I guess you people want to talk about this

Because three of you have sent it to me in the last hour:

Peter King blasts Vatican "hypocricy."

Catholic lawmaker Peter King ripped Church leaders as hypocrites Thursday for the Vatican’s foreign minister claim that the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal is worse for America than the Sept. 11 attacks.
“If there’s anyone in the world who has no right to speak on sexual abuse, it’s the Vatican,” said Rep. King, an anti-abortion Republican. “This is the height of hypocrisy.”

In an interview published Wednesday in the Rome daily La Repubblica, Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo described the abuses as “a tragic episode in the relationship with Islam” and said the scandal would fuel hatred for the West and for Christianity.

“The torture? A more serious blow to the United States than Sept. 11. Except that the blow was not inflicted by terrorists but by Americans against themselves,” Lajolo was quoted as saying.

Disturbing photographs of Iraqi prisoners being abused and sexually humiliated by American military at the Abu Ghraib prison have stunned the world, and prompted some Democrats to call for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to resign or be fired.

King said the Catholic Church should be the last group to claim moral high ground on issues of sexual abuse, given the past several years of revelations about priests abusing children for years while church officials failed to stop such behavior.

“Whatever the United States has done to prisoners in Iraq is nothing compared to what priests and nuns did to Catholic kids for decades while the Catholic hierarchy covered it up,” King said.

“Think of the thousands of kids in the U.S. and Ireland who were abused by priests and nuns — you wonder where the Vatican’s moral compass is.”

Comments

[Chris-2-4]

"You People" ?

[Chris-2-4]

How about a prediction?

Somebody here will mockingly suggest that Peter King should now be denied communion.

[Pat]

"fuel hatred for the West & Christianity"

They already hate us!!

[Patrick Sweeney]

Peter, Peter, thou hast shot from the lip again.

I vented my outrage at Lajolo's outrage in my blog with a bit more discretion.

Does the Vatican have a rulebook that offers a bright line distinction between effective advesarial interrogation of prisoners and torture?

[jerry]

Shout it from the rooftops, Congressman King! Let everyone know that there's a difference between the magisterium and the cheap shots of smug European Archbishops who think their day jobs entitle them to indulge in prejudice and malicious unfairness.

[Gerard E.]

Bravo to the Congressman. A well-designed, properly-aimed salvo. Been a source of aggravation for years- EuroBishops Biting The Nation That Feeds Them. In general, perhaps no nation with a sizable Catholic population more devoted to this Pontiff. As annoying as the LibEstablishment screeds that Atrocities at Abu Ghraib = A Corrupt Nation. Even our man Bill Donoghue- Mr. Anti-Anti-Catholic- praised the Congressman. If only for the bishop's wildly inaccurate statement that the Defense Dept. was doing nothing to identify and punish the perps. In fact, as a Wall Street Journal editorial pointed out last week, DOD has responded faster than other managers facing their own institutional scandals. Like the editors of the NY Times and USA Today. The boards of companies like Enron and Tyco. And our bishops. Reminder of a very popular Gospel passage about specks and motes. Right, Your Eminence?

[Donald R. McClarey]

The Archbishop made an idiotic statement. Congressman King is a media hog who never met a TV camera he didn't like. Taking either the statement or Peter King very seriously would be a huge mistake.

[ita o'byrne]

Apparently the Vatican (a sovereign country) has no right to say anything because of the "abuse scandal". I've seen this line of reasoning from the leftists who want to shut the church up about abortion and now rightists use it as well. How dare the church say anything (right or wrong)? Who do they think they are? - thousands of bishops around the world and apparently ALL of them have to be quiet now because Peter King said so.

I don't agree with Archbishop what-his-name but I think he has a right to speak, if anyone blame the lazy journalists who say the "Vatican said so and so" when only one cleric IN the Vatican said it. Like the issue of celebrities wearing crucifixes as a fashion statement, one Vatican cleric made a comment on it and before you knew it the news services had the Pope himself saying it. At the height of the Scandal no less. GMA had Cher on it and asked her to comment on the "pope's statement" and Cher said he should get "his own house in order", of course the Pope it turns out didn't say anything at all but nobody apologized. If the "Vatican" said it MUST be the voice of the Pope.

[jerry]

Come on, ita. If this Vatican pronouncement had followed on the heels of other pronouncements either 1) praising US sacrifice in blood and treasure to bring food, medicine, infrastructure, schools, democracy and security to a benighted country or 2) condemning without equivocation the regime of Saddam Hussein and the murder of innocent civilians by his dead ender Baathists then we'd have no problem. I love the Roman Catholic Church but the seeming delight with which the Vatican pokes the US in the eye is very discouraging.

[c matt]

So can we expect Congressman King to now shut up about any abuse heaped upon US soldiers any where in the world from now on? Can we expect Congressman King to shut up about the US standing for anything other than parading naked prisoners around on a leash? I didn't think so. And neither should the Vatican or a bishop "shut up".

