ajusted War

I shouldn’t do this, but my dear friend the Old Dog wants to hear (from reliable Catholic sources) arguments regarding just war. Initially I suggested St.Aug but for a variety of reasons, I think this work may no longer apply – and NOT BECAUSE TRUTHS CHANGE HISTORICALLY OVER TIME OR ANY FAKE-ASS HEGALIAN NOTION OF HISTORICAL RELATIVISM…rather, I think my dear friend seeks an answer to help him understand something else he loves. OD loves his country and I think he has honestly struggled to make sense of the administration’s actions in the present war (which I savage at every turn in these e-pages). Also, with his longstanding interest in international relations OD must have thought about this question hundreds of times. Not only is the following a "just war defense" from a Catholic priest who has studied many of the things OD has studied (only knows them a helluva lot better than him, me and everyone we know), but this source offers a defense of (what I consider to be indefensible) Bush’s doctrine of pre-emptive war. Here’s the interview with Fr. Richard John Neuhaus:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5284809

I respectfully disagree with aspects of Fr. Neuhaus’ interpretation of "just war" – and especially the connection to the dangerous Bush policy, but I think it suits Joe’s needs here. The traditional Catholic view finds (in my opinion) all examples of modern warfare horrific and indefensible. Michael reminded us that he was on a boat in Gulf War ONE that fired the damned C-missiles to soften resistance. Let me say thanks to MK for his service to our country and I admire the brains & courage it took to do what he did. Also, let me remind Michael that he has already called me an "asshole" for what I am about to say…

The modern approach to beginning war with bombing or missile attacks on civilian targets or attacking "military targets" that run the risk of causing collateral damage shows how technology has fundamentally changed the nature of war as the ancient Doctors of the Church understood it. War was fought on determined battlefields between men on both sides who (more often than not) had everything to gain or lose in the venture. The closest thing from the ancient Doctors of the Church to the modern standard operating procedures of warfare would have been siege warfare and OD, you do not want to know what they have to say about that. To the extent that war is now made on hearth and home of people that are in no way connected with the degenerate policies of their sick ruler (and I’m talking about IRACK now, not us…although some might say the argument flows both ways right…the poor bastards that died on watchamacallit, June 26th whatever the new death holiday is in America that gave us that Septembur song by Billy Joel - they didn’t create the policies that led to their horrific deaths) such activities can’t be justified by any traditional Catholic notion of "just war."

Anyway, let me know what you think OD – or anybody else who cares about such stuff. I’m trying to be open minded here, especially in light of my last few posts that may have riled my dear friends OD and olekobe. Let me say I respect the reserve and cool demeanor both exhibited in their responses. When men and women (who may be) on very different sides of these questions can have serious and civil intercourse on such matters, it makes me think that the American conversation hasn’t completely degenerated into the American hissy-fucking-fit.

Good job men.

One last note to Sultan o’ Swaff, and I am going to try to handle this with the same civility that my friends olekobe and OD did in the scenario above. So’S said:

"Sorry Ed, that makes no sense. Leave it to the RCC to cite the Nuremburg defense, they've definitely needed it over the centuries. I'd like to think a soldier dying in a rebellion against a leader in unjust war has a better shot at heaven than a compliant soldier who kills for said leader and gets religious absolution because he was following orders. "

It’s not that simple. Will I admit that there are historical examples where the RCC as an institution has aided in (or stood aside and done nothing to prevent) atrocities? Regretfully (which is in no way a strong enough word) the answer is yes. But you go too far in suggesting the teaching I was referring to was something – ANYTHING like the "Nuremburg defense" or that the Church has used it to defend herself against historical charges (in the distant or recent past) of being part of a national or international crime. You may like to think that the soldier dying in rebellion against an unjust leader has a better chance of going to heaven than the soldier who takes orders in the unjust war (part of me would like to think so too) – but us thinking that "doesn’t make it fucking so" (to quote Mr. Whatever in Reservoir Dogs). The teaching I was referring to from St. Paul enjoins Christians to law abidingness. Respecting law even respecting bad governments – I think is St. Paul’s intent rather than turning Christianity into a political yardstick judging entrance into heaven and hell on the grounds you suggest. There are two good reasons for us to think that St. Paul would do this IN HIS LETTER TO THE FUCKING ROMANS:

The Practical Reason: The Christian "cultists" (language of ancient Roman historians) in Rome during Paul’s time were viewed as revolutionaries who would bring down the regime. Ironically enough, Christian principles undermining the old Roman/Greek manly virtues did help on this score but only once their leaders embraced the principles. But St. Paul wants people to know, or tries to do a PR job that we Christians are not revolutionaries, we will not burn Rome (we’ll just take the blame).

The Theoretical Reason: St. Paul understands, better than you and I do, and better than bad religious leaders in the intervening years Catholic, Protestant and otherwise who do need something like a "Nuremburg defnese," that religion can be misused in the name of assuring fanatical soldiers to bring about political change in this life. It is why St. Paul in his wisdom (and presumably through God’s grace), helps us see a separation between the government of this world and the laws of God or natural law. In the epistle I mentioned, Christians are called to forbearance rather that to revolt against bad government. This is not meant to get anybody off the hook, rather to remind us (in the theoretical or theological sense) the ways of man are not the ways of God. Further, even the wicked mistakenly do God's will and can serve the natural law.

Harmonizing the relationship between entrance to heaven (which by the way I do not see as the ultimate goal of Catholics) and the political structures of this world the way you suggest is similar to the argument that every suicide bomber embraces and every duplicitous sender-outer-of-suicide-bombers employs. Maybe you want to make the case that ultimately all religious rationale tends towards the arguments of the izzzlambists but I do not accept that for the reasons I listed. And, the reasons do make sense. I am only irrational in my belief that eating flesh and drinking blood have something to do with eternal life. When it comes to following long complicated arguments, that’s what I do.

Sultan o’ Swaff knows how to push my buttons on these things. That’s why I am honored that he comes here to talk, and I say that not because I want to make part of my follow up record to breather in the studio he and the PDawg built.

Back to grading papers. Y’all gave me a lot of shit to think about.

Hugs and Kisses!