Shoot first. Ask questions later." It assumes the moral right to engage in violence simply on the basis that the intended TARGET of the violence "gives me a bad feeling."

American Catholics who are supporting this activity are doing so on the basis of their OWN erroneous philosophy. It is a philosophy that assumes, as established fact, the ETERNAL, unwavering moral righteousness of the United States. This philosophy can now properly be termed "neo-Americanism." Americanism was condemned as a heresy by Rome in the early part of the 20th century.

I now observe with full clarity that American Catholics (such as Sean Hannity) are wilfully denying the reality that the politicians in American government, of BOTH parties, have deliberately ignored the warnings of the Vicar of Christ when that Vicar declares any of their respective political "sacred cows" to be immoral.

If you are Catholic, and you find yourself supporting what is now obviously military AGGRESSION by the American government, ask yourself whether Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, or better Jesus Christ, would stand beside you as you cheer this president on to a war with Iran...

Edited April 13, 2006 by Desert Walker

[jasJis]

[quote name='Desert Walker' date='Apr 13 2006, 10:38 AM']I've been reading some of the statements of JPII about going to war in Iraq.

One thing he said was this (paraphrase):

"At this moment in history, a resort to war is incapable of solving the problems of mankind."

He said this stuff BEFORE our soldiers actually hit the ground.  Bush did not comply with the Voice of mankind's conscience, the Fisherman.

Instead George Walker Bush propelled our nation forward from one of the sinful philosophical assumptions of the intellectual wing of the Republican Party:  preemptive national defense.  This concept is EXACTLY the same concept of "Shoot first.  Ask questions later."  It assumes the moral right to engage in violence simply on the basis that the intended TARGET of the violence "gives me a bad feeling."

American Catholics who are supporting this activity are doing so on the basis of their OWN erroneous philosophy.  It is a philosophy that assumes, as established fact, the ETERNAL, unwavering moral righteousness of the United States.  This philosophy can now properly be termed "neo-Americanism."  Americanism was condemned as a heresy by Rome in the early part of the 20th century.

I now observe with full clarity that American Catholics (such as Sean Hannity) are wilfully denying the reality that the politicians American government, in BOTH parties, have deliberately ignored the warnings of the Vicar of Christ when that Vicar declares any of their respective political "sacred cows" to be immoral.

If you are Catholic, and you find yourself supporting what is now obviously military AGGRESSION by the American government, ask yourself whether Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, or better Jesus Christ, would stand beside you as you cheer this president on to a war with Iran...
[right][snapback]946129[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]You are spouting what I label as 'psuedo-Catholic'. Either be Catholic or don't be Catholic. Don't pick and choose according to your personal code.
Bush doesn't claim to be Catholic and is not morally obligated to obey the Pope's political advice.
Some Catholic leaders felt the Iraq war met the just war criterea. Some of the choices are s-u-b-j-e-c-t-i-v-e, and don't fall under the parameters of infalliblity. There is room for disagreement.
Do a bit of reading and find out EXACTLY what JPII said about US finishing what they started, even though JPII didn't agree with the US going in.

[ironmonk]

The just war criteria according to the Catechism was met.

If you read the Catechism, you'll see that it is up to the those who are responsible for the common good to decide if the criteria is met.

Less people are dying per day now than before the war.

The war is over. It is now helping those who cannot help themselves until they can help themselves.

[Snarf]

Could you provide a credible source that says that fewer people are dying now than before the war?

[Desert Walker]

If there had been "clear and present" danger there would be no debate over the morality of the invasion.

[quote]Some Catholic leaders felt the Iraq war met the just war criterea. Some of the choices are s-u-b-j-e-c-t-i-v-e, and don't fall under the parameters of infalliblity. [/quote]

That sounds like moral relativism.

Why hasn't the pope just stated his moral judgement on the matter? Was it just to go to war, or was it unjust? If he would simply state his judgement as moral leader of the earth there would be less mental wrangling.

Yes, of course the war is over. Yes, of course we have a duty to help the people build a stable society.

But what do we do when our government thinks about doing this again?

The neo-conservative philosophy of this administration is the establishment of a global "pax Americana." They are DOING this before your eyes with the violent overthrow of foreign government! What can we do in the face of such blatant national pride!?

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Apr 13 2006, 11:10 AM']You are spouting what I label as 'psuedo-Catholic'.  Either be Catholic or don't be Catholic.  Don't pick and choose according to your personal code.
Bush doesn't claim to be Catholic and is not morally obligated to obey the Pope's political advice.
Some Catholic leaders felt the Iraq war met the just war criterea.  Some of the choices are s-u-b-j-e-c-t-i-v-e, and don't fall under the parameters of infalliblity.  There is room for disagreement.
Do a bit of reading and find out EXACTLY what JPII said about US finishing what they started, even though JPII didn't agree with the US going in.
[right][snapback]946168[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Not being Catholic does not also give impunity to one's actions if one's actions contradict Catholic moral teaching.