[Cornelius]

The priest ephebophelia scandal has impaired the Church hierarchy's moral authority to teach the larger world for years to come, perhaps a generation. But not everyone who makes reference to this scandal whenever the hierarchy tries to teach is making an unfair allusion. Particularly in the case of sexual sins, the hierarchy has "shot itself in the foot."

The anti-Americanism of many high Church prelates (someone called them "EuroBishops") is palpable, and ugly. It produces some of the stupidest remarks out of the Vatican.

[ita o'byrne]

Jerry, I agree that the silence that the "Vatican" has with regard to anything pro-American (especially condemning the beheading of Mr.Berg) and their constant suck-up to Islam all the while Catholics are being persecuted in Sudan and Indonesia by Islamist fundamentalists is VERY disheartening (an understatement).
But the media's constant repetition of the fact that one cleric (be it Martino, Arinze, this guy, etc.) says something and is therefore representing the "Vatican" as a a whole is even more shoddy and unprofessional as is American pols like King who think the Church should be silent (and perhaps silenced) for speaking out on anything be it abortion or Iraq.

[jerry]

c matt: I think this is an english only comments box.

[Cornelius]

Ita - there's a difference between the Church teaching the moral law, i.e., declaring what sort of acts are sinful and which aren't, and the Church chiding institutions or countries for the misbehavior of its members.

On the former, since the Church speaks with the voice of the Holy Spirit, her authority is untouched, unimpaired, as it always will be. She should ALWAYS speak out and reiterate God's law.

On the latter, i.e., human weakness and violation of God's law by sinners, the church hierarchy is in as much need for forgiveness as any of us, and in little position to lecture others due to their own negligence. King is right on this point. (Notice that King does not question the Church's right to teach God's law.)

[Victor Morton]

Ita: fair point about "the Vatican" vs. "Vatican official X." But answer me this: how many actions by individual bishops or officials (Martino, Lajolo, Navarro-Valls, Silvestrini, etc.) does it take for one to conclude there is simply an anti-American culture there (or, in principle, any generalization).

[Tom Modl]

What I think the archbishop is saying is that the prison abuse scandal in Iraq has done more damage to US power and prestige in the eyes of Moslems than the terrorist attack against the US on Sept. 11 did. That seems obvious to me--9/11 engendered sympathy and support for the US, except among those who were already pre-disposed to hate us. The prison abuse scandal has had the opposite affect--making many Moslems--however unfairly--perceive the US as bullying and hypocritical.

Are Vatican officials not in a position to take the high moral ground when talking about abuse? Perhaps. But after what I've seen in the past week concerning the conduct of some American solders, I'm not sure American government officials should be too righteous, either, or be so quick to call others hypocrites.

[Cornelius]

Tom - on the contrary, the American gov't and the military is responding with far greater rapidity and decisiveness than virtually any church prelate did to priestly abuse.

[jerry]

Ita, Lajolo is the Vatican's FOREIGN MINISTER for crying out loud. If he doesn't speak for the Vatican on these issues, then who, other than the Pope, does?

[Mike Benz]

Cornelius-

You make a vital distinction here that I entirely agree with.

Mike Benz

[Chris-2-4]

It is ABSURD to suggest that the sex abuse scandal, which absolutely flies in the face of Catholic teaching, in any way impairs the ability or the authority of the Catholic Church to instruct on issues of morals.

The scandal emphasizes the importance of the need for the Church to teach. It does not diminish it!

It is not even debatable.

[Ignacio]

It seems to me that a whole lot of commentors think that every statement that it is not a direct endorsement of USA policies, actions or in any way pampering to the USA is unequivocally "anti-American" (i.e. anti-USA). That is sad.

[Patrick Rothwell]

I am less concerned about the Vatican foreign minister making these comments (and I think he is right in any event) than I would be if the comment came from one of the American bishops who removed sex abusers from the ministry with less than alacrity.

[Desert Chatter]

If bishops ran the military, those Army MP's from Abu-Ghraib would now be running a daycare center at Naval Station Norfolk.

They should keep quiet on such matters until their own house is in order, which, judging from this week's news, looks like it might be a while.

[David]

Patrick,

I'd hope the Vatican's playbook is a least as strict as the official playbook that Rumsfeld and Taguba claim that the armed forces should use--the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War.

The Geneva Convention prohibits "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment" and says bluntly that:

"No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."

[Victor Morton]

Tom:

"That seems obvious to me--9/11 engendered sympathy and support for the US, except among those who were already pre-disposed to hate us. The prison abuse scandal has had the opposite effect--making many Moslems--however unfairly--perceive the US as bullying and hypocritical."

