I am not familiar with the College of the Holy Cross in particular, but we are all too well acquainted with the disheartening spectacle of an institution of higher learning, bearing a Catholic name, behaving as if it has no idea of who or what it is any longer. Since I can't keep track of the track record for all the ostensibly Catholic institutions in our country, I rely on the Cardinal Newman Society to do this for me; this fine organization performs the heroic duty of reporting instances of infidelity by Catholic colleges and universities. So, I did a Google search of "Holy Cross college Massachusetts Newman Society,"* and as I feared, received back a plentiful list of links that paint a picture. I hasten to point out I have not investigated all these links; I will leave that to you.
Let's just stick to the question presented here: is it a bad thing to be a crusader? Contemporary "thought" (which is increasingly the opposite) would say so; but if pressed, does a very poor job of explaining why. What, exactly, is a Crusader? Well, of course, that's easy. While Wikipedia must not be relied on for exact information, it's useful for a general sense of things. Here's what you get there:
Military:
Crusader, a participant in one of the Crusades. See Category:People of the Crusades and List of principal Crusaders
Crusader states, states set up by the Europeans in the Balkans and the Middle East during The Crusades
Crusader tank, a British cruiser tank of World War II
HMS Crusader, three British naval ships
Operation Crusader, a British attack in North African campaign in World War II
VMFA-122 Crusaders, a United States Marine Corps fixed wing fighter-attack squadron 122
XM2001 Crusader, an American self-propelled artillery project
Crusaders (guerrilla), a Croatian anti-communist guerrilla army
Transportation:
Crusader (speedboat), the jet speedboat in which John Cobb died
Crusader (train), a streamlined train which operated between 1937 and 1981
Crusader, a GWR 3031 Class locomotive that was built for and ran on the Great Western Railway between 1891 and 1915
Crusader ambulance (original version named Crusader 900), a type of emergency ambulance in widespread use in the United Kingdom, originally developed by the St John Ambulance Brigade
Aircraft:
F-8 Crusader, a U.S. Navy fighter jet
XF8U-3 Crusader III, an experimental fighter intended to replace the F-8 and compete with the F-4 Phantom II
Short Crusader, a racing seaplane built by Short Brothers
American Gyro AG-4 Crusader an aircraft built by the Crusader Aircraft Corporation
Cessna T303 Crusader
And that's just the first three categories; further down are sports teams, publications and the like.
Notice something? Lots of people seemed to think that being a "Crusader" was an admirable thing. Why did they think that?
Of course, all this originates with the first entry listed, above: those who went on one of the several Crusades to liberate the Holy Land from invasion and conquest by armies carrying the banner of Islam.
Now, lots of things happened in the course of the Crusades that we -- or anyone of any age -- wished did not happen. But so what? There were moral failures by the Allies in World War II, some pretty significant* -- but acknowledging this fact does not call into question the legitimacy of the Allies' overall effort; and if someone were to claim that such failures create any sort of moral equivalency between the Allies and the Axis, that is both incoherent and obscene.
The comparison between the Allies and the Crusaders is entirely apt, as both were a response to aggression. Indeed, this isn't just something I came up with; notice the entries, above, of uses of "crusader" in association with World War II. By the way, do you know what symbol Charles de Gaulle, the hero of the French resistance to Axis conquest, chose as the emblem of the Free French forces? Here is the banner that sons of France bore as they liberated their homeland (click on image for more information):
To be a Crusader is to carry the Cross, including into battle in protection of the Christian faith and those who practice it. There is no reason to be embarrassed about it. For those who sneer at warriors entering battle with religious purpose, I ask: do we fight for better reasons today? Do we wage war more nobly, when we shed religious impulses? The presence of the Cross on the shields and the lips of the Crusaders served to elevate them; what would they have been without faith? More like us in the 20th and 21st century, I suspect (and not in a good way). The generation that avoids war without dishonor can sit in judgment of the Crusaders; but that generation doesn't exist yet, sadly.
Let me correct one thing: there is one reason to be embarrassed by the name "Crusader" -- and that is if you are embarrassed by the Cross. If the College of the Holy Cross has reached that point, I would ask, can we have back, not the name of your sports teams, but the name of your college?
