www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News U.S. Romanian Catholic Eprach Forbids the Participation of his Flock

Snoopy,

Since you chose to quote me I can only understand your words as being directed to me.

I have never stated or even suggested that one must give blind obedience to the Holy Father in everything he says or does. I have stated numerous times that we must embrace the teaching of the Church when it speaks authoritatively. I have also stated that I will always respect and adhere to the authoritatively teachings of the Church. If Pope John Paul II were to authoritatively and definitively declare that it was sinful and morally wrong for me to support the current war to liberate Iraq then I would respect this and change my position on the issue. But Pope John Paul II has not spoken definitively on this issue. I challenge you to provide a reference where he has bound all Catholics to accept his position without question. I know that you will not be able to find such a reference.

What is wrong here is your understanding of Catholic teaching. You need to discern the difference between what the Church teaches authoritatively and definitively and what it has spoken to with lesser authoritative and definitive finality. If you wish to get a good classic Western understanding of the Just War Theory you might review the Catholic Catechism, beginning with section 2307.

I respect that you disagree but it is wrong for you to accuse me of picking and choosing moral teachings when I have not done any such thing. I have given great weight to the Holy Father�s words and prayed much over them. I believe the greater wrong here is to allow the Iraqi people to continue to suffer.

Admin

Dear Administrator:

I feel sorry about the confusion. I am sure I didn't try to tell you hat you were one of those Catholics. Actually in the post I quoted you make the distinction between the unchanging moral teaching and the Pope's advice to the people that they're not bound to obbey of course. I refered to those who in fact do not make that distinction most of the time, only in this case. There are some writers who do not stand a criticism to the Pope on Asissi and interreligious dialogue, for example, and are now opposed to the Pope's policy on the Iraq war.

This is what I do not understand about papal power. What ever is, is. Either the war is Iraq is immoral today or it is not. I don't see how is becomes immoral only after a papal authoritative annoucement. Is this like transubstantition?

Shlomo Admin.,
I agree with you fully. Many do not understand that people on both sides of this issue are putting their Christian Values in action.

Further, many do not understand that as our Eparchs speak, they help to bound or loosen (Keys of Peter) us. Whereas Eparch John Micheal has bound his Romanian people here in the United States, and for me my Maronite Patriarchal Synod has condemned the actions of the United States; others are free to look to their spiritual fathers as to where we should be.

Our Eparchs are not asking us not to think, what they are asking us to do is think like Christ.

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Dear Administrator,

Why is my comparison here "below my usual standard of taste?"

Do you feel many U.S. Catholic soldiers went through ANY sort of moral gymnastics before setting off for Iraq as ordered?

There is certainly a hierarchy of moral values in the Church, and between papal pronouncements.

Both Humanae Vitae and the pope's statement on Iraq share in common the Christian value of the sanctity of life.

Both have been subject to interpretation, both have a long history in the Church's moral teaching tradition and both pose moral challenges to Catholic Christians today.

(Rest of my comments withdrawn since the Administrator really isn't mad at me).

Alex

Alex,

There has been plenty of discussion about whether the current military action is just or not. I just don�t think that such jokes about men who are in harm�s way are appropriate in the midst of the conflict. As I noted earlier, the time for the military personnel who are now involved to make such decisions about their involvement has passed. Even if such individuals have now changed their minds, the appropriate action is to ask for reassignment. I am sorry you find my comment to be offensive. I found your joke to be offensive and felt it needed to be addressed. I commented because it was so much different than your usual lighthearted posts. I am sorry that you believe that any comment on one of your posts is a personal attack on you or a besmirchment of your name. I can assure you that my comments were addressed only to what you wrote and were not a judgment of you.

To answer your specific questions, I do not know any specific military individuals who are part of this conflict but do know people who have family and friends who are part of the campaign. All of those I have spoken with say their family members and friends who are serving support it fully. It seems that those who had questions about involvement in such types of action made their decisions at the time of enlistment (either for not enlisting at all and avoiding such questions or enlisting in different sectors of the military).

I disagree that the teaching of Humanae Vitae is directly relevant to this discussion, for the reasons I outlined above. Yes, there is a hierarchy of moral values in the Church but Humanae Vitae is a well-developed and specific moral teaching while the qualifications for military action to meet the Just War Theory are far less developed and very general. Also, the Just War Theory clearly gives exemptions to soldiers who put their trust in the civil authorities to do what is in the best interest of a nation. A comparison of people who ignore the clear moral teaching of Humanae Vitae to those who believe that the war in Iraq meets the criteria of a just war and is therefore morally just is a bit like comparing apples and oranges in my opinion.

