This war is unjust by any christian standard. Prolife should mean against war as well abortion.Left wing christians often love abortion and dislike this war.Too many of us catholics have put up with this insane war because the president mouths some prolife platitudes, a few times a year.We sell our souls cheap to the republicans but evagelicals are worse with there isane love of Bush and this war.They have been good allies , in the fight, but this war is taking us away from the fight against abortion and putting all our effort in this terrible unjust war, .If this president was really agaist abortion he would lead the march on Jan 22 to the surpreme court.Instead he and Cheney grovel before every traitorous group like AIPAC any chance they can.

An outstanding entry by Scott Richert, to much of which I very comfortably could have affixed my own signature.

Of particular interest to me was Reichert’s critique of the Catholic blogoshere. It is here that one glimpses something of the corrosive impact of First Things, EWTN Catholicism on an entire generation of serious young Catholics. While many have reached a surface familiarity with thinkers of the importance of du Lubac or von Balthasar, they seem utterly incapable of grasping their meaning for the future of Catholicism and its vision of its relation to the world and to history. The Christological dimension, while claimed, is simply not grasped in its most important aspects. I’ll venture the prediction that a crisis of no small moment will overtake authors and contributors alike at such places as the American Papist, Open Book and the egregiously misnamed Ratzinger Fan Club when the futility of a vision of the faith that is tethered to the fantasy of an ontology of the purely natural finally dawns on them. For it is precisely here that ideological inroads into the faith are made possible at all. What we are witnessing is nothing less than the emergence of another Reichschurch. God help us.

John Lowell

Thanks for your kind words.  Emery’s words say it all about the shocking prostration of the prolife Right to the Salvation Through Leviathan by Any Mean Necessary mania that has gripped even many Christians.  I can only hope that the sensus fidelium will reassert itself at some point and, like the cattle in the Far Side cartoon, Christians who have swallowed this load of bushwah will look up, rub their eyes, and say, “Wait a minute!  This is *grass*!  We’ve been eating *grass*!”

Excellent article. I hope that “conservative” Catholics start to wake up and see that George Bush is not the Anointed of the Lord.

With all due respect to Mr. Richert, Mark Shea is hardly the only Catholic Blogger who is in accord with the Church’s teaching on the diabolical neoconservative concept of “pre-emptive war.”

Foremost among these bloggers are A CONSERVATIVE SITE FOR PEACE (http://sergesblog.blogspot.com/), THE WESTERN CONFUCIAN (http://orientem.blogspot.com/), CATHOLIC NEOCON OBSERVER (http://www.catholicneoconobserver.blogspot.com/) and numerous others.

Fantastic article! After I first converted five years ago, I spent a lot of time at St. Blog’s and was even enrolled. Now I can’t stand to visit most of its parishioners. The Americanist Heresy is alive and well there. Cafeteria Catholics come in all stripes.

Regretful Republican,

You say:

“With all due respect to Mr. Richert, Mark Shea is hardly the only Catholic Blogger who is in accord with the Church’s teaching on the diabolical neoconservative concept of “pre-emptive war.”

That is most certainly true. And I would observe that the matter of pre-emptive war is hardly the only question in this rather sordid environment to make a judgment as to one’s being in sympathy with Church teaching. There has been a certain willingness - even of Mr. Shae - to engage as serious the views of many on the question of torture, ticking bomb scenarios and the like. It would seem me that proper instincts would draw one away from such engagements lest they lend one’s protagonists a certain legitimacy. And what the legitimization of the logic of torture might have to do with Jesus Christ utterly escapes me.

John Lowell

That “Antichrist” figure was also used (virtually word-for-word) by Fr. Malachi Martin in his novel Windswept House.

IIRC, the guy became Prexy of the European Union.

On a completely unrelated note, does anyone know the name and creator of that painting?  I can’t seem to find it.

FROM F.J. Sarto: It’s by Umberto Romano. I found it on Clipart.com, but it doesn’t give the full title. Something like “The Crucifixion of Progress,” but don’t hold me to that. 

RE: John Lowell
Don’t be sniffy. If Mark Shea wants to engage the proponents of torture and argue against them, bully for him. Walking off in a huff doesn’t accomplish much. Besides, scholastic theologians debated quite extensively on the legitimacy of torture--which, alas, the Holy Inquisition (the papal, Roman, as well as the state-controlled Spanish Inquisition) used extensively. What’s shocking is that one of the darker abuses of the Reformation/Counter-Reformation (Protestants used it on Jesuits and witches) has come back into “respectability” thanks to the blind, stupid terror provoked by bin Laden and stoked by the dry-drunk frat boy coward-in-chief.

F.J. Sarto,

Sniffy, schmiffy, Franz.

Scholastic theologians debated the question of limbo quite extensively in the past also, for all the impact it has had on present teaching. To resurrect and examine with a fine tooth comb the legitimacy of the Inquisition era debate on torture - which is precisely what Mr. Shae and others have done in the Catholic blogoshere - only serves to call into question the clear sense of the faith as it now exists on the matter. It is almost as though there are valid reasons to give further thought to St.Paul’s apparent acquiesence in the institution of slavery. You’ll excuse me if I don’t share your rather benign vision of these discussions. Much as Sr. Mary Margaret’s editing of the texts of Scripture for the readings at Mass so as to suit her feminist tastes undermines the confidence of the faithful in their official interpretation, so do these exchanges about torture. We - and Shae - can do better than that.

John Lowell

This is like reading contemporary Thomist philosophers--there’s just nothing there but theological nostalgia, not a new idea anywhere, just a desperate effort to recycle the stuff in the ideological attic hoping that old junk will turn out to be a lost masterpiece of political thought.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6509127.stm

The Jewish-named director of an art show in New York is “confused” about the Catholic reaction to a frontal nude sculpture of Jesus done in chocolate.  Last time it was the Virgin Mary done in sacred elephant dung.  Ha, Ha!  I love this Jewish sense of humor.  They can provoke Catholics, but Catholics can’t retaliate because they’d be charged with anti-Semitism, and they themselves took up the “anti-Semitism” cause in defiance of their own scriptures under Jewish pressure and in a state of muddled Catholic discourse.  What do they get for their “tolerance”?  Years of endless humiliations at the hands of Jewish satirists.  Very Christian of them to put up with it, wear their crown of thorns, and bear their cross. More reason to chuck everything Jewish out of Christianity other than the plain historical facts of Christian origins.  Jes’ thank--they ustabee a great church.  Past tense.

Anybody Jewish looking at Jesus sees a “Greek,” that is, a Hellenized Jew who retains Jewish traditions but conceptually belongs to a quite different realm of culture. He’s a Jew from Galilee, but the areas where he grew up (if there ever was a single Jesus) were basically Greek and Hellenized “Greek” settlements--and Judaism had already been Persianized before that--viz. the “Pharisees” or “Farsis” if you used the modernized term. 

Their opponents, the Sadducees, were “Hellenistic,” or Graeco-Roman rather than “Persian,” even to the point of claiming common descent or ancestry with the Spartans.  They lost out when Rome in a fury sacked the place and ordered Jews into exile, praying to Jupiter that they’d just die off.  It was a little hard to be a Roman ally after that, especially when the rabbis fled to Babylon under the rule of the Graeco-Persian Kings, inveterate enemies of Roman expansion in the Middle East.  Jews should be “Persians” and Christians should be “Greeks” and never the twain should have prayer breakfasts.

I’d be more impressed by a Christian movement which purged itself utterly of its Judaean attachments and pointed out systematically that the Christ myth can be regenerated just about completely from the traditions of the Hellenistic, non-Jewish, and Persian world.

John:

It’s “Shea”.

I’m afraid I don’t follow the logic that restating the Church’
s teaching on torture is somehow to undermine the faith by giving aid and comfort to the End to Evil crowd. That’s about as counter-factual as you can get. No good deed goes unpunished, I guess.

David:

Nice Marcion impression.  He was a false teacher too.

To Regretful Republican:

I certainly meant no disrespect to either Joshua Snyder ("The Western Confucian") or John Beeler ("A Conservative Site for Peace"), both of which I read daily and recommend unreservedly (even if I’m a bit less libertarian than Joshua and quite a bit less libertarian than John).  Joshua, in particular, has often linked to my blog and other articles from Chronicles, and I’m glad to see, from his comment above, that he doesn’t appear to have taken offense.

When I referred to “the Catholic blogosphere,” I was still thinking of St. Blog’s Parish, with which I identify neither of these men.

