The secular Left has co-opted the slogan “war is a defeat for humanity” from Pope John Paul II, but in the original passage, you’ll see that the Holy Father isn’t saying what they think he’s saying.
He has used the words many times since, but he uttered the phrase in question almost four years ago, on January 1, 2000, and therefore could not have been speaking about the Iraqi War. He was talking about wars in general, but he enumerated legitimate reasons for war that were applicable to the original decision to remove the former Iraqi government. See the passage I highlighted below to see if that’s a fair summary.
“In the century we are leaving behind, humanity has been sorely tried by an endless and horrifying sequence of wars, conflicts, genocides, and “ethnic cleansings” which have caused unspeakable suffering: millions and millions of victims, families, and countries destroyed, an ocean of refugees, misery, hunger, disease, underdevelopment, and the loss of immense resources. At the root of so much suffering there lies a logic of supremacy fueled by the desire to dominate and exploit others, by ideologies of power or totalitarian utopias, by crazed nationalisms or ancient tribal hatreds. At times brutal and systematic violence, aimed at the very extermination or enslavement of entire peoples and regions, has had to be countered by armed resistance.
“The 20th century bequeaths to us above all else a warning: wars are often the cause of further wars because they fuel deep hatreds, create situations of injustice and trample upon people’s dignity and rights. Wars generally do not resolve the problems for which they are fought and therefore, in addition to causing horrendous damage, they prove ultimately futile. War is a defeat for humanity.”
Author: Eric Johnson
Sympathy for the devil’s servant
Which is more contrary to human dignity, this…
…or this:
?
Cardinal Renato Martino, the reflexively anti-war prelate who predicted a gigantic disaster if Iraq’s government was replaced by force, gets a little sad about poor Saddam:
“I felt pity to see this man destroyed, (the military) looking at his teeth as if he were a cow. They could have spared us these pictures,” he said.
“Seeing him like this, a man in his tragedy, despite all the heavy blame he bears, I had a sense of compassion for him,” he said in answer to questions about Saddam’s arrest.
Medical exams upon capture are perfectly legal and routine. Releasing a videotape of a prisoner is also legal, and proving that he was in custody serves a military purpose.
“It’s true that we should be happy that this (arrest) has come about because it is the watershed that was necessary… we hope that this will not have worse and other serious consequences,” Martino said….”But is seems to me to be illusory to hope that this will repair the dramas and the damage of the defeat for humanity that a war always brings about.”
Why was it “necessary” to capture Saddam if the war itself was unnecessary? And if it’s the result of a “defeat for humanity,” then…what…huh…not quite understanding…brain overloading….
Joseph Lieberman said that if it were up to Howard Dean, Saddam would still be in power, killing Iraqis and threatening his neighbors. The same thing can be said — and I say this with a heavy heart — about many bishops.
Unlike the Holy Father, the good cardinal has been content to repeat the European line about war being obsolete without any nuance or reservation, and does not even bother to root his comments in the Gospel. You know who I feel compassion for? The Iraqis who lost their loved ones because of this man. I feel pity for Saddam because of the fate that awaits him if he remains unrepentant. But compassion? I’ll reserve that for the mothers whose sons were dragged off and murdered, or used as cannon fodder in useless wars.
How come nobody blames the laity?
Reflecting on the sex scandal comments, I’d like to propose a different way of thinking about problems within the Church. Before we, the laity, start criticizing bishops and priests, shouldn’t we ask what we have done to prepare the ground for a scandal? Have we supported good priests and bishops? Worked to make our parishes, schools, and institutions worthy of the name “Christian”? Striven to consecrate our culture to God, or at least to make sure it doesn’t offend him?
I’m not suggesting that bishops who covered up serious sins and crimes should not be punished, either by civil or canon law, nor am I suggesting that blame should be shifted from the perpetrators. The Church doesn’t operate franchises that provide holiness on demand, it provides houses of worship for sinners. The conditions within those houses are largely determined by those who inhabit them, and that means us, dear laymen. If our local house is out of order, perhaps the place to start the renovation is within our own souls.
In Rod We Do Not Trust
Is it possible for Rod Dreher to write about any Catholic topic except sexual scandals? One wonders. Do a Google search on “rod dreher” child sex and you’ll see what I mean. Here’s his take on Lauryn Hill’s embarrassing speech:
…What [she] did was rude, but prophets don’t stand on protocol. I’m thrilled she went right to the heart of our Church and said what she did. The AFP report quotes her as having told the cardinals and invited guests: “Holy God has witnessed the corruption of your leadership, of the exploitation and abuses which are the minimum that can be said for the clergy.” She also called on the hierarchy to “repent.”
Good for her. It’s a shame it takes a non-Catholic to show that kind of courageous witness to the hierarchy, which has so grievously failed Catholic children and their families in the sex-abuse scandal.
Sure. No Catholic — not the Pope, not George Weigel, not Father Neuhaus, nobody — has spoken out about the scandal.
And to him, she’s a prophet, like Jeremiah or Isaiah! The Lord must be hurting for prophets these days. Maybe a more articulate prophet can explain what “the exploitation and abuses which are the minimum that can be said for the clergy” means.
Come on, Rod. You’re a smart guy and a faithful Catholic. Being shrill and strident isn’t going to help anything. You might consider taking a sabbatical from the kiddie-sex beat for a while.
Self-righteousness and ingratitude are sins, too, ya know
Lauryn Hill, a singer whose oevre I am completely unfamiliar with, denounced the Church’s leadership at the Vatican’s Christmas concert. Maybe someone can explain why a non-Catholic was performing at the event. I know nothing about the her, except that she’s made some pro-life music in the past, which I assume is why she was invited in the first place.
I don’t agree with the stereotype that says Americans are all insensitive boors who are eager to share their ill-formed, ignorant views on many topics, but it’s not hard to see where that opinion comes from.