I Wonder Again About the Theory
Just war seems to me an irreconcilable verbal construction. Assume for the sake of argument that it were possible,. would it ever be possible to truly codify it. Let us pause a moment and consider--perhaps one might have just reasons for taking up arms, but I wonder if the end results of the conflict that resulted could ever be termed "just." Is any conflict actually conducted "justly?" It would seem to me that as soon as the first innocent dies, the "justice" of the cause has succumbed to the taint of human blood once again.
That said, I also wonder whether it is just not to oppose and depose a person who oppresses, represses, tortures, and kills his people systematically. Don't we have Biblical precedent for this (Judith, for example). I speculated a while back that it might not be all that great a sin to remove someone like Hitler who was slaughtering millions rather than to stand by and allow them to be slaughtered. Are there instances in which the good of the many outweight the good of the few. John da Fiesole said, "Never," in my previous discussion of this, and I must submit to the logic of it--but this is where I do not trust logic. I cannot imagine that God regarding the relative merits of say Hitler and his would-be assassin would place them in the same frame. (Sorry, John, all the logical arguments in the world will not move me from the intuition that love expresses itself sometimes in actions that do not seem very loving--a deep love for humanity might have driven an assassin of Stalin, and the world might have been a better place sooner.
So even apart from a just war--the meaning of which I find sufficiently slippery to be suspect, there are times at which we are given a choice of two evils--allow someone to continue killing, destroying, and terrorizing, or remove that person. Either one of them might be regarded as a sin. But personally, I would rather be complicit in the removal of a tyrant than in the destruction of a single innocent life.
This leaves aside the question of other recourse, which I do deliberately--this is academic pondering--or not academic, because I probably won't submit to the persuasion of reason on this but follow my heart. I honestly don't believe that a war can be conducted justly even if it has a just cause and these are two separate, hard issues. But sometimes war may be necessary for the security of the world and the freedom of a people. I am glad I am not in the place to make that decision. And I am overjoyed that I have the privilege of praying for everyone involved. Just, unjust, or whatever, prayer is the remedy now and always. Our Soldiers, the people of Iraq, their combattants, and even Saddam himself are all in need of our prayers. Not now nor ever will I speak a word against those brave souls who have risen to the call of our leader and responded as they ought and should. My debt to these men and women surpasses any repayment--regardless of what I may think of the circumstances. And as you can see from the last several posts, I don't know what I think. What a trial and what a great opportunity for growth, if only I can figure how to let God into it all.
On the Question of the Justness of this War--I respond to a Commenter
In the comment box to a different post a commenter, for whom I have developed a great deal of respect, posts a very strongly worded declaration that the present war is unjust. Part of this conclusion is derived from the suspicion of economic motives, part from other, logical reasons. My response is below:
You aptly express some of my very strong reservations and suspicions. However, I sometimes wonder if we (the United States) don't need an extra jolt, be it economic or otherwise to do what needs done in the first place. For example, it took as an unconscionably long time to enter WWII, and if ever there were a just war, it seems to me that WWII would probably be a type case.
The question of the justness of this particular war seems to be closed--it has happened, it has been permitted within the scope of God's will. Thus, while it may not be just, it has been permitted for whatever reason. We must repent of the sin (if it is a sin) and pray for the victims. My intuition is that this could have been resolved by other means, but for whatever reason, God has permitted it to come to this. If I am to believe in the efficacy of prayer, and I do not consider petitionary prayer as a "majority rules" impulse, I must believe that God has permitted this when the power of prayer could have diverted it. That does not make it just, but it does give one pause to contemplate the mystery of God's will.
I do have another question about it. I wonder whether part of the object lesson of this is not the opposite of what you suggest. Perhaps we are called to assure that petty dictators do not make the lives of a significant portion of Earth's population unlivable. Perhaps this is the hard lesson that we need to improve our ability to resolve conflicts and to unseat those who would control and destroy lives by peaceful means. We have not yet the skill set to do this. But I wonder whether we oughtn't to carefully examine and research the rise of any new government before we endorse it however obliquely. Perhaps our economic interest should not be the first consideration in our diplomatic consideration. For example, why is China on the "Most Favored Nation" trading list. I don't understand this except that it is economically worthwhile. So we say, on the one hand--oh, you bad, bad, violators of human rights, and on the other, come let us trade together--thus we are complicit, as a country in the oppression of billions of Chinese.