I have to agree with F.J., as well--I’m really not following John Lowell’s objection to Mark Shea’s willingness to defend the Church’s teaching on torture.  Someone’s got to do it, and I’m glad that Mark has chosen to take the time and make the effort.  If I were to fault him on anything, it would be that I think he was perhaps a bit too deferential on this question to Jimmy Akin--I think Mr. Akin was actually engaged in splitting hairs in order to justify some of what the Church would consider torture.  But since Mark’s deference appears to have arisen out of friendship and respect, I think he can be forgiven.

Excellent essay!  Thank you, Mr. Richert.  My impression is that Catholic opinion in the US is turning against the Iraq war, as has public opinion in general.  The reason for this, of course, is that the war is costly and success is nowhere in sight - indeed it cannot even be defined.  So the change in opinion represents no change in moral insight on the part of Catholics, but at least there is the opportunity to point out that John Paul II and Benedict XVI were right to begin with.  Unhappily, I know of no case in history where a nation sincerely repented a war of aggression which it was in the process of winning.  Wars are repented by the aggressors when they are lost or being lost, or when the cost of aggression mounts too high.

Mr. Higdon is right about the change in attitude among American Catholics, and he’s also right that it’s not necessarily a moral awakening.  But it does present opportunities.

I’m less convinced that a loss in Iraq is likely to lead to repentance.  Rather, I’m afraid that those who have strongly supported this war would become even more nationalistic in the event of a loss.

I’m afraid that I have to agree with Scott on this one.  Rarely does the loser in a military contest repent.  Instead, scapegoating rises to the fore, and a search for those who “made us lose” commences.  Then, the wait begins for a re-match under better circumstances.  The Mexican reaction to losing the war with the U.S. comes to mind.  Especially the part about the ongoing and likely successful “Reconquista”.  Excellent post, Scott!

did the usa lose the war in vietnam? i think the answer on usa involvement in iraq is pretty obvious as well… tying the idea of prolife to prowar is a good one… only a religious nut would fail to see the hypocrisy in it, and alas that is what most religious believers are at present - a bunch of hypocrits.

i think kirt higdon sums it up quite well >>My impression is that Catholic opinion in the US is turning against the Iraq war, as has public opinion in general.  The reason for this, of course, is that the war is costly and success is nowhere in sight - indeed it cannot even be defined.  So the change in opinion represents no change in moral insight on the part of Catholics<< the reason wouldn’t be the needless murder of all sorts of innocent victims of the usa war in iraq, it would be the financial costs incurred.... spoken like a true religious nut, where money is a more important consideration then innocent peoples lives.

I have a question about:

“The problem with “values” is that they are inherently relative.  (Consider, for a moment, the very meaning of the term.) “Conservative” Catholics have understood this when criticizing the “seamless garment” approach to politics, which was often used simply to justify the political agenda of the Democratic Party, but they have failed to realize that their own emphasis on values is, in some ways, even worse.  At least the seamless garment has a presumption in favor of life, which is more than we can say for pro-life Catholics who have never met a war they didn’t like. ”

I’m unfamiliar with the term “seamless garmet” so I googled it and found this article:

http://www.wau.org/about/authors/scullion1.html

The article says:

Pope John Paul II has forcefully stated that a consistent ethic of life must oppose a “culture of death.” This culture is one in which . . . the powerful predominate, setting aside and even eliminating the powerless . . . unborn children, helpless victims of abortion; the elderly and incurably ill, subjected at times to euthanasia; and the many other people relegated to the margins of society by consumerism and materialism. Nor can I fail to mention the unnecessary recourse to the death penalty. . . . This model of society bears the stamp of the culture of death, and is therefore in opposition to the gospel message. (Ecclesia in Amer-ica, #63, Apostolic Exhortation of Pope John Paul II, January 1999).

how is it Conservative Catholics are critical of that and why? how could this possibly be used to “justify the political agenda of the Democratic Party”?

If I had the choice of voting for a politician who would end abortion saving the lives of millions of our children, but put us at war taking the lives of thousands it seems the choice is clear. Not that I have that choice or will have anytime soon.

It seems all I realistically have to choose from now are:

1) Democrats who may save the lives of thousands by getting us out of this war, yet promoting and protecting the right to kill millions of children, and add to that the killing of the elderly and disabled.

2) Republicans who most likely will prolong the war, and do little or nothing to end the slaughter of millions of unborn babies.

neither choice is acceptable and neither choice is acceptable in a “seamless garment” ethic as I understand it. So what’s the fuss about?

Janet Marie, the complaint that many conservative Catholics had about the seamless-garment approach was that it was often used to say, “Well, this politician is anti-death penalty and antiwar, but pro-abortion.  So, that’s two out of three, so I can vote for him.”

There’s nothing inherent in the seamless-garment approach that would make that a necessary reaction, but practically speaking, it enabled some people to salve their consciences while voting for the first unacceptable choice that you listed.

Scott,

You said, “I certainly meant no disrespect to either Joshua Snyder ("The Western Confucian") or John Beeler ("A Conservative Site for Peace")..."

No offense even remotely considered. You were right, Mark Shea is virtually alone, and perhaps all alone among the big guns.

Another against torture and preemtive war is Stephan Hand:

http://tcrnewscom.blogspot.com/

Yours,
Joshua

A Comment from Caryl Johnston:

Excellent article! Thank you so much for laying down the line. Case in point: the neoconservative bent of “First Things.” See George Weigel’s defense of the Iraq War in the April issue of First Things. It is a species of morally deteriorated reason if there ever was one. I learned that Vladimir Soloyvev was the model for Alyosha in “The Brothers Karamazov” - the lovely and loving youngest brother of the Karamazovs, and have always believed this to be true. Young Alyosha goes through a crisis when his spiritual mentor, Father Zossima, dies - and his body goes through the stench of mortal decomposition. Thus some of the monks and laity were led to scoff at the belief in Father Zossima’s sanctity. But what Alyosha does is very telling - he goes outside and falls to the ground, to water it with his tears. Here, to me, is a beautiful story of the path that American Christian believers should follow. For I think we are living through the mortal corruption of the American nation. But our “Christians” are easy to spot - they are the ones who continue to insist on our national sanctity while holding their noses.

Mr. Richert,

What a great piece.  I do hope you will be on these pages more often.  I guess what confuses me as one who considers himself part of the Old Right, is how easy it has been for conservatives to become anti-death penalty and and to some degree pacifists when the history of the Church and her teachings is different.  I too was against the war in Iraq but there is a tendency in many I read lately to see very little reason for any War. 

So, many Libertarians linked on this site love quoting from the last two Popes with regard to the War but have written books telling us that we should not listen to them when it comes to economic issues. 

I guess for me is I don’t hear much talk about contraception by the seamless garment adherents.

This Iraq War is wrong on a political and moral level and we should argue and fight to end it and fight to keep our troops out of Iran.  But, War is left to the prudential judgement of the state. Contraception and abortion are never allowed. 

My problem with making war and the prudential Judgement to fight as an evil on par with Abortion and Contraception is that God commanded Joshua to commit genocide in Joshua 11:14-15.  A moral evil is a moral evil in any age, Old Testament, New Testament and Church age.  This is not some Levitical Law but genocide.
I don’t have answers just a lot of questions. I do not like it when the neo-cons are so sure of themselves but the same goes for or side.

Maybe Mark can help with the Scripture end of this.  I am a faithful reader of Chronicles and a new faithful reader to this site.  I am sure these issues will continue to be argued in order to help me work out my questions.

Pax
Marty
Queens NYC

I’m not as pessimistic as Mr. Richert and Mr. Berg that losing the Iraq war would lead to a vengeful more militaristic US.  The good point of the historical ignorance of Americans is the lack of grudge holding.  The Vietnam War came much closer than the Iraq war has so far to tearing America apart.  Yet today, Vietnam entertains American tourists - many of them the veterans of that war.  The comparison with Mexico fails on three counts.  The US southwest was once part of Mexico, no one in Mexico advocates war to recover it, and the immigrants who come here do so for economic reasons.  Very helpful effects of the US losing in Iraq might be the beginning of the end of Israeli dominance of American mid-east policy and of American dependence on Saudi oil.

I always enjoy the musings of my old friend, Scott.

I very glad he’s posting to this site as well.

Janet Marie’s post provides an interesting juxtaposition.

The only thing to underscore is the danger of slipping towards consequentialism or utilitarianism in any discussion around quantity or number of lives saved versus lost from either an unjust war or abortion.  If party x promised and delivered the end to legal abortion, but was also on a crusade to make the world in its own image through preemptive war, then we still have a major problem here. I believe there is a huge moral issue supporting such a party.