Fr. James Schall, S.J., offers a brief war primer, and to be more precise, a primer on this war, the War on Terror. It is straightforward and does not sugarcoat the situation. He identifies the was as “civilizational” and the enemy, not as the ideologically austere term “terrorists, but as specific groups within Islam, a religion that is diametrically opposed to foundational Christian principles and dedicated to the conversion of the world, by force if necessary.
He acknowledges that while democracy is an ideal form of government, Islam and democracy are not compatible. Nevertheless he advocates the attempt to create democracy in Islamic countries.
Fr. Schall also has criticism for a certain kind of pacifism exhibited by certain bishops in the face of war:
Religious opposition to war is based on a laudable preference for “peaceful” means, such as dialogue or unending negotiations. No dialogue is possible with this particular enemy except as a tactic to gain time. ... It is unfortunate in this case that religious leaders have not accurately seen the nature of this enemy, what he is capable of, and how and why he must be stopped, indeed of his religious motives. The older tradition in which religious leaders better understood the need, even for religion’s sake, of a measured and adequate creation and use of force would have better served the only real peace that is possible as long as the world-conquering intention of al-Qaeda types is present and operative.
A good piece and worth reading.
It is clear that the pope and most of the bishops have in recent years applied the just war teaching in a legalistic and pacifistic manner that departs from tradition. Fortunately, it is the responsibility of the state and not the hierarchy to apply just war principles to particular cases.
“It is clear that the pope and most of the bishops have in recent years applied the just war teaching in a legalistic and pacifistic manner that departs from tradition.” The first major successful terroristic attack on Italy will change that.
Yeah, the pope sure was being legalistic and pacifistic when he didn’t condemn the invasion of Afghanistan.
He didn’t say “the Pope.” There are a lot of bishops in the Vatican, many of them a lot more legalistic and pacifistic than the Pope. And I think that if the Holy Father was consistent in his position, no disrespect intended, he would have been as supportive for the task of removing Saddam.
He was consistent, as was Ratzinger, because Iraq had nothing to do with Al Queida
Keep banging that drum, Al.