tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8994919346196168886.post569620742382384863..comments2023-10-25T00:44:48.976-07:00Comments on The Catholic Guys: A Catholic Looks At Veteran's DayChrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09451282942088992811noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8994919346196168886.post-76847715548904620132011-11-14T13:19:22.502-08:002011-11-14T13:19:22.502-08:00I must wholeheartedly agree with Derrick who state...I must wholeheartedly agree with Derrick who states that the comments section was more enlightening than the lead article.<br /><br />Dr Rice is a good, an honest and a kind man who has wirtten many fine things in his career. But where this fine gentleman falls down is on two very crucial areas: first, he is an Americanist; he has accepted the fallacies of Americanism, an "ism" that was justly condemned by the Church, most particularly by Leo XIII. This acceptance of the false ideas of Americanism does not make Dr Rice a villain, but it does very definitely color his thinking.<br /><br />Secondly, Dr Rice is quite uncritical when it comes to some of the directions our recent Popes have taken the Church, a direction that, as we look at the "devastated vineyard" around us, has hardly been good for the Faith. Dr Rice's lack of critical thinking in this regard is indicated in his numerous references to the New Catechism - a catechism that has, yes, been authorized offcially by the Church, but a catcechism that is nonetheless vastly inferior to previous catechisms and is quite deficient in a number of important doctrinal areas. Dr Rice would be well advised to look back at the thinking of great Catholic minds of the past and to eschew the trendy modern theologians who are so namby-pamby and so terrified of a media lynching that they are only too happy to water down as much as possible the hard teachings of Christ.<br /><br />I commend those who responded, and would only gently correct "Perry Mason" on his occasional misreading of the Just War theory which, if I read him right, he finds flaws in. I would cordially recommend him to read those two excellent Books, "Neo-Conned" and its sequel, "NeoConned Again". In them he will find brilliant analysis of the Just War doctrine.Aged parenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05217229048176272954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8994919346196168886.post-23616652280903681442011-11-14T07:47:35.163-08:002011-11-14T07:47:35.163-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.1https://www.blogger.com/profile/07779203557206545554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8994919346196168886.post-28773496941276922892011-11-13T12:17:47.829-08:002011-11-13T12:17:47.829-08:00BigSofty, the problem with Catholic Just War theor...BigSofty, the problem with Catholic Just War theory (and I consider myself a Catholic in good standing) is that properly interpreted it is incredibly narrow.<br /><br />Charlie Rice, a great and accomplished scholar, nonetheless makes many common errors in attempting to describe it, particularly when giving examples.<br /><br />First, all people are responsible for the common good, except infants, the weak and infirm. Yet even they who are able must follow the commandment to love our neighbor.<br /><br />Thus, properly interpreted, no modern State or government can be given a presumption of being correct, particularly when every modern state is full of lies and corruption.<br /><br />More importantly, Mr. Rice glosses over the "proper authority" requirement. This is where Catholic Just War theory applied to almost all wars implodes. Modern democratic governments, frankly any non-voluntary government, is not proper. It is not legitimate. It is based on coercion and de facto assumption of power alone, which is contrary to God's greatest commandment.<br /><br />The Church has no special insight or knowledge as to when a government is "legitimate" or not for purposes of applying Just War Theory. However, using basic principles the Church can promulgate, one can deduce that in fact Congress, for example, is not legitimate.<br /><br />Where would the theory justify the use of force? Take for example a small city with a ruling counsel of elders who the great majority assent to for dispute resolution, and who do not coerce those who do not so assent. This city is invaded unjustly and the elders instruct all able citizens to resist to protect their lives and the lives of their families. The resistance in this instance, subject to rules of proportionality and other moral considerations, could be just.<br /><br />It is simply a matter of applying the law of self defense to a greater group.Perry Masonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12188665697411384557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8994919346196168886.post-84126376743073915422011-11-13T12:17:15.696-08:002011-11-13T12:17:15.696-08:00Do you truly expect me to believe that the same pe...Do you truly expect me to believe that the same people who think that slaughtering a pre-born child is a "human right" have <i>any</i> moral claim to decide what foreigners should be destroyed?<br /><br />Do you think the politician savages who support <i>torture</i> have any capacity to decide the morality of killing? Yes. Waterboarding, sleep deprivation and "stress positions" <i>are</i> torture. Torture is an objective act: it is a means to an end, and the definition includes acts of deliberate infliction of suffering as a means of coercing the free will, a free will given by God Himself, who Himself refuses to coerce the free will) not merely a "certain amount of subjective pain" as the Wormwoods in the military and congress would have us believe.