Also, if you or someone on this forum was presenting the early Christian ideal of never responding to violence, not even to protect one�s own life, I could understand the beginning of a comparison to Humanae Vitae. I haven�t seen anyone really present an argument on this point yet in these discussions. I guess we will have to agree to disagree over some of these points. You are welcome to develop your argument further � I would be interested in such a discussion.

Admin

I would point out that their is more concurrance between the Orthodox authorities and the Roman Catholic authorities on the war in Iraq than their is on Humanae Vitae.

Dear Administrator,

Sorry, but I didn't mean that as a "joke" nor even a light-hearted comment. If you consider it to be a slight to Coalition soldiers, I apologise and withdraw - that was not my intention. But imputing motive is a very East Slavic thing . . .

It was something that a relative of mine who is an officer in the U.S. military said when we discussed the comments of the Romanian bishop over the phone.

He considered the entire discussion about "just war" to be about spitting hairs and something that the average Christian soldier involved simply wouldn't think about to any great degree.

The Coalition soldiers, I daresay, are quite convinced of the "rightness" of their mission in Iraq and is it left to us in the relative security of North America to ponder on "wider theological/moral considerations?" Perhaps it is. But the war rages on.

At no time did I joke about soldiers in harm's way and may God forbid such a thing!

I simply tried, with no luck, it would seem, to illustrate the actual situation that the Coalition soldiers face that leaves little room for "moral reflection."

U.S. soldiers, I would venture to guess, look to their President and commanding officers first and above what their bishops might be saying.

Your disagreement between the comparability between Humanae Vitae and Just War theory is that the former is a statement about the complete preservation of life, while the latter is a consideration on the conditions under which the taking of human life might be justifiable.

From the point of view of the Gospels and of the Eastern tradition, the taking of life is always sinful. The ideal is to "turn the other cheek" as you know better than me.

"Just war" is based on a tradition that seeks to ameliorate the radical demands of the Gospel with the practicalities of war-time, defending one's country etc.

But I never said I was comparing Humanae Vitae to "Just War" theory. The theory itself is outside the Gospel, period.

I was comparing Humanae Vitae with what the Pope said in attacking the war in Iraq. The Pope condemned the war and has warned against its consequences. From the papal point of view, which is what I thought we were really interested in right now, the Iraqi war is immoral because war is immoral and because we live in a day and age when we should be able to settle our differences outside of the battle-field.

That was what I thought the Pope was talking about. He didn't leave any room in this statement for the possibility of a "just war" and he didn't say that he was open to being convinced that the Iraqi war was somehow "just." He condemned it without invoking "Just War Theory."

My point in bringing up Humanae Vitae was to illustrate the moral issue here with another papal statement (albeit of a more stronger tone and greater authority).

Both are valid points of comparison - I have never heard this Pope ever suggest that there would be conditions under which the taking of human life would be moral. Perhaps he believes in Just War theory, but he has never said so.

They are valid insofar as they illustrate two church teachings on morality that Christians have to take seriously, pray about and make their own moral judgements on.

And Catholics have been making independent moral judgements on birth control, HV notwithstanding.

As they do when it comes to the war issue today.

They know what the Church teaches on a moral subject and they respond to the moral challenges raised in ways that may or may not be deliberately informed by that teaching.

And my point about the soldier about to mount the Blackhawk is that he or she has a job to do and cannot often afford the leisure of moral reflection at a distance.

The idea that they could be transferred out etc. is nice in theory but, by and large, that really doesn't happen for obvious reasons.

Sorry that my thoughts don't fit into a neat moral theory or category for purposes of the mental gymnastics of discussion and rebuttal.

If my comments suggest that I find such "reflection" to be far removed from the vagaries and realities of every-day life, however, that really would be an accurate reading of their intent.

Alex

Alex,

Thank you for an interesting post. I daresay your relative who is in the U.S. military is correct. Those who are Christians and who have qualms about these issues probably chose careers other than military ones.

I do agree with your point about the �Just War Theory� not being Eastern Christian or rooted in the Gospel. I am not sure of how you are relating this to Humanae Viate or the Just War Theory. If the �Just War Theory� excluded the possibility of there ever being a just war then, I think it could be more comparable to Humanae Vitae. Because the �Just War Theory� is much more of a general teaching I disagree with your comparison.

I wish that the Holy Father had spoken further (presenting a developed argument of his position). His has been clear in his statements that this is not a just war but he has not provided the details of his thought process nor has he stated that we are required to accept his teaching on this particular application of the Just War Theory (which is different then the Church�s requirement that we accept the teaching outlined in Humanae Vitae). Such information would indeed be interesting.