___________
* What do I have in mind? In World War II, many immoral and disreputable actions and omissions occurred on the part of the Allies; both on the part of individual figures, field commanders, and national leaders. Most notable would be the use of indiscriminate bombing, the destruction of Dresden, the use of atomic bombs in Japan, and the failure to do more to assist the Jews and others who were being systematically exterminated. These moral failures were faulted at the time, and have been since, especially by leading Catholic figures, such as various popes, and bishops such as Ven. Fulton Sheen. Feel free to look it up.
37 comments:
Music:
The Crusaders was an American jazz fusion group that was popular in the 1970s. The group was known as the Jazz Crusaders before shortening its name in 1971.
The reason it became pejorative is that history is written by the victors. Catholics are no longer apologists, just apologizers.
We proudly go to our grandkds sporting events and cheer on Our Crusaders. It is interesting when we run into other Catholic schools who are also Crusaders. Occasinally you get some parent come up from other schools who can't believe our school uses that symbol today. It always gives me pleasure to ask them exactly what they know about the Crusades against the Islamst and how long we waited and suffered giving them the benefit of the doubt. Finally we were Forced to unite to stop their attempt to take over the existing world by force. Hopefully we will not wait as long to stop today's islamist.
Your analysis was decent until you threw in that paragraph at the end with the usual diatribe about World War II. For decades now, too many--including in the Church--have adamantly refused to recognize the hideous reality of the era. For the sake of brevity, I will simply state that most lack the moral courage to recognize precisely how dark the face of evil may be. Whether for the Crusades, World War II, or actions worldwide since, most critiques demonstrate a stern failure to admit that uprooting that degree of evil will require actions that will appear vicious and brutal, ...and which will be completely necessary even so.
If we wish to thrash people morally for various acts of World War II, I shudder to think how WE will be judged for our failure to stamp out abortion or confront violent Islam in our own day.
It'd be interesting to see what others have to say.
John:
The evil of the enemy does not justify doing evil in response. And if you are interested in what "others have to say," how about Bishop Fulton Sheen? How about the popes? How about the Catechism of the Catholic Church?
"The evil of the enemy does not justify doing evil in response."
If that's the case, I should think you'd be compelled to condemn having fought World War II or the Crusades at all. After all, fighting a war in any manner or to any degree requires destroying property and killing people, both of which are fundamentally evil acts.
If we would make arguments about Just War, never forget that no war has ever been fought according to such moral rules, except derivatively. LOAC (Law of Armed Conflict) and Just War theory are similar, not identical. The differences can be critical. If we would critique actions from the Crusades or World War II--or any other conflict--we would be wise to consider whether Just War theory criteria have even been considered. Very likely they have not.
If that's the case, I should think you'd be compelled to condemn having fought World War II or the Crusades at all.
Please try again with a serious argument.
If we believe that taking the life of another or destroying property constitutes an act of evil, then fighting a war cannot be justified because the whole point of a war is...destroying property and killing people, for the purposes of achieving a (usually political) goal.
Chastising this or that action of World War II--or of the Crusades--while insisting that the overall war could be justly fought...has never made much sense. If you justify killing one person, trying to declare that another person may not be killed for some reason does not make a tremendous lot of sense. Both acts are fundamentally evil, differing possibly only by the severity of the evil committed in each case.
If we believe that taking the life of another or destroying property constitutes an act of evil, then fighting a war cannot be justified...
Yes, and when did I make that argument? Please quote me. Hint: I never did; that's why I suggest you try again.
...because the whole point of a war is...destroying property and killing people...
No, the "whole point" of war is, in fact, whatever goal is in view. For the Axis, it was conquest; for the Allies, it was defense and liberation of conquered territory. Killing and destruction are consequences; they aren't the point. If they were, then the Allies would have kept killing and destroying property after surrender. That would be both stupid and immoral. If a war can be won with less killing and destruction, that's usually desirable.
If you justify killing one person, trying to declare that another person may not be killed for some reason does not make a tremendous lot of sense. Both acts are fundamentally evil, differing possibly only by the severity of the evil committed in each case.
If this is what you believe, then you consider killing someone in self defense to be equal in morality to murdering someone in cold blood, and without any provocation. Is that actually what you believe? If it isn't, then you, too, hold the very distinctions this last statement deems not making "a tremendous lot of sense."
Once more, I suggest you try again.
Fr Fox, I think some of your points are debatable, but distracting, so I'll keep to my original point. I believe you referred to "indiscriminate" bombing and have a quarrel with the Allies having bombed Dresden (conventional), Hiroshima (nuclear), and Nagasaki (nuclear). You also seem displeased with Allied reactions to the Holocaust.