Hearts-and-flowers telegrams aside, September 11 did not alter the fundamental political dynamic -- every party acted towards us according to its self-interest on terms that were predictable on Sept. 10 (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia on both sides of the street, France, the Northern Alliance, Pakistan on both sides of the street, France, Iran, Syria, France ... and Germany and Russia, i.e., France). Whatever "sympathy" came, it had dried up by the start of 2002. I remember being at the US Consulate in Toronto on September 17 and having to walk around a "peace" marcher. And on September 14 being told by two Canadian women how boorish and uncouth are certain-colored states of the US.

"However unfairly" is just childish indulgence of a sick political culture; people are responsible for their attitudes and if the Arabs see Abu Ghraib as a reason to hate us, then let them hate us, and I then care only about whether they fear us. I'm waiting to see what effect the photos of an American civilian being beheaded on camera will have on world sympathies. Not.

[Victor Morton]

David quoted some scrap of paper:

"No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."

This global kind of idealistic rhetoric (the paper itself) is why I think treaties are pretty frickin worthless. Does anybody have any impression this is how interrogations are, ever have been, or ever will be, conducted. Especially in life-or-death situations? What do detainees expect (especially "illegal" nonuniformed combatants, for whom the custom always had been immediate execution)? Embossed invitations to a chat over high tea with cucumber finger sandwiches? Cross-examination by Marcia Clarke, with Alan Dershowitz making objections?

This kind of paper patter is just a transparent effort to outlaw interrogation itself but, in typical cosmopolitan lawyer fashion, without the guts to say so.

[James Kabala]

Peter King himself is a hypocrite by any standard. He has been a leading denouncer of alleged terrorist sympathies among American Muslims, but he is a notorious IRA sympathizer.

[ita o'byrne]

Jerry, Victor, Cornelius, you all make very valid points. I'm as upset at the Vatican's anti-americanism (which I think derives not from the Church persay but from the rampant anti-americanism of Europe which infects even Curia officals not originally from there) as anyone but my point was that King (and any number of Democrat pols/flunkies who say the same thing about the Kerry/abortion thing) is trying to score points with the argument that the Scandal precludes ANYONE in the church hierachy from saying anything (and this does not only include arguments about abortion or Iraq but about same-sex marriages, cloning, stem-cell and even church closings!) and the Vatican should be quiet even if the "Vatican" in this case in one bishop.

[Mike Benz]

James Kabala-

Your comment is a classic ad hominem argument. It is a fallacy for that reason.

Mike

[David]

Victor:

Take it up with Rumsfeld and Taguba. They made the claims. I would remind you, however, that similar things can be found in very important Catholic documents--Catechism (2297)
Encyclical (paragraph 3)
http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/fifth.html (2297)
(para 3)
Pastoral Constitution (para 27)

Concerning Archbishop Lajolo's remark:

As I see it, Lajolo said in a paragraph basically what Douglas Kmiec said in an entire NRO Online piece. I suppose if all of you are going to bash the Vatican, you'll need to turn your guns on NRO too.

[S.F.]

The bottom line is this. The bishop's comments are stupid. They'd be stupid if there were no child sexual abuse scandal whatsoever. No matter what, they are stupid comments. Stupid. s-t-u-p-i-d.

So, why bring the sex abuse scandal? It shouldn't be used as a political weapon. It doesn't nothing to help children.

[David]

Sorry, I botched that last Catholic reference--the Pastoral Constitution (para 27)

[S.F.]

David,

Kmiec did not say that Abu Ghraib is worse than 9/11. Stop making stuff up.

[James Kabala]

Mike Benz:
It isn't meant as an ad hominem attack. Rep. King's statements are largely accurate; Archbishop Lajolo's statement was annoying and stupid. I was just independently observing that King is no prize himself; I didn't want anyone to be hailing him as a great Catholic hero.
(Come to think of it, King's statements did not really focus on the substance of the Archbishop's remarks; they were a little bit ad hominem themselves.)

[David]

The operative word there, S.F., is basically. I never said they said exactly the same thing.

[chris K]

I didn't realize that Vatican ministers were in to poll taking. Did anyone here receive a call?

And I'm beginning to think that the past horrible abominations that took place in that prison left a lingering bunch of evil minnion spirits! Why else would our folks be performing sexual acts with each other, filming them, ... and ... in front of the prisoners? Sounds like a lot of self abuse as well went on in that particular place. Just a wee bit haunting!

[Nick Frankovich]

When news of the prison-abuse scandal hit, I thought, Here we go again.

The analogy between it and the sex-abuse scandal in the Church is that strong: It's an evil in itself, it's compounded by the official status of those who committed it (they represent institutions that represent us), and, if you condemn the evil because you love the institution it harms, you end up joining those whose condemnation of the evil can't really be separated from their condemnation of the institution. (You can say you haven't joined the anti-Catholics or the anti-Americans, but that doesn't mean you haven't contributed to their cause. You can fashion as nuanced and principled an argument as you like, but it's like a small object caught between two planets, Pro and Con -- each one is trying to pull you into its orbit. Are you strong enough to defy gravity?)