Admin

Dear Administrator,

Well, as long as you don't invoke the principles of Just War on me . . .

I'm not put off that you STILL disagree with me on my comparison, even after all this writing on my part!

I'm really not taking it personally - not for one second . . .

But, seriously, it matters not that the two are perfect 'apples' in the comparison.

The fact is that many moral teachings asserted by the Church are open to interpretation. Humanae Vitae was certainly interpreted many ways and by bishops at that, as you know.

Humanae Vitae was not an "infallible" statement and some RC theologians were quick to point out that its inner "logic" was guided more by the dictates of "natural law" which is derived from non-Christian philosophy.

As you will also remember, there were times when people actually up and left their parishes at the sermon in the middle of their bishops telling them they had to accept Humanae Vitae . . .

There was more opposition from many quarters (other than episcopal only) against Humanae Vitae than against the current war in Iraq.

You are right, the Pope and the Romanian bishop haven't discussed the full range of their thinking on this issue - apart from the fairly "knee-jerk" one that condemns war as a whole.

The pope is thinking down the road with respect to Christian-Muslim relations. As someone known to kiss a Koran or two, it is something that lies heavily on his heart, to be sure.

And the political motivation here is surely overt. The pope, in affirming that he is not automatically aligned with the West in this, is at least holding out the hope that Christians in predominantly Muslim countries won't be made scapegoats for retribution - as has been happening for some time now anyway.

This is not to say that both Humanae Vitae and the pope's peace message do not contain timeless and needed Christian balance to the culture of death and other anti-Christian viewpoints today.

The pope doesn't, I believe, need to qualify his teachings or statements on the moral challenges of today with "papal backing" by way of encyclical and the sort. If anything, I think the current pope knows all too well that such encyclicals and more "official" papal teaching couched in stronger, administrative terms can be seen to be directed at Catholics only.

The pope speaks about peace and he is speaking from the perspective of the world in general, and not only for Catholics who have, in any event, proven they aren't always the most loyal listeners of his words etc.

The pope has gone from being a religious leader to being a world leader, expressing a viewpoint that is clear and morally "reliable" owing to its source.

And I don't think it is a question of obeying or disobeying the pope on this score.

The decision to go to war is never really a satisfactory one.

I know soldiers/veterans, as I'm sure you do, who have killed people in battle (or else, as in Vietnam, strongly suspect that they did) and who continue to live with guilt in having done so.

One part of me supports the Coalition, the other wonders "why?" and "For what real reason all this?"

I don't know myself. When I see CNN pictures of Iraqi children in bandages, as I did the other day, I cried out loud in front of my wife. I felt ashamed at myself for supporting . . . this?

Apart from the political agendas, new world orders etc. there remains the suffering of innocents and of soldier's families whose children, in some cases, will never know their fathers.

All this is a reality apart from thematic moral pardigms.

There is a verse in the Old Testament, I believe, that says that in all the good that a righteous man does, there is often some evil.

Alex

Admin�s Note: This article does not provide Pope John Paul II�s thoughts on the current situation but it does provide some background to his general thoughts on intervention for humanitarian reasons.

WHEN CAN NATIONS INTERVENE MILITARILY IN OTHER NATIONS?

Observers Increasingly Point to Humanitarian Considerations

NEW YORK, (Zenit.org) - The months-long debate over U.S. intervention in Iraq focused attention on the subject of international law and the role of the United Nations. Up until a few years ago, state sovereignty was held to be supreme.

As Nicholas Wheeler explained in his book "Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in International Society," the U.N. Charter restricts the use of force by individual states to the purpose of self-defense. Even the use of force to save victims of human rights abuses was considered, until recently, a violation of the Charter.

All that may be changing. Shifts in post-1989 international politics, and a greater weight on human rights, has strengthened the case for humanitarian intervention. Wheeler, a lecturer in international law at the University of Wales, commented that in the last decade a solidarity-oriented conception of international society has increased in importance, relative to a realist vision of the world. The result is a growing acceptance that states have a moral responsibility to protect the security of citizens elsewhere.

Humanitarian intervention becomes a consideration in two situations; first, in failed states, where chaos place the population in danger; and second, in the case of manifestly unjust governments, guilty of gross violations of human rights. In both cases, public opinion, shocked by television depictions of mass slaughter and human suffering, has increasingly demanded that their governments do something.

Nevertheless, the idea of humanitarian intervention raises fears that it could states a pretext for meddling -- or even involve them in an endless series of military adventures.