For your information, Catholic moral teaching is based on the natural law of the universe, not the theories of theologians. Theological and ethical theories merely give conceptual flesh to the natural law itself, but the natural law applies to ALL men. If you violate natural law, you violate Catholic morality as well because they are one and the same.

[jasJis]

[quote name='Desert Walker' date='Apr 13 2006, 11:26 AM']The neo-conservative philosophy of this administration is the establishment of a global "pax Americana."  They are DOING this before your eyes with the violent overthrow of foreign government!  What can we do in the face of such blatant national pride!?
[right][snapback]946195[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]Stereotype, labels, and spin. Nothing substantative to discuss. You choose to see it this way based on your subjective valuation. Others don't.

But the dinner was great.

[Desert Walker]

Ok, what do YOU think is going on? You actually BELIEVE what you see on TV? You actually believe every word that comes form the mouth of Bush?

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Apr 13 2006, 01:25 PM']Could you provide a credible source that says that fewer people are dying now than before the war?
[right][snapback]946193[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Saddam had prisons that they kept full and would routinely go in and kill everyone except one person to go out and tell others the horrors of his prisons. He would kill the prisoners because he needed to make room.

I've seen the videos where Saddam just started going down a list of names of people in the audiance and if he called there names they were taken out and shot because they were thought by Saddam to be plotting against him. There were a few dozen killed that day, people started cheering him out of fear that they would be next.

Of the few who survived his horrors, there were some interviews... he did things like shove a garden hose up their anus and pull it out quick to disembowel them.

Saddam did worse things to his own people than some nazi's did to Jews in WWII.

To think that more people are dying after the war is completely ignorant.

Why don't you people stop and think a minute? Why do you think that the idiots in this country that are all over the news are not showing anyone from Iraq?! No Iraqi interviews... the only time they show Iraq is when fighting is going on... they only show you this so you assume wrong facts.

Iraqi's want us there, they need us there, and they are greatful. They are better off now than they were before the war.

ALL just war criteria has been met. Stop being a media zombie.



[url="http://www.gbn.com/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=2400&msp=1242&print=please"]http://www.gbn.com/ArticleDisplayServlet.s...42&print=please[/url]

[jasJis]

[quote name='Desert Walker' date='Apr 13 2006, 11:58 AM']Ok, what do YOU think is going on?  You actually BELIEVE what you see on TV?  You actually believe every word that comes form the mouth of Bush?
[right][snapback]946240[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]As a rule, I don't think any politician can tell the truth, even if they want to. I assume they kinda want to tell the truth and listen to both sides. The truth is vaguely somewhere in the middle.

As far as what the Iraqi's want, I give alot of creedence to what my sister's in-laws have to say. They're Iraqi and have family Mosul and Bahgdad. They say what they've said for years. American's are arrogant sissies that listen too much to the weak willed people and lack the guts to commit and do what's right. They say Americans think 1 soldier's life is worth more than 1,000 Iraqi's. They say that Sadaam had to figuratively spit in our face and rub our nose in it before we did anything. They say Americans have no guts and the only reason why we kicked Sadaam's butt is because we overwhelmed them with technology. They say Americans are scared of themselves and don't care about what's right which is why we abandoned the Kurds and pulled back in Desert Storm and cry because the corrupt UN 'doesn't like us'. They say the US lost it's real strength and will during Viet Nam and don't really care about doing what is right, but deep down think that because we're white, we think we are too good to get dirty and do what real men do. Fight for what is right.

Surprised?

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Desert Walker' date='Apr 13 2006, 01:26 PM']If there had been "clear and present" danger there would be no debate over the morality of the invasion.
That sounds like moral relativism.

Why hasn't the pope just stated his moral judgement on the matter?  Was it just to go to war, or was it unjust?  If he would simply state his judgement as moral leader of the earth there would be less mental wrangling.

Yes, of course the war is over.  Yes, of course we have a duty to help the people build a stable society.

But what do we do when our government thinks about doing this again?

The neo-conservative philosophy of this administration is the establishment of a global "pax Americana."  They are DOING this before your eyes with the violent overthrow of foreign government!  What can we do in the face of such blatant national pride!?
[right][snapback]946195[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

According to the Catechism who decides are the people who are responsible for the common good. The President of the US fits that description. The President of the US is going to have more intelligence data than the Pope on matters of State, terrorism, and mad men trying to make nuclear bombs.

Saddam had WMD's... END OF STORY. THIS ALONE justifies the war.

THEN, look at how many people he was killing.

The Iraqi's NEEDED to be saved.

THINK.