Anyway, I wonder whether Peter King is jumping to conclusions. What the bishop might mean is that the prison-abuse scandal is tragic for the United States because it undermines the nation's moral authority in Iraq. For all we know, King agrees with the bishop about that and the bishop agrees with King that the sex-abuse scandal in the Church has undermined the Church's authority.

[David]

Kmiec says:

"The photos of degradation and the video of revenge are enough to remind us, however, that we will only betray and defeat our own long term interests if we unthinkingly lead the Arab world to a freedom unhinged from objective moral standards and personal responsibility."

[Patrick Sweeney]

The question of violation of the Geneva Conventions applies not to "the United States" but to the seven military personnel currently under investigation.

The Army did not cover up any aspect of this. There was a press release issued at the time the investigation commenced. These alleged violations of the Geneva Conventions are not part of official military policy or procedures in Iraq. General Karpinski has has her command taken away from her. No equivalent actions were taken by the bishops in the clergy sexual abuse scandal.

Lajolo wants to ride the coattails of the condemnation of the United States with these seven soliders. This is like condemning the Holy Father for the Tornay murders and suicide. Should the Pope have resigned for that?

[Neil Dhingra]

Archbishop Lajolo (he is a foreign minister) might simply be making a political prognostication; I can see how one can construct plausible narratives claiming that Abu Ghraib will either lead to disaster in the Middle East or be forgotten amidst the good results of future American actions. That is, rational people can disagree.

Nevertheless, in moral terms (he is also a priest), Archbishop Lajolo's claim that the abuse marks "a more serious blow to the United States than Sept. 11" is very true. I'll excerpt a striking passage from Cardinal Newman's Apologia:

"I said, 'The Catholic Church holds it better for the sun and moon to drop from heaven, for the earth to fail, and for all the many millions on it to die of starvation in extremest agony, as far as temporal affliction goes, than that one soul, I will not say, should be lost, but should commit one single venial sin, should tell one wilful untruth, or should steal one poor farthing without excuse.' I think the principle here enunciated to be the mere preamble in the formal credentials of the Catholic Church, as an Act of Parliament might begin with a 'Whereas.' It is because of the intensity of the evil which has possession of mankind, that a suitable antagonist has been provided against it; and the initial act of that divinely-commissioned power is of course to deliver her challenge and to defy the enemy."

Put starkly, it is better to suffer military disaster than to commit a sin. One can, after all, forgive an offense committed against himself, possibly redirecting it into an occasion of grace - perhaps even though a just war, but one is simply helpless if he tries to commit a sin in futile hopes that good will result from it. Believing that the disorder of even a measured brutality can result in peace underestimates the "intensity of the evil which has possession of mankind," that, in this case, war can indeed easily become, as the NY Times reporter Chris Hedges has chillingly documented, "a force that gives us meaning."

This is so, not only because of the effects on the brutalizers, but also the effects on the brutalized. An excerpt from a sermon by John Patrick Kenrick, OP:

"A recent TV documentary asked why it was the Japanese treated prisoners of war so much more harshly in the Second World War than in the First. The reason, it transpired, was that between the two wars Japan had decided to build an empire, imitating the example of other world powers. In order to achieve this end, Japan decided to toughen its armed forces with a brutal programme of training, during which Japanese soldiers were forced to beat one another until they collapsed. So Japanese soldiers were the first victims in this lesson in brutality.

One Japanese veteran said that, if a day passed without him getting a beating, it felt as though there was something missing. The lesson in brutality proved a success. When the Japanese invaded Manchuria, its people were subjected to terrible cruelty. Men, women and children were used for bayonet practice. In their cruel treatment of prisoners of war too, the Japanese forces were dispensing the same, newly acquired brutality."

One can imagine the "lesson in brutality" that will now be learned and relearned in the Middle East - this is the "intensity of the evil that has possession of mankind," easily forgotten by those without the concept of a soul. Archbishop Lajolo might also have been reminding us of that difficult truth.

Neil

[Larry Tierney]

When Bill Donoghue is not calling for the immediate resignation of Peter King, over the asinine remarks of Bp. Lajolo, the Foreign Minister of the Vatican, what else is there left to say?

Checkmate!

[jerry]

Neil, any human enterprise, be it the RC Church or the US army in Iraq or your local high school will involve the sinful behaviour that is the tragedy of mankind. As a Catholic I can only plead the overwhelming good, both temporal and spiritual, that has been accomplished by the Church when critics point out the history of corruption and vice that has accompanied the enterprise. Now shouldn't the archbishop recognize and support what is now the purely humanitarian efforts of the US in Iraq rather than dwell on the inevitable excesses found in the martial world? Why doesn't he say "I hope what seems to be a contained situation in Abu Ghraib does not remove all of the good will generated by the American efforts to supply food, water, ecological healing, medicine, infrastructure, security and democracy in Iraq". You'll never hear that in a million years. Eurobishops! Pah!