"Advocating military intervention for humanitarian purposes is always a tricky call for human rights advocates," admitted William F. Schulz, executive director of Amnesty International USA in his 2001 book "In Our Own Best Interest." Military intervention should always be a last resort, he said. But he hastens to ask: What kind of people would we be if we were utterly unwilling to consider intervention to stop the massive slaughter of the innocent?

Doubts and ambiguities

Michael Walzer, in the 1999 preface to the third edition of his book "Just and Unjust Wars," observed: "It isn't too much of an exaggeration to say that the greatest danger most people face in the world today comes from their own states, and the chief dilemma of international politics is whether people in danger should be rescued by military forces from outside."

Intervention opens up a series of difficult questions, noted Walzer. How can we determine the relative weight of the value of sovereignty and the rights of citizens in a state? How much killing is systematic killing? If intervention is justified, who should carry it out? What is the acceptable level of costs to the soldiers in the intervening force and the civilians in the invaded country? What kind of peace should the invading forces seek?

An attempt to formulate how intervention should be carried out was the December 2001 report "The Responsibility to Protect," published by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. The commission was chaired by Gareth Evans, president of the International Crisis Group and former Foreign Minister of Australia, and Mohamed Sahnoun, special adviser on Africa to the U.N. secretary-general and a former senior Algerian diplomat.

They returned to the subject in an essay published in the November-December 2002 issue of the magazine Foreign Affairs. They commented that the record of the international community in resolving problems such as those noted by Walzer has been spotty.

The action taken by NATO in Kosovo in 1999 was taken without approval by the U.N. Security Council because of political divisions among the members. Intervention in Bosnia was tardy, and no action was taken to impede the massacres in Rwanda in 1994.

Evans and Sahnoun suggested in their article that it would be more helpful to talk about a responsibility to protect, rather than a right to intervene. In this way, a situation that arises could be more readily viewed from the stance of those needing help. It also focuses attention on how intervention takes place only when the state concerned is unable to look after its own citizens.

Underlying such a change in focus is a conceptual shift in thinking about sovereignty: from control to responsibility. This responsibility, the article explained, is dual: external, to respect the sovereignty of other states; and internal, to respect the dignity and basic rights of all the people within the state.

The Pope speaks out

John Paul II has also examined the question of humanitarian intervention. In his January 1993 address to the diplomatic corps at the Vatican, the Pope drew attention to what he called one of the most significant legal evolutions of the 20th century: the emergence of humanitarian law.

This change, he explained, means that it has now been recognized that there are interests -- those of the human person -- that transcend those of the state. Once diplomacy has been exhausted and large numbers of people are threatened by an unjust aggressor, states have an obligation to disarm this aggressor, if all other means have failed. The principle of state sovereignty must not become a screen behind which torture and assassination are carried out, the Pope insisted.

The Holy Father gave a more detailed exposition of his thought on the issue in his World Day for Peace message of Jan. 1, 2000, in paragraphs 7-12. "Crimes against humanity cannot be considered an internal affair of a nation," stated John Paul II. "We must thank God that in the conscience of peoples and nations there is a growing conviction that human rights have no borders, because they are universal and indivisible."

Armed conflicts within states are numerous, noted the Pope. They are due to a multiplicity of causes: ethnic and tribal rivalries; religious conflict; ideological, social and economic divisions.

Faced with these "tragic and complex situations," John Paul II said that "there is a need to affirm the pre-eminent value of humanitarian law and the consequent duty to guarantee the right to humanitarian aid to suffering civilians and refugees."

The legitimacy of this right to aid, he explained, "is in fact based on the principle that the good of the human person comes before all else and stands above all human institutions." Therefore, once other means have proved ineffective, "it is legitimate and even obligatory to take concrete measures to disarm the aggressor."

He adds a number of limiting factors to the application of this intervention, however. In addition to the need to exhaust all diplomatic means first, he said, the intervention must be of limited duration and precise in its aim. Moreover, the measures taken must be carried out in full respect for international law and guaranteed by an authority that is internationally recognized. The Pope recommended: "The fullest and the best use must therefore be made of all the provisions of the United Nations Charter," along with the framework of international law.

John Paul II called for "a renewal of international law and international institutions, a renewal whose starting point and basic organizing principle should be the primacy of the good of humanity and of the human person over every other consideration."

The Iraqi war is now overshadowing the subject of humanitarian intervention. But it's an issue that won't go away any time soon.

That is a good article. It certainly would give support to intervention in Iraq with UN support.

Could it be that knowing the circumstances of Christians (Catholics and Orthodox) living in the midst of Muslims, he and other bishops are making such statements to insure no reprisal against them? (Experiencing firsthand what Communists did with Christians if they didn't toe the line or if they spoke out.) Otherwise, we will probably see more ancient patriarchal sees move to find a new home in the evil U.S.