[amandaplus5]

[quote]If you are Catholic, and you find yourself supporting what is now obviously military AGGRESSION by the American government, ask yourself whether Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, or better Jesus Christ, would stand beside you as you cheer this president on to a war with Iran...[/quote]

If you are Catholic, and you find yourself supporting the propaganda that we as a country do not have to right to defend ourselves and the defenseless, ask yourself whether Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, or better Jesus Christ, would stand beside you as you cheer on the people who would rather see innocents die at the hand of Saddam than actually get off their butts and do something about it. As a country, we did make a mistake. That mistake was letting Saddam violate mandate after mandate for ten years. Do you honestly think that things would have gotten better had we not done something?

I'm curious: What would you suggest as an alternative to military action?

[AngelofJesus]

[quote name='Desert Walker' date='Apr 13 2006, 08:38 AM']I've been reading some of the statements of JPII about going to war in Iraq.

One thing he said was this (paraphrase):

"At this moment in history, a resort to war is incapable of solving the problems of mankind."

He said this stuff BEFORE our soldiers actually hit the ground.  Bush did not comply with the Voice of mankind's conscience, the Fisherman.

Instead George Walker Bush propelled our nation forward from one of the sinful philosophical assumptions of the intellectual wing of the Republican Party:  preemptive national defense.  This concept is EXACTLY the same concept of "Shoot first.  Ask questions later."  It assumes the moral right to engage in          simply on the basis that the intended TARGET of the          "gives me a bad feeling."

American Catholics who are supporting this activity are doing so on the basis of their OWN erroneous philosophy.  It is a philosophy that assumes, as established fact, the ETERNAL, unwavering moral righteousness of the United States.  This philosophy can now properly be termed "neo-Americanism."  Americanism was condemned as a heresy by Rome in the early part of the 20th century.

I now observe with full clarity that American Catholics (such as Sean Hannity) are wilfully denying the reality that the politicians in American government, of BOTH parties, have deliberately ignored the warnings of the Vicar of Christ when that Vicar declares any of their respective political "sacred cows" to be immoral.

If you are Catholic, and you find yourself supporting what is now obviously military AGGRESSION by the American government, ask yourself whether Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, or better Jesus Christ, would stand beside you as you cheer this president on to a war with Iran...
[right][snapback]946129[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Mull on this for a few.

[quote]2307
    The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient        of war.105

2308
    All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.

    However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."106

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 modern 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.

2310
    Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense.

    Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.107

2311
    Public authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms; these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way.108

2312
    The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. "The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties."109

2313
    Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely.

    Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out. Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide.

2314
    "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation."110 A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons—especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons—to commit such crimes.

2315
    The accumulation of arms strikes many as a paradoxically suitable way of deterring potential adversaries from war. They see it as the most effective means of ensuring peace among nations. This method of deterrence gives rise to strong moral reservations. The arms race does not ensure peace. Far from eliminating the causes of war, it risks aggravating them. Spending enormous sums to produce ever new types of weapons impedes efforts to aid needy populations;111 it thwarts the development of peoples. Over-armament multiplies reasons for conflict and increases the danger of escalation.

2316
    The production and the sale of arms affect the common good of nations and of the international community. Hence public authorities have the right and duty to regulate them. The short-term pursuit of private or collective interests cannot legitimate undertakings that promote          and conflict among nations and compromise the international juridical order.

2317
    Injustice, excessive economic or social inequalities, envy, distrust, and pride raging among men and nations constantly threaten peace and cause wars. Everything done to overcome these disorders contributes to building up peace and avoiding war:

    Insofar as men are sinners, the threat of war hangs over them and will so continue until Christ comes again; but insofar as they can vanquish sin by coming together in charity,          itself will be vanquished and these words will be fulfilled: "they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."112[/quote]

It is true that we have met all criterias for a just war against Iraq, but it does not mean we condone war. In instances when there is war we as catholics need to pray "From famine, pestilence, and war, O Lord, deliver us." Being catholic you should not wish for war because it destroys life, but since we are also sinners war is not easily avoided.

[Era Might]

Has anyone seen the documentary "Control Room"? It's an interesting look at the differing perspective between American and Arab media outlets. I think it puts to rest any idea that the American media is always holding back the "good news". If anything, we as Americans are sheltered from the reality of war. Our media shows everything to us through the lens of a nation AT war, whereas the Arab media shows everything through the lens of a nation devestated BY war. There's an American soldier in the film who goes through a self-discovery process because of it.

Edited April 13, 2006 by Era Might

[Snarf]

Ironmonk, I don't think an article written in April 2003 comes anywhere close to being credible. Furthermore, the article is deceptive by talking about civilian deaths, but he mysteriously includes in his pre-war figures the 500,000 deaths that were mostly military resulting from the Iran War. That's not just being manipulative of data, that's outright lying.