I object to your appraisal because, frankly, I've heard like-minded arguments many times; they generally lack merit. I don't know what your particular reasoning might be, but I have studied these events to a fair degree. If Germany or Japan lacked genuine war-fighting capability, such does not mean they had chosen to surrender by the time of the respective bombings. I think the loss of life regrettable, but...so was the loss of life that preceded it. One does not properly stop fighting merely because he THINKS the other side lacks the ability to fight. Instead, one most properly follows his intended plans until the other side DOES surrender.
As for the Holocaust, ...I think it would be interesting to know what you or anyone else think we might have done differently to halt the carnage?
When I visited the Holocaust Museum in DC a few years ago, I recall reading something that struck me...quite oddly. According to this critique, the Allies bombed a manufacturing plant maybe 6 miles distant from Auschwitz, but did not bomb the concentration camp; thus the Allies were "guilty" of "allowing" the death toll to climb. I think this ludicrous: When someone is held captive, bombing the place where they are kept will most likely kill them, exactly the opposite of what we want. The only way to end the bloodbath is...putting someone there to physically shut the place down (and free the prisoners). THAT is what we did.
John:
You made some assertions, and I asked you about them, and you choose to disregard my questions. Don't you think that's rude? I do.
Then you expect me to answer your questions. That takes a bit of brass, don't you think?
If you expect me to respond to you, I suggest you show me the same courtesy and respond to my questions. I am not going to type them out again.
Given that you have refused to answer my question, I think you hold a poor spot to be accusing me of being rude or brassy.
I'll ask one more time: Why was fighting World War II justifiable, yet strategic bombing--you called it "indiscriminate"--was not? Why could we justifiably fight World War II, but bombing Dresden, Hiroshima, or Nagasaki cannot be justified? Or, what could/should the Allies have done differently regarding the Holocaust?
Nobody really wants to consider these hard questions, but they still need hard answers. If we can't, we fail to recognize the whole context, thus we make ourselves all the more likely to fail to respond to today's serious concerns.
John:
I asked my questions of you first. Don't believe me? Let's look back...
I asked you several questions on May 6, 1:01 pm. No response from you.
Then again on May 7, at 10:22 am. You ignored those questions.
You asked your first question on May 7, 4:56 pm.
I'll be happy to respond to your questions of May 7, 4:56 pm. when you answer my prior sets of questions.
Or do you not think you have any obligation to respond to my questions? If you do, why do you think this?
Unfortunately, Fr Fox, if one may consider questions according to your view, we may also interpret questions according to mine. In your posting, you essentially declared that Allied leadership had erred gravely in some ways, especially with regard to Dresden et al. You did not go into detail, telling us instead to review the critiques from that time and/or since. Well, coming from my own background of a practicing Catholic and former military (Air Force weather) officer, I have done so over the years. In my first comment, I noted that I had read numerous critiques of the era; I noted that most critiques seemed to me to refuse to admit to the gravity of the war. In response, you told me that one may not commit evil. When I pointed out that such an objection could justify condemning having fought either World War II or the Crusades, you told me to ask a serious question.
Put simply, I have been challenging you with a difficult question since my first comment, which you have not yet answered: Why were these particular actions of World War II evil? More helpfully, why were these evil, but fighting the war in general was not?
For what it's worth, my investigation of these matters includes Archbishop Sheen, one pope or another, the Catechism, and a certain Fr John Ford (if memory serves). In the same document in which Fr Ford condemns the atomic bomb, he raises the question of whether the war could be fought at all. Sadly, he does not analyze this question, merely stating that many clergy seem to think it morally acceptable. Simply stated, he fails to address a key question.
John:
I don't mind answering questions, but I find it astonishing that you demand I answer yours, but you have written paragraphs upon paragraphs, all while dodging answering even one of my questions. I find that amazing.
To save you from having to scroll up, I'll repost the question I insist you answer, as a sign of good faith.
To recap, you stated:
If we believe that taking the life of another or destroying property constitutes an act of evil, then fighting a war cannot be justified...
And I asked you:
Yes, and when did I make that argument? Please quote me. Hint: I never did; that's why I suggest you try again.
Now, this is a very simple question to answer. Either you can quote me saying that; or else you can say, whoops, I goofed, and mistook your argument.