[ellen]

"“If there’s anyone in the world who has no right to speak on sexual abuse, it’s the Vatican,” said Rep. King, an anti-abortion Republican. “This is the height of hypocrisy.”

I doubt that statement is true. It reads like a political rant. Certainly, abuse scandal of catholic pedophiles merits profound criticism.
On the other hand 96 % of all clergy are not pedophiles and their voices can legitimately be given right to free speech and discussion of moral issues of war even that they might be Vatican foreign ministers. One might ask Rep. King if he believes those voices need be silenced.

[al]

I know its very convenient for Neoconservative Catholics who support the war because of their "passionate attachements" to blame their doctrinal deviance with respect to the Vatican and Just War Doctrine on Vatican "anti-americanism."

But even if there are some european sensibilitied Vatican officials, that doesn't change the fact that Iraq was an unjust war based on lies, and that no Abp. or Cardinal should be dismissed by Catholic while they are speaking the truth.

The Abu Ghraib prison scandal has indeed set back whatever preposterous plans the US had for Winning Hearts and Minds in the middle east after unjustly invading Iraq, and Unjustly taking the side of Israel over the palestinians by supporting Sharon's unjust policies.

Here's another example which should cause many Catholics to consider where their true allegiance lies: to Holy Mother Church, or to a pack of neocons who've hijacked our country to smash it into the middle east:

"Pope expected to tell Bush he is wrong
Posted Thu, 13 May 2004

Pope John Paul II is expected to warn President George W. Bush when the two men meet on June 4 that his policy in Iraq is wrong and the actions of US troops are damaging efforts to bring religions closer together, a senior Vatican official said Thursday.

Cardinal Pio Laghi said the US-led occupation force in Iraq should be replaced by "a multinational presence which is not dominated by those who wanted and fought the war".

The cardinal said he also expected the pope to tell Bush that his policies in the Middle East in general were not helping the cause of peace.

"We must above all build cultural understanding between peoples and I do not believe that our American friends are doing that," he said.

"Bombing mosques, going into holy places, putting women soldiers in contact with naked men shows a lack of understanding of the Muslim world which I can only call surprising," he said.

"We must build bridges with Islam, not dig trenches between us," he went on. "And we must give top priority to the Israeli-Palestinian question, which is the root cause of terrorism."

The pope would tell Bush that "the fight against terrorism must not be purely repressive and punitive but must also proceed from the elimination of its causes, which are rooted in injustice."

[al]

And as we are discovering regarding who engineered the treatment at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, this is not the isolated incident some would have it be.

It is a product of the ends justify the means mentality which the neocons have imported into american policy.

[Ralf]

As a German watching more or less carefully the development of the Catholic Church in the US (nota bene: I do not speak of the American Catholic Church), a part of the Church with many positive elements, it always struck me how difficult it seems to be for Americans to get their priorities in order. Not that I impose any order on anybody, but I always had the impression (the "just war"-debate led by George Weigel & Co. is just another example, just like this episode) that, when it comes to some "national pride" (whatever that means in particular), the loyalty to the Church's teachings no longer play the first role. In my country's history there once was a Kaiser Wilhelm who said, commenting on the beginning of WWI, "all of us are Germans now", regardles of their political and/or religious belief. I'm actually quite happy that this intrumentalisation of national origin no longer works here (in Germany) - it always looked like a Pawlow-like reflex to me. Unfortunately, it still seems to work in the US (at least to some degree when I look at the comments posted here).

[al]

Exactly right, Ralf!

[Neil Dhingra]

Dear Jerry,

While you are technically correct that "any human enterprise, be it the RC Church or the US army in Iraq or your local high school will involve the sinful behaviour that is the tragedy of mankind," the activity of war, while certainly capable of being directed towards justice and involving the virtues of courage and charity, is much more perilous than most church and education related activities. Thus, we see a decided ambivalence in the tradition concerning war, in the East often considered a "necessary evil," that simply does not surround church or education related activities. One of the reasons why has been described by the war reporter Chris Hedges:

"... once you unleash the 'dogs of war' and I know this from every war I've ever covered, war has a force of its own. It's not surgical. We talk about taking out Saddam Hussein. Once you use the blunt instrument of war, it has all sorts of consequences when you use violence on that scale that you can't anticipate. I'm not opposed to the use of force. But force is always has to be a last resort because those who wield force become tainted or contaminated by it."

Now, one shouldn't focus exclusively on the Abu Ghraib abuses, but this clearly explains why one does need to keep a very close eye on military abuses. Hedges again:

"I mean one of the most chilling things you learn in war is that human beings like to destroy. Not only other things but other human beings. And when unit discipline would break down or there was no unit discipline to begin with, you would go into a town and people's eyes were glazed over. They sputtered gibberish."