Can we have a just peace so long as the world is overrun with people who are willing to kill their own and anyone else? Can we work toward this peace so long as our primary consideration in any engagement is economic? Should we not stand firmly on our principles when it comes to questions of this sort? Should we not REALLY support freedom and liberty? What, for example, are we doing about the nation of Zimbabwe? Not a heckuva a lot that I can see.
I do understand and sympathize with your point--my own is something like, shouldn't we be sharpening up our own diplomatic set of tools so that we don't support regimes like Hussein's (which we haven't done overtly in recent years, but had done before). Should we embrace every dictator who rises to power? Or should we use every tool in the book to unseat him before the base is so well established that one is left with this as the only action that many can see as viable.
Part of our biblical mission, it seems to me, is "to proclaim liberty to the captives." Now the course of that proclamation is almost never easy but need it be always is such violent terms? I think not. But perhaps it takes a lesson of this sort to bring it home. My impulse would be to use this war as a lever and encourage the government to learn from this so that it is never again necessary. The loss of life on both sides, and the loss of innocent life, is a crushing sorrow. There can be no "humanitarian" wars, no matter how hard we try. Should we not draw the line here and say--enough! Learn from this. Yes, national security is a primary interest, but surely there are more expedient ways to work toward it.
The danger becomes, when one is the only superpower, that one can become the schoolyard bully rather than the knight in shining Armor.
God has allowed this war for a reason. I accept His will, while wondering what I am to derive from it. I cannot believe that this is His perfect will. I cannot believe that God ever wills war and destruction. But I must believe, if I am to believe in the omniscience and omnipotence of God, that at times He permits it. And that permission must be more than to give vent to mere fallen nature. Perhaps those who question it, need to help others who are convinced of its justness to work toward an understanding of how, ideally, we should be relating to one another. Once we have fashioned at least a model, perhaps we can more and more closely lead our leaders to approximate it.
That is what the Vatican and John Paul II are trying to do, I believe; however, I also believe that the groundwork for it has not properly been laid. We are still hormone-addled adolescents in some ways, working our way toward a rational approximation of the truth.
Dissenters
I am somewhat disturbed by those who seem to be taking a rather strong hard-line on prudential judgments and labeling those who disagree as "dissenters." No matter what the denotation, the connotation and commonly understood meaning of the term is those who are in violation of the teaching of the Church on matters where there is no room for such disagreement. One needs to very carefully consider the emotional weight of words when making reasoned arguments. It happens that I agree, in general with the conclusions, but there is the habit of labeling in the course of argument which I find highly alienating. A dissenter is automatically either burdened or enhanced (depending on one's stand) by the label. And so, I would encourage that we very clearly reserve dissent to mean those who fly in the face of infallible teaching.
The Next Installment in the Study of Ascent of Mount Carmel
For those who have been following along, here's the next installment.
Ascent of Mount Carmel IVRead pages141-147 (chapters 11-12). In these chapters St. John of the Cross continues some of themes touched upon in earlier chapters. In addition, he introduces some new themes. Pay careful attention to Chapter titles and examples from scripture.
Chapter 11
What does John propose to address in this chapter? Why is that significant for the reader?(1-2) Are all appetites equally damaging to the goal of union with God? If not which appetites are more to be avoided? Why?
(3) Read the second paragraph very carefully. What is John saying here and why is it important? What is the difference between an advertent imperfection and one that is inadvertent?
(4) List some examples of habitual imperfections according to John. Take a few minutes and pray that the Holy Spirit open your eyes and heart to habitual imperfections that assail you. Note these for future reference, prayer, and spiritual direction.
What do the examples of bird and the remora show us?
(5) Note particularly the second paragraph. What are the chief dangers of indulging "one small imperfection?"
(6-8) What does John use the examples from Judges and Joshua to show. How might his understandings help you to take better advantage of the richness of Scriptures?
Chapter 12
(1-3) Can any appetite produce the two sorts of evils we studied last time?(5) What does John use the passage from Apocalypse to illustrate?
(6) How is this passage an important caution against scruples? To what problems might scruples give rise?
All Cry Peace! Peace! and There is No Peace!