If you can't be bothered to answer this question, that tells me you aren't really interested in anything I have to say, but only in making your own points. That's fine, but in that case, there's no point in my continuing to engage in fake conversation (which is two-way, not one-way).
So you think I can't be bothered to answer a simple question?
All right. Here we go.
I said:
"If we believe that taking the life of another or destroying property constitutes an act of evil, then fighting a war cannot be justified..."
Amongst others, you responded:
"Yes, and when did I make that argument? Please quote me. Hint: I never did; that's why I suggest you try again."
I felt you had already answered that question yourself. I did not deem I had a need to repeat your own premise. From the article:
"There were moral failures by the Allies in World War II, some pretty significant* -- but acknowledging this fact does not call into question the legitimacy of the Allies' overall effort;..."
In other words, you first bash Allied leaders for some of their decisions, then proclaim that most everything else they did was acceptable. I see no distinctions being made for why the overall war was acceptable, yet particular actions of fighting the war were not.
I think it entirely possible that we're both suffering the ravages of editorial discretion. Certainly I have had an eye toward honoring your state as priest and blog author, while still emphasizing where I believe you have erred. In many cases, I have been compelled to write and rewrite comments three or four times to address these constraints. Perhaps we have misunderstood each other quite badly. I certainly hope so. If not...it would seem to me that you have accused me of trying to make points, while committing that act yourself.
I don't care much for accusing a priest of hypocrisy, but I'm afraid your approach thus far doesn't leave me much chance to avoid making precisely that charge.
For my purposes, you had already answered the question you asked of me.
What is your answer to the question that started this whole kerfuffle?
John:
Thanks, I appreciate your response. Let's work through this. And in another post I'll return to the question you asked.
You said:
If we believe that taking the life of another or destroying property constitutes an act of evil, then fighting a war cannot be justified...
I responded:
Yes, and when did I make that argument? Please quote me. Hint: I never did; that's why I suggest you try again.
And you said you deem my statement, as follows, as my making this argument:
There were moral failures by the Allies in World War II, some pretty significant* -- but acknowledging this fact does not call into question the legitimacy of the Allies' overall effort;...
Well, except that is not saying what you claim it says. To say that there were moral failures in the course of prosecuting the war is not saying I believe that "fighting a war cannot be justified." That's like saying that if a police officer, even once, misuses his authority, then the existence of police forces cannot be justified. The fallacy of that should be obvious, but apparently not.
Whether a war is morally justified depends on the reason why it is fought, and how. This is what the Church's longstanding "Just War" teaching is about. I would suggest reviewing the Catechism of the Catholic Church, beginning at paragraph 2263, and then again, at paragraph 2307; indeed, I would suggest reading everything under the Fifth Commandment.
In other words, you first bash Allied leaders for some of their decisions, then proclaim that most everything else they did was acceptable. I see no distinctions being made for why the overall war was acceptable, yet particular actions of fighting the war were not.
Well, this is not an obscure subject, but it's not true I didn't give any explanation of what I was talking about. As I said in the original post were "indiscriminate bombing, the destruction of Dresden, the use of atomic bombs in Japan, and the failure to do more to assist the Jews and others who were being systematically exterminated." The "indiscriminate" modifying "bombing" ought to be clear enough: it is immoral to make no distinction between the guilty and the innocent, and in war, the application of this has been that reasonable efforts should be made to distinguish -- i.e., discriminate -- between combatants and non-combatants.
Since you were or are in the military, please confirm for me and other readers here: is this, in fact, a feature of decision-making in war? Such was my understanding, but you are welcome to contradict me on this. (Cont...)
In any case, here's what the Church says:
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" (CCC 2312).
And:
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.
“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.” 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.
The phrase I bolded, above, states the matter succinctly; it is a quote from Gaudium et Spes, one of the documents of the 2nd Vatican Council.
So this is what was behind my assertion that certain actions carried out by the Allies were wrong, while the overall effort I do not deem to be wrong.
Now, to return to your question, which I delayed answering. I hope this recent iteration will do:
Put simply, I have been challenging you with a difficult question since my first comment, which you have not yet answered: Why were these particular actions of World War II evil? More helpfully, why were these evil, but fighting the war in general was not?
I may have already answered, but I want to be sure. Very simply, there is a clear distinction, morally, between acts of war involving repelling aggression, and those that are directed to non-combatants, or fail to make this distinction. It's hard for me to understand why this needs to be explained. A soldier who shoots back at an enemy soldier is committing a very different act, morally, from the soldier who shoots non-combatants. Certainly there are times when the distinction isn't easily made, but that is not always true. And in the case of bombing an entire city, no effort is being made.
It is legitimate to defend oneself against aggression, but that doesn't mean anything goes.
Do I really need to explain this further?
Now, is your point that you are disputing there were serious actions or omissions by the Allies during the Second World War?
If so, I will reiterate:
- Terror bombing, including the bombing of Dresden. May I suggest you google "Winston Churchill terror bombing." What you will find was a decisive shift in policy by the Allies, the British in particular, from trying to avoid targeting civilian populations, to targeting them for the purpose of terrorizing them and inducing surrender.
- The use of atomic weapons in Japan. There is no disputing it happened, and that it was indiscriminate.
Now, in thinking about the matter a bit more, if I could do it over, I might have left off the mention of the Holocaust. I think it's true to say that Allies, in the lead-up to WWII, could easily have done more to assist the Jews and others being targeted; but in the course of the war itself, I'm not in a position to say the same.
So I'm not sure what more you want from me?
Well, I think you err, but that's not unusual.
I'm well acquainted with the CCC. I've had need. Remember though, if Catholic teachings have been around since Creation, so too have numerous other ideas. I have seen no evidence that Catholics ever caused the War Department to care about Church teaching. When leaders have not agreed to abide by Catholic teaching, we can't try insisting that they erred according to our norms.
Notably, even today, Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) posits many Just War ideas, but the latter theory does not dictate the former Law. Catholics have still not induced the DoD to adopt Catholic principles. Military commanders do have strict requirements for choosing targets. They must be militarily significant--which can include industrial facilities--to justify decisions to attack. Even so, such does not mean that they intend to follow Catholic doctrine.
Then we have "indiscriminate" bombing. I can only assume this refers to the strategic bombing of various industrial facilities. These were quite discriminate! They sought to reduce the enemy's ability to fight. If he can't drive, fly, or float, he may surrender. I think it tragic that civilians died, but even St Thomas gives us argument to allow this. By seeking a good, we may tolerate...collateral damage. We don't--and didn't--wish to kill needlessly. Such must be balanced by recognizing the likely greater death toll on our side from failing to strike a manufacturing facility.
Had we conducted raids merely for hatred or revenge--such as payback for the Blitz--I might agree to condemn it. We didn't.
As for terror bombing, I know well what they did and why. If I cannot eagerly approve of such a means, neither can I justly fault them. I notice that, even in this, they did not conduct raids for vindictive reasons. ...Even you declare they did so to provoke the enemy to surrender. Thus, I cannot agree that bombing Dresden constituted a criminal act. The rail facility was a legitimate target, and was bombed along with all the rest.
Nor can I agree that a nuclear bomb was/is indiscriminate. It's true this weapon will kill and destroy over a large area. It's also true that rifles, grenades, and artillery will have the same effect. Proclaiming the death of 300,000 in three minutes despicable raises the troublesome question of why 300,000 deaths in three months is not. We don't like dealing with a cold calculus that way, but fighting war competently requires precisely that. Then too, consider Europe and Vietnam after war, no nukes in sight. We can't justly condemn the bomb without also condemning a standing army's existence.
"So I'm not sure what more you want from me?"
You've provided what I sought well enough. I think your points are well enough intended, but not thought out thoroughly. Simply put, these critiques reflect an academician's effort to make sense of war, not an understanding of how war actually happens.
PS. Fussing over Allied reactions to the Jewish plight...does not well reflect history. We could argue that Kristallnacht and other events should given warning. We need to realize that nobody expected horror on this scale; even the Nazis didn't develop the Final Solution until 1941. Nobody can honestly have anticipated the degree of butchery the Nazis developed.
As I mentioned way back at the beginning, I have read too many critiques that fail to admit to the degree of evil that ultimately would be unleashed during World War II. We too easily fall prey to 20/20 hindsight.
Nor can I agree that a nuclear bomb was/is indiscriminate.
The Magisterium doesn't wait upon your agreement.
As for terror bombing, I know well what they did and why. If I cannot eagerly approve of such a means, neither can I justly fault them. I notice that, even in this, they did not conduct raids for vindictive reasons. ...Even you declare they did so to provoke the enemy to surrender.
It wasn't just I who called them "terror bombings," committed for vindictive reasons. Churchill admitted it was about terror -- his word -- when he proposed a re-evaluation of the bombing in February 1945. As to whether it was intended to be "vindictive"? Well, what difference does a word make? If you set out, very deliberately (which the Allies did) to slaughter civilians, is it somehow less repugnant if you do so kind-heartedly?
And, yes, they did set out to target civilians very deliberately. Allied records reveal this. RAF Air Marshal Sir Arthur Harris said this:
the aim of the Combined Bomber Offensive...should be unambiguously stated [as] the destruction of German cities, the killing of German workers, and the disruption of civilized life throughout Germany.
... the destruction of houses, public utilities, transport and lives, the creation of a refugee problem on an unprecedented scale, and the breakdown of morale both at home and at the battle fronts by fear of extended and intensified bombing, are accepted and intended aims of our bombing policy. They are not by-products of attempts to hit factories.
So basically, these arguments boil down to a complaint that civilians have been targeted specifically, which goes beyond the pale.
We would do well to remember that...if the war drags on long enough, some of those civilians...will no longer be civilians.
When we agree to fight a war, we assume a risk to everyone, whether we believe we do or not. The only way to be assured of avoiding such hazards is...don't fight in the first place.
Only, that doesn't work either because if someone else is fighting, we may still suffer anyway.
Incidentally...,
In an earlier comment, you had noted that one may fight a defensive fight to ward off an aggressor, but acting as the aggressor could not be justified.
Would you say that, by agreeing to commit terror bombings, intentionally targeting civilians, that Churchill et al ceased being defensive combatants, but became aggressors instead?
John:
It still comes back to holding leaders, and ourselves, to moral decision-making.
And as far as Churchill: that's an interesting question, but my answer on the spot is that the actions he (and others) on the Allied side engaged in, that were immoral, don't change the fact that the Allies were defending themselves from aggression, and therefore, were morally entitled to repel that aggression.
But that does raise the question of whether it was necessary to seek "unconditional" surrender, as that may have played a decisive role in whether Japan would surrender prior to the use of atomic weapons. I have seen that argument made, but I haven't taken sides on it.
"It still comes back to holding leaders, and ourselves, to moral decision-making."
I see.
So, I see no evidence that leaders then or now had cause to be worried about Catholic doctrine. No evidence suggests that Just War theory had an impact then or will impact strategy or target selection now. Not only that, but the Church's general evangelizing effort has long been tepid enough as to be summarily ignored.
I'm having a horrid time understanding why anyone will give a rat's butt about what Catholic doctrine says about moral decision-making.
...Or why we feel compelled to engage in hand-wringing over decisions made almost 70 years ago.
So, I see no evidence that leaders then or now had cause to be worried about Catholic doctrine. No evidence suggests that Just War theory had an impact then or will impact strategy or target selection now.
I'm sorry, when did it become my responsibility to do extensive research into "evidence that leaders then or now had cause to be worried about Catholic doctrine," and provide that to you? Are you offering me a commission? That would be an interesting research project, but it would take a bit of time. I'm sure I could do it, but there might be others who could do a better and quicker job.
In other words, why are you griping to me about this?
I'm having a horrid time understanding why anyone will give a rat's butt about what Catholic doctrine says about moral decision-making. ...Or why we feel compelled to engage in hand-wringing over decisions made almost 70 years ago.
I'm sorry you're having a "horrid time." What a very pleasant life you must lead, if spending time reading my blog and posting comments here merits such a dire description. I can certainly introduce you to people who really do have a horrid time of it, if you like.
But beyond that, I find baffling your apparent suggestion that once things are a certain number of years in the past, there is no point in evaluating their meaning and significance, particularly from a moral point of view. A quote comes to mind, something about those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.
"In other words, why are you griping to me about this?"
I'm griping to you about this because...you started it.
Call it a pet peeve of mine if you like, but I have little patience for proclaiming that a war may be fought, ...but not THAT way. War is pure, bloody hell, whatever the Rules of Engagement may be. If you don't like those rules much, neither does anyone else.
Or to put it more succinctly: When you choose to fight a war, you agree to allow for human dignity to be severely compromised for the duration of the fighting. Quibbling that this or that strategy violates principles strikes me as complaining that someone didn't close the barn door some 3 hours after the horse ran out.