Thus, the dangers of certain US interrogation tactics, previously abandoned after the Vietnam War, are quite dire and probably need to be done away with. Furthermore, we should pay a very close eye to "discipline" of all sorts. William Pfaff's question, "To what extent have the policies of the Bush administration - and the values and attitudes that have characterized the conduct of the so-called war against terror - contributed to a state of mind and morale in the American military that opened the way to the torture, abuse and, in some cases, apparent murder of prisoners in Iraq?," focusing on inattention to international law and Manichaean language, needs to be answered. One simply can't brush off Abu Ghraib as something that is obviously strange, isolated or "contained." The Euro-bishops, many of whom have directly experienced war, probably understand that.

Neil

[Michael]

The comment from the bishop was of course ridiculous. Almost as bad as a loyal apologist for the IRA condemning terrorism. Hmm, Peter, I wonder who that might be?

[al]

And here's (from John Allen's new Word from Rome, another bit of "anti Americanism" for War supporters to chew on: "If so, it would mark not a new chapter in relations, but a return to the ambiguity that has long characterized attitudes in Rome to the superpower across the Atlantic. This reserve has been rekindled in recent months not only by the war, but also by the sex abuse crisis, both of which have suggested to Vatican observers that the ghost of John Calvin is alive and well in American culture.

The vehicle for the latest critique was the Jesuit-edited journal Civiltà Cattolica, whose pages are reviewed by the Vatican Secretariat of State before publication. In the lead editorial of its May 17 issue, the journal asserted that “the United States has put international law in crisis.”

The editorial bluntly said the war was unjustified.

Noting that Iraq’s army was weak, and that weapons of mass destruction have not been found, the editorial said these facts “have clearly shown that there were not sufficient reasons for moving against Iraq, because the country did not constitute a true threat for the United States and its allies.”

. . . .

Papal reservations are well documented, from Pope Leo XIII’s Testem Benevolentiae, condemning the supposed heresy of “Americanism,” to Pius XII’s opposition to Italy’s entrance into NATO based on fears that the alliance was a Trojan horse for Protestant domination of Catholic Europe. Key Vatican officials, especially Europeans from traditional Catholic cultures, have long worried about aspects of American society — its exaggerated individualism, its hyper-consumer spirit, its relegation of religion to the private sphere, its Calvinist ethos. A fortiori, they worry about a world in which America is in an unfettered position to impose this set of cultural values on everyone else.

The war has similarly awakened traditional reservations. When Vatican officials hear Bush talk about the evil of terrorism, and the American mission to destroy that evil, they sometimes sense a worrying kind of dualism. The language can suggest a sense of election, combined with the perversity of America’s enemies, that appears to justify unrelenting conflict.

In the view of some in the Vatican, underlying both the harsh American response on sexual abuse, and its dualistic approach to foreign policy, is the legacy of Calvinism. The Calvinist concepts of the total depravity of the damned, the unconditional election of God’s favored, and the manifestation of election through earthly success, all seem to them to play a powerful role in shaping American cultural psychology.

After Cardinal Pio Laghi returned to Rome from his last-minute appeal to Bush just before the Iraq war began, he told John Paul II that he sensed “something Calvinistic” in the president’s iron determination to battle the forces of international terrorism.

Recently I was in the Vatican, and happened to strike up a conversation with an official eager to hear an American perspective on the war. He told me he sees a “clash of civilizations” between the United States and the Holy See, between a worldview that is essentially Calvinistic and one that is shaped by Catholicism.

“We have a concept of sin and evil too,” he said, “but we also believe in grace and redemption.”"

[jerry]

Neil, Abu Ghraib is absolutely typical of war, which is a terrible thing. The US Army committed atrocities when liberating Europe in WWII and 500 Americans were hung by courts martial. Does that discredit the whole enterprise? The Eurobishops no doubt remember how war degrades humanity, but they forget that it can be the price paid for freedom. Again, the problem isn't that they condemn the prison abuse, it's that they distort the picture by not putting it into the context of our efforts to rebuild a country and liberate a people.

[David Kubiak]

Well, finally some public and direct confirmation of what I have been constantly saying on these blogs: the European Church does not take sexual sins all that seriously, and cannot understand why Americans are making so much out of them. About someone like Rod Dreher the European authorities would think, even if they didn't say it, "What do you expect from a converted Protestant?" Silly Calvinists who get all upset over a trivial thing like pederasty."

[al]

Or maybe, Dave, they realize that Catholicism is a lot more (and a lot more demanding) that just Pharasiacal Dietary Observances with a few sexual restrictions added on for good measure, and pretty much incompatible with what passes for "uprightness" in the US.

[Jim]

Ellen wrote:

"On the other hand 96 % of all clergy are not pedophiles and their voices can legitimately be given right to free speech and discussion of moral issues of war even that they might be Vatican foreign ministers."

The issue is not who's a pedophile, but who tolerated, coddled, gave cover for and ran interference for the pedophiles. The percentage of priests and bishops who have actually done nothing about the scourge of the pedophiles is more like 96%.