<br />If torture is an objective act, it cannot be defined subjectively.<br /><br />A solid, thinking Catholic with an inkling of history would never support 95% of any military actions in history. If I have <i>any</i> presumption about a war, it is <i>not</i> that the Powers are justified in their action, but that that the politicians are immoral, consequentialist thugs who have no right to send anyone to kill. History supports this presumption, and any Pollyanna preaching to the contrary is not in accordance with the practical reality of the matter, and is hence not the teaching of the Church.<br /><br />Catholics giving deference to politicians and their gunmen is sickening and a scandal. Soldiers know who butters their daily bread. That's why almost all the allegedly Catholic soldiers went in to kill Iraqis and Afghanis at the behest of the politicians, because they were <i>just about</i> to land on American beaches waving scimitars and screaming "Allahu akhbar!" and impose Shariah law, packing up our freedoms into large duffelbags.<br /><br />General Smedley Butler had it right. "War is just a racket. I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket. . . . I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service." <br /><br />I look at the soldiers who fight for politicians as people who pour water on a grease fire. While their intentions may be good, they are certainly not heroes: they are endangering their own lives and the lives of others because while their hearts may be in the right place, their good intentions do not change the reality of the situation and the stupidity of their actions. <br /><br />May God illuminate the hearts of those who mistakenly fight for the State under the pretense that they are fighting for their neighbors and homes..https://www.blogger.com/profile/01714070136249395568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8994919346196168886.post-26443085962620030982011-11-13T12:16:45.158-08:002011-11-13T12:16:45.158-08:00You wrote:
"John did not tell them to find ...You wrote: <br /><br />"John did not tell them to find another line of work. “[H]e said to them, ‘Plunder no one, accuse no one falsely, and [perhaps most important] be content with your pay.” St. Paul did not demand that newly converted Christians who were soldiers must leave that profession. Instead he said, “Let every man remain in the calling in which he was called….[I]n the state in which he was called, let every man remain with God.”<br /><br />Neither Christ nor Paul told the slaveowners to release their slaves from slavery. Is that supposed to be an approbation of slavery? Of course not. God reaches out to sinful people where they are. <br /><br />Nobody is "called by God" to kill people at the behest of the politicians, who throughout millenia of unjust wars, have always couched their motives in terms of "defending the country." Recall the words of Hermann Goering, a man who had nothing more to lose. Remember what he told Gustave Gilbert about the way wars are really initiated. <br /><br />I cannot fathom a conscientious "Catholic" who helps operate a boomer that carries within it nuclear weapons capable of destroying the earth three times over. What "Catholic" could launch a missile that is pre-targeted an entire city? What moral Catholic could deliberately try to destroy entire civilian cities as they did in Germany and Japan? <br /><br />Do you <i>dare</i> assume that that group of power-hungry, amoral, nihilistic, infanticidal maniacs known as the Congress and Senate would ever think it incumbent upon themselves to only wage a war that was in accord with the Just War theory? Do you even think they <i>know</i> any of the principles? They refuse to outlaw abortion, yet you think they have the moral capacity to decide what adult humans should be annihilated by B-52 strikes in Iraq? (Which did the bulk of the bombing in the First Gulf War.) Who deliberately attacked the water purification and sanitation systems of Iraq in the First Gulf War? Who cited the lie perpetrated by "Nurse Nayirah," (actually the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador) about Iraqi soldiers throwing dozens of babies onto the hospital floor?.https://www.blogger.com/profile/01714070136249395568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8994919346196168886.post-54291304341776831482011-11-13T12:05:36.096-08:002011-11-13T12:05:36.096-08:00You give an example of a legion willing to die rat...You give an example of a legion willing to die rather than kill innocents, while proclaiming that a bit of "collateral damage" is OK?<br /><br />We are to give the government, instigator of all modern wars, the benefit of the doubt while waging open warfare? By definition then anyone accused of anything by any government must be presumed guilty, and suffer anything up to and including capital punishment by napalm, bomb or bullet.<br /><br />"He would deny to his fellow citizens their right to have the state provide..” This is illogical. Someone refusing to use force is not denying anyone anything other than the use of his body to inflict harm.<br /><br />In short you've done nothing but weasel up some excuses why it is OK for people to join and stay in the armed forces of empire, even though the ongoing killing is clearly not in anything resembling self-defense.BigSoftyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14743698299854056765noreply@blogger.com