You're tired of hearing it, but I suppose I am not tired of writing it. I am stunned by how weighed down I am by this conflict. The thought of our "mistakes" of the people who die who need not do so, no matter how careful we are, of the sheer evil of those who rather than truly fighting to preserve their country instead hide behind human shields of women and children, all of these things go into the mix. I suppose there is a dull joy in that God's will must be being done, but my vision of it is so hazy as to defy understanding or statement.
I sorrow. I sorrow for those who must do this. I sorrow for each man and woman of the United States forces that must fight this terrible battle. I sorrow for the oppressed people of Iraq--oppressed by Saddam, killed by their own army, used as shields and ultimately not given the dignity of the human person.
Okay, so perhaps it shouldn't be so public, but as you can see it has pounded me out of my usually convivial garrulousness and into a sorrowful, I hope prayerful, and yet absolute confident assurance in God's merciful will. Lord have mercy.
Philadelphia Revisited
While I was in Philadelphia, I took the opportunity to visit the Quaker Meeting House. The Society of Friends was holding an annual meeting at which representatives of 12,000 Friends were meeting and talking about issues important to them. As one would expect from Friends, the war was a major issue, although not in the course of discussion I overheard.
Friends, as you are aware, are pacifists, as are certain of the Mennonite Brethren (perhaps all of them). And I wonder how an ardent pacifist could justify allowing a terrorist government to remain in power. Let's skip the present situation, as it is too close to us and to controversial because it is "of the moment." How could a pacifist justify inaction or mere diplomatic action in the face of the Nazi regime? How could you know of the deaths of thousands of God's people every day and stand by and allow it to happen? Are you standing by? Am I seeing this issue properly.
I tend toward pacifism myself. I rarely find cause to go to war and I see war as the Vatican itself described it, "always a great defeat for humanity." However, I also recognize that the hardness of the human heart causes us sometimes to have no recourse other than to go to war. How would a pacifist justify the position. Obviously, even by just war theory, one must exhaust ever possible diplomatic avenue before war is considered, but once these are entirely exhausted, what remains?
Is pacifism justifiable? Doesn't the Lord want us "to proclaim freedom to those in captivity," and isn't this freedom more than the hope of salvation through Jesus Christ. Doesn't He mean even unto bodily salvation? How do you proclaim freedom to captives if you allow the regime that is destroying them to stay in power.
You can see the reason for my glum state. I am at heart one who believes all such conflict is ultimately a pyrrhic victory. On the other hand, it sometimes seems we are forced to the wall. There were, at one time, powerful liberals in the United States that could bring themselves to justify even Stalin's depradations--a most sobering thought.
A Very Trying Week
I think the silence here, relatively speaking, is related both to the endeavors elsewhere (q.v. the first two links on the blog list) and to my inability to accept, assimilate, or deal with news of the world. I cannot see how such a tragic set of events can be regarded as anything other than simply dire necessity, there is no joy in prosecuting this terrible conflict, and yet I do believe that the engagement must continue both for our own good and the good of the world and our children. A policy of appeasement is (sometimes not-so) slow death.
So forgive me if I spend more time in my more recreational blog or the more silent chapel. Perhaps the impulse will return and I will have something worthwhile to say.
I suppose the overall pall cast over blogdom for Lent may also account for this--lack of discussion tends to cause one to think that discussion has no purpose.
Expect this Week
To be a little light and much flurried. Very, very, very, very busy week ahead. Overwhelmed with what there is yet to accomplish so hunkering down to weather the storm. But there will probably be some evening activity in between preparing the next study sheet for my Carmelite Community.
However, know that you are all in my prayers, and prayers continue nonstop for peace in the Middle East.
Speaking of Spong
On the other hand, I was much dismayed by my good Quaker friends. I walked into their meeting house during the annual meeting of Friends. Of course there was much in the way of anti war paraphenalia (hardly surprising given the Friends), and also, unfortunately, on a small rack of materials for purchase, Spong's "Why the Church Must Change or Die." I don't know if this is indicative of the nature of this chapter of the Friends, but if so, let us all pray that they find their way again.
A while back, perhaps here, perhaps elsewhere, someone questioned the use of the term "Orthodox Quaker." Well, if these people follow that book, let us say they are not Orthodox anything.
Speaking of Canterbury
While in Philadelphia I visited, as a matter of course, Christ Church where, despite religious differences the members of the Continental Congresses worshipped together. The Church is gorgeous, vaguely reminiscent of the Old North Church in Boston, but, as was ruefully explained to me by a very nice shopkeeper, "The Old North Church has its original Pews, these are only 125 years old. However, Christ Church is the Mother Church of the Episcopal Church in the United States. Moreover, it has an absolutely gorgeous "wineglass" pulpit, one of three (I'm told) in the united states. And it has the uncomfortable and charming tradition of interring major donors and important people in the floor of the church itself. Further, they explained that the Church is now "Low Church." But I was pleased to see almost no signs of the pernicious influence of Bp. Spong and company.
Project Canterbury Strikes Again
With a remarkable PDF of Denison's translation of De Sacra Eucharista of Adrian Saravia.
The Schizophrenia of Christianity
At some point in the recent past T.S. O'Rama posted a link to an article about the writer/philosopher Sayyid Qtab--said to be the inspiration for the present gaggle of terrorists. On the plane home I read that article and it seemed to me that Qtab had at least one very good point--one that I have often wondered about and pondered without any real success at unraveling the conundrum. Its seems that Christianity is very conflicted about what interaction one should have with the world. "Be in the world, not of it."
To give you an example of what I mean--I'm always surprised when I think about those most devout of Jews, the Chassidim, and the fact that a great many of them have no problem with working in the diamond industry and making scads of money. I'm sure that there are some very good Christians who also have no problem with it, but often the making of money seems to run counter to the spirit of Christianity. It is often difficult to think of someone who is wealthy and saintly, without having donated their way into poverty and then living among the poor and needy.
Particularly relevant to this discussion is the peculiar, painful, sometimes abstrusely argued and tortured teachings on sexuality. I will not argue their correctness, as a matter of obedience I accept them. But I wonder, the God who revealed his covenant to the Jews is the same God who gave us Jesus. Why is it that among the Orthodox Jews we do not hear of such complicated, involved, and complex doctrines. In the third major religion concubinage and multiple marriages were perfectly acceptable up until the middle of the twentieth century or so, and yet many of these men were practicing their faith (one assumes) devoutly. Solomon had some huge number of wives, and we hear not one whisper of disapproval of this blatant sexual expression.
So, why is Christianity so conflicted about it. Yes, we claim to teach that the gift of sexuality is good, and yet. . . do not the Orthodox Jews do likewise without all of the additional ornaments, rules and measures. It seems that while we dumped the vast majority of the law, we took upon ourselves some huge new measure of it.
Just a problem, a thought, a comparison. I do find that there is much about Christianity that is at least paradoxical, and sometime downright problematic. And I do not exclude the teachers of my own order who constantly dwell upon the goodness of created things and then tell you to have little or nothing to do with them.
Is Qtab right? Is Christianity schizophrenic? If so, how do we bring the mind, spirit, and body back into one beautiful confluence? If not, how do we ease over these bumps in the road and how can we make our own system of living more coherent, more clearly integrated, more fundamental to the paths we tread. If we wish to battle the radical factions of Islam, as the reporter rightly noted, it will have to be on the battlefield of ideas first. If Qtab launched the first salvo, how do we respond to it? What are the apologetics for the apparent rift we place between mind and body. Even if none exists, too many live as though faith can be carefully stored away and not lived. Obviously not the way things should be.
Back from Philadelphia
And I must say that it's a good thing to be back before predicted snowshowers.
However, the trip was magnificent. Didn't have time to get to the surrounding countryside but did see a good deal of the city including the Old Wannamakers (Now Lord and Taylor) department store, the Strawbridge and Clothier that W.C. Fields worked at, the magnificent Chinatown gate and much of the historic district including two trips to Indepedence hall.
Ate at the most magnificent Dim Sum place in Chinatown. The person who took us there was Chinese so we got the Chinese tea and menu--quite a treat. Also ate at some place called Avenue B--has to be the best food I've had in ages.
But the highlight as always was the historic district--more on that later. Need to talk about Reading Terminal market and the magnificent Amish/Mennonite pies/cakes/cinnamon rolls/ and cookies that would send you into a cholesterol spin like you wouldn't believe if you lived there.
Oh, and the reason I was there. The convention was good--I saw the finest presentation I've ever seen at one of these on Nanotech, light-emitting diodes, Gallium Aresenide and its solid-solution series, and the X-ray diffraction patters of DNA. Well done, splending research and utterly fascinating glimpse into the future of tech. Hope some of this comes about soon.
But it is good to be back. Much catch-up to do.