Archbishop Philip writes:

"While our country is on the brink of war with Iraq, it is the opinion of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America that our esteemed President and governmental leaders rethink their position and the logic behind this impending conflict."

"Such an attack will destabilize the entire region, cause untold harm to countless children and other civilians as well as bring political and social unrest to an already troubled area of
the world."

Was he writing about the "attacks" by Saddam's own thugs? or the torture chambers now being revealed with their hanging wires and electric shock devices? or the jail where innnocent children were imprisoned for refusing to join the Baath party? or the social unrest caused by Saddam using chemicals against the Kurds? (see: Halabja [kdp.pp.se] ) or the slaughter of southern Iraqi Shiites?

And what is this bringing "political and social unrest to an already troubled area of the world?" Would the fight against Hitler's regime been interpreted today as bringing unrest to the already troubled Jews? Should the fear of unknown unrest have been our guiding light in letting the death-camps, concentration camps, gulags, and now torture chambers of yesteryear and yesterday continue?

What 'trouble' are we really worried about? True, there is a lot of work ahead. But lets think about the Iraqis for a change.

Nat Hentoff, a columnist for the Village Voice, was interviewed on TV tonight and mentioned the phenomenon of "Blind Spots." In all of this, how there is a process of selection in what is considered horrible and should be immediately addressed, whereas other horrible "crimes against humanity" are ignored due to blind spots.

Will there be a sequel to "Hitler's Pope" called "Saddam's Bishops"?

Do these folks really have a concern about the Iraqis? In the Canton bishop's letter, there is not one iota on the attrocities against the Iraqi people by Saddam's thugs. Today we learn that many, if not most, of the Fedayeem(sp?) fighting in Iraq are Egyptians, Jordanians, Sudanese and other Arab non-Iraqis. They have their own interests at stake, not Iraq's.

Will we get to read any letter advising such foreigners to "rethink their position and the logic behind this impending conflict" and their desire to involve themselves accross the border in Iraqi affairs?

The 'Iraqi' soldiers were sent out of the city to fight in the open desert (read: become open targets). They got slaughtered, of course. The non-Iraqi 'internationals' fight in plain clothes, hiding behind city homes, women, children and journalists. Who, BTW, is the true 'intruder' or real 'colonialist?'

Another outsider, Osama bin Laden, calls for 'jihad' (don't you just love religious talk?) while the Iraqi Ayatollah in Iraq calls for 'cooperation' with Coalition troops via a fatwa. What is going on here? Who is truly speaking on behalf of the Iraqi people?

There seems to be two groups at opposite end of the spectrum who want to manipulate the ills of Iraqi society for their own personal end while having no concern for the sufferings of the people by this dictator; hence, their blind spots. So much has been made over the Pope's words and its interpretation, but will bishops stand tall together with the Iraqi Ayatollah's call for cooperation?

Not!

"We are fully aware that Saddam Hussein and his government have committed atrocious acts which are in violation of international law."

Just the 'violation of international law'? Is that all? Is there concern for anything else being violated besides what the internationalists legislate? Something more seems to be missing in this globalspeak.

This is pure lip service. The real issue for the archbishop is for "another state in the same region" (read: Israel), not Iraq. The letter, like the one from the Canton bishop, is riddled with 'blind spots.' The Great Fast has become politicized by some of our own overseers. There are other agendas besides the concern for Iraq going on here. The book sequel is still being written' we just need to digest a few more pastoral letters.

In a statement by a number of bishops at the WCC, we read the following from Churches speak out against war in Iraq [wacc.org.uk] :

"6. A war would have unacceptable humanitarian consequences, including large-scale displacement of people, the breakdown of state functions, the possibility of civil war and major unrest in the whole region."

Then in the middle of the paragraph without further comment, we continue to read:

"The plight of Iraqi children and the UNNECESSARY DEATHS OF HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF IRAQIS [emphasis mine] over the past 12 years of sanctions regime weighs heavily on our hearts.

"Sanctions regime?" What did the bishops mean to say? Was 'sanctions' the cause of hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths or the Iraqi 'regime' of the past twelve years? It is not clear.

In order to better understand the nature of such regimes (and how they all are of the same ilk), I recommend reading Hannah Arendt's, "Origins of Totalitarianism." A real classic. Here is an excerpt: Arendt [pages.prodigy.net]

Now we learn that the President of Family Planning has intentions of getting her "attrocious" little organization involved with Iraqi healthcare seeing how they are losing their war on U.S. soil.

Cantor Joe Thur