[Ignacio]

Like Ralf said.

[Victor Morton]

David K.:

Amen, amen, amen.

And really, how can one take seriously people who'd say, even implicitly, that Calvinists don't believe in grace or redemption. This is just theological caricature.

Or take seriously an argument from the weakness of Iraq's Army divisions to the conclusion that it was therefore not a threat ("how many divisions does the pope have?" a cynic might ask) in an era of ideology, terrorism, Islamism, WMDs, nonstate actors, mass media, democratic polities, social decadence, attacks on civilians as ends in themselves. This is just political ostrichness.

Other David:

Rummy and Taguba have to say and do certain things for appearance's sake. One of the worst things about these photos is that now, because Americans are no good at realpolitik, the perfectionists and punctilious lawyers have the upper hand and now we can't do what everybody awake knows that everybody does and everybody accepts with a wink. Nations will do what they will, what they believe prudent, and what they think is moral with no regard for so-called oxymoronic "international law." I mean how can one take seriously "[must not be] ... exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind" as a legally binding literalism or anything beyond pious aspiration.

[Kevin Miller]

Lots of people say exactly the same things about - e.g. - "direct abortion, as an end or a means, is intrinsically evil and never permissible."

Some people prefer liberalism to Catholicism. Others prefer conservatism to Catholicism. Others prefer Catholicism, however imperfectly they (and, for that matter, some of their hierarchs) might manage to practice it.

[ellen]

Jim, you're right, the issue is not who is a pedophile. The issue is: Can a person of clergy speak to moral issues about war without being accused by persons who have zero specific direct knowledge of that person except one's public desire to play "Isn't it awful"?

Please tell us your specific evidence to support any notion that, “the percentage of priests and bishops who have actually done nothing about the scourge of the pedophiles is more like 96%”. Where is the rational foundation for such a statement.

[jerry]

Cheap debating trick, Kevin, to equate "unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment" to abortion and to use that as your platform for accusing people of being Catholics second. Unlike abortion, an argument can be made for some forms of coercion in some circumstances. Your buddy Greg Popcak says corporal punishment of children is always wrong, but stops short of accusing parents who use it of being Catholics second.

[Victor Morton]

"unpleasant treatment of any kind" is intrinsically evil?

[michigancatholic]

They're both idiots. But the archbishop is a bigger one. You can't make assumptions about a whole messy war over what a few nincompoop 19 year olds away from home do. Court-marshall em and lets get on this--we are working to stabilize the middle east a bit--remember??? It's a mess.

The big picture! Muslims want to destroy western culture. We need to prevent them from doing so. This has been going on for 1000 years and if you don't know that, you're ignorant but it doesn't change a thing about what's happening. Get a clue.

[Victor Morton]

Niedermayer engage in a cheap debating trick? Hush yo mout' jerry.

[michigancatholic]

Well, Al, European catholicism passes for a bit of spaghetti, some hand-waving and churches which are concert halls and tourist destinations. Don't tell us about how fine Europeans are....they're largely not even Christian anymore.....

[Jim]

Ellen:

Before the press blew the pedophilia scandal wide open, can you name me a hundred (or even ten) clerics who actually did anything to rid the clerical ranks of the perverts who had managed to make their way in? Don't be so naive to think that the clergy didn't know anything about their "funny" clerical brethren. Do you think that they just didn't notice the sudden increase in prancing fairies interested in "youth ministry"?

[catholic]

I'm so happy that I can come to a Catholic blog to read uncharitable and libelous against the Vatican instead of having to visit Protestant websites.

Uncharitable? Libelous? Disagreeing with an individual cleric who may be blowing hot air is not uncharitable or libelous. But using a term of disparagement "EuroBishop" and calling European Catholics not Catholic is uncharitable as well as libelous. Painting the Vatican, which is synonymous with the See of St. Peter, with the statements of an individual Bishop is also uncharitable and libelous. Blaming the Vatican, which is synonymous with the See of St. Peter, for the abuses of minors by American priests and cover ups by American Bishops is also libelous and uncharitable.

I think it might be best to get off your high horses and realize that the American society which produced sexually deviant soldiers and officials who cover up prison abuse by shuttling prisoners between prisons to avoid discovery by the International Red Cross, is the same society that produced sexually deviant priests and Bishops who cover up their actions by shuttling them between parishes to avoid discovery by the police and parishioners.

The damage done to America by the prison sex and abuse sandal is worse than what happened on 9/11. On 9/11, we were attacked unjustly. The world was saddened and outraged with us. The world stood aside and recgonized our right to protect ourselves by chasing the criminals into Afghanistan to bring them to justice.

The world was no so forthcoming with support for our unjust invasion into Iraq. But, our President told the nation and the world that he had to do God's work. Now, the world sees us torturing prisoners and committing acts of sexual deviance as part of our PsyOps strategy to support Military Intelligence.