"In other words, why are you griping to me about this?"
I'm griping to you about this because...you started it.
Oh, bosh. I wrote a post delving into history, and made a connection with recent history. I didn't write a post about the history of how Catholic doctrine influenced war-making, because I didn't. Perfectly interesting topic, but not what I chose to write about.
War is pure, bloody hell, whatever the Rules of Engagement may be. If you don't like those rules much, neither does anyone else.
So, to be clear, you are giving your personal endorsement to an anything-goes-in-war approach?
It's not a question of "principles" -- it's a question of right or wrong. Do you actually believe there is such a thing as good and evil?
Or is your point that human nature is fallen? I think I knew that. I think everyone knows that. That fact is not a reason to say, oh well, we can't really do anything to restrain evil, so why bother?
Why limit this approach to war? What about law enforcement, which also involves socially sanctioned use of violence? For that matter, this sounds a lot like the way people approach questions of sexual morality, abortion, and other life-and-death issues. People are going to do bad stuff, whaddyagonnado?
"So, to be clear, you are giving your personal endorsement to an anything-goes-in-war approach?"
No, I'm criticizing the fact that, though you would seem to chastise leaders per Catholic doctrine, you cannot demonstrate how Allied actions violated Catholic doctrine. I know many believed otherwise (and do now). I and others do not. Not only that, but you cannot demonstrate that said leaders had cause to consider actions from a Catholic perspective.
If we might agree that we can't use an anything goes approach, we cannot agree that the Allies took such an approach. Again, if I had evidence of seeking wanton destruction, simply for the sake of blasting things to oblivion, I might agree. I do not.
I do find it interesting, this ruckus about war strategy, yet we never hear the same fuss over Allied soldiers lustful intentions, looting, or other concerns.
Curious:
If terror (or nuclear) bombing is unacceptable, would you prefer we had chosen exclusively explicit military targets, such as airfields and army posts? Then a ground war?
Keep in mind, doing so would almost certainly have wound up targeting the same people, the same cities, and wreaking the same degree of destruction, if not more so. Such would have happened because we would have needed to strike--or loot--many industrial facilities, if only to cut them out of the fight. Casualties on both sides quite likely would have been far worse than what happened.
No, I'm criticizing the fact that, though you would seem to chastise leaders per Catholic doctrine, you cannot demonstrate how Allied actions violated Catholic doctrine.
Yes, I have. I cited, for example, what the Magisterium said about the use of atomic bombs in Japan. And I provided evidence that the British deliberately targeted civilians; Churchill himself called it "terror bombing."
Not only that, but you cannot demonstrate that said leaders had cause to consider actions from a Catholic perspective.
And for the second time, at least, I ask you, so what? Just because you wish it?
If we might agree that we can't use an anything goes approach, we cannot agree that the Allies took such an approach.
Please make up your mind. Either your position is, yes, the moral law does actually apply to war, but allegations of gravely immoral actions by the Allies are false. Or, your position is, "war is pure bloody hell," these things happen, accept it. How about you decide just which is your position, and stick to it?22
I do find it interesting, this ruckus about war strategy, yet we never hear the same fuss over Allied soldiers lustful intentions, looting, or other concerns.
Seriously? Now you're complaining that I didn't go on to list yet more moral lapses in World War II? When did I promise a comprehensive listing of all serious moral lapses in World War II? I didn't. Your complaints are getting ridiculous.
"I cited, for example, what the Magisterium said about the use of atomic bombs in Japan. And I provided evidence that the British deliberately targeted civilians; Churchill himself called it 'terror bombing'."
I have demonstrated how this prudential judgement is flawed. Rifles, grenades, and artillery fire, which are not condemned, will inflict the same degree of destruction over enough time. As negotiations cannot be depended upon to end the carnage, we cannot properly condemn nuclear weapons if we do not condemn the use of an army.
I have made my mind quite clear. Moral law does exist; you have not proven that the Allies broke it. Some efforts, such as terror bombing, are certainly questionable, but do not, to my view, constitute violations. Where there's no evidence of intent to inflict wanton violence, I can't agree that these were immoral.
I do wish you a good week.
Rifles, grenades, and artillery fire, which are not condemned...
Because rifles, grenades and artillery fire can be targeted to combatants; indeed, the army as a whole can target it's destructive actions on combatants. And, if this is not the case, then the condemnations cited apply to these as well.
Post a Comment