Yes, indeed, it is worse for us than 9/11. We now look like the terrorists. Performing perverse and immoral acts in God's name. Our blasphemy is no different from theirs. This is far worse for America.

[jerry]

Very nicely said, Catholic, but it doesn't bear close scrutiny. It is no more uncharitable and libelous to blame the Catholic Church for the depravity of pederast priests than to blame America for the action of some prison guards. At least the Americans investigate promptly and punish the guilty! The big difference between us and the terrorists is that we abhor the mistreatment of criminals, they celebrate the murder of innocents. An honest Catholic will work to appreciate these distinctions, to see the greater truth.

[Charles M. de Nunzio]

"Yes, indeed, it is worse for us than 9/11. We now look like the terrorists. Performing perverse and immoral acts in God's name. Our blasphemy is no different from theirs."

In many ways, I'm inclined to agree. However, this statement doesn't hold much credibility until and unless someone produces indisputable videotape of our soldiers sawing off one of these prisoners' heads alive!

[ellen]

Jim,

You missed the issue again or are deliberately evading it.

"Can a person of clergy speak to moral issues about war without being accused by persons who have zero specific direct knowledge of that person except one's public desire to play "Isn't it awful"?

I've made my point. What's yours ? Other than the other 96% of non-pedophile priests and bishops ought not have the right to speak to moral issues of war. Give us the evidence.

I'll make it easier. Tell us specifically why the Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo ought not have free speech on issues of war.

[David]

Victor:

I think it's very strange to defend Rumsfeld and Taguba's cause (bringing Iraq a real democracy) by suggesting that they're lying.

Patrick:

You say "The question of violation of the Geneva Conventions applies not to "the United States" but to the seven military personnel currently under investigation. . . These alleged violations of the Geneva Conventions are not part of official military policy or procedures in Iraq."

Here's what that WP article quotes Rumsfeld as saying:

"During yesterday's hearing, Rumsfeld complained that the administration's policy on the Geneva Conventions has frequently been misreported. U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, he said, are under orders to observe the conventions.

By contrast, he said, President Bush decided two years ago that Taliban and al Qaeda fighters do not warrant protection under the conventions because they belong to terrorist groups, not nations, and do not abide by the norms of regular militaries. Nonetheless, U.S. policy has been to accord those detainees treatment "consistent with" the Geneva Conventions, Rumsfeld said." (my emphasis)

And Taguba says:

"Following the abuse of several detainees at Camp Bucca in May 2003, I could find no evidence that BG Karpinski ever directed corrective training for her soldiers or ensured that MP Soldiers throughout Iraq clearly understood the requirements of the Geneva Conventions relating to the treatment of detainees." (my emphasis)

One of his criticisms of General Karpinski was the following:

"Failing to ensure that MP Soldiers in the 800th MP Brigade knew, understood, and adhered to the protections afforded to detainees in the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War." (my emphasis)

Similar charges were made against COL Thomas M. Pappas, LTC (P) Jerry L. Phillabaum, LTC Steven L. Jordan, and a number of others.

[catholic]

I don't think God sees one blasphemy as worse than another. At least, I didn't see anything in the Bible or in the Catechism that would lead me to believe God violation of the second commandment has many shades of grey.

[Victor Morton]

It's very simple, David. I see this as war in the international state of nature, not a legal case under an effective sovereign, so international treaties are just pieces of paper or moral aspirations.

As for the rest of your note, Patrick's point was that the Geneva Conventions, even read as legalistic documents, only create a cause against a state if it signs them but does not abide them as official policy and/or if it does not pursue abuse cases against its soldiers. "The United States," as a corporate entity can only violate them under those circumstances (though individual soldiers can, but the treaty's first remedy is an obligation for its signatories to enforce them against its soldiers).

None of the parts you bold-faced say anything to the contrary. In the first couple of places, Rummy is saying the US will abide the Geneva Conventions, although it is not legally obligated to vis illegal combatants, but will abide by them as a voluntary policy matter (this rather tends to deny, by the way, that there could be international cause for action under any circumstances). The citing charges against Karpinski et al prove merely that violating the Geneva Conventions is actionable *because* it violates a US military order made under US policy (not because of some nebulous "international law").

Which is exactly Patrick's point -- where there becomes official complicity in a coverup, the institution (the Church, the United States) bears corporate responsibility. Not before or otherwise.

[al]

How can one say this more concisely. . . The Iraq Invasion was based on a pack of lies--any cleric who decides to point that out, for whatever reason is entirely justified.

If you want to complain that more should be done about homosexual predator priests (and lets desist from the priests raping little boys canard--if you've got the "guts" to attack the hierarchy, then get the guts to call a spade a spade) go ahead.

But don't pretend the pathetic pack of lies which dishonors the memory of Pat Tillman and everyone else is something the Vatican can't possibly understand.

[David]

I don't think the international legal point is really relevant here. I hardly think that Archbishop Lajolo was literally talking about the legitimacy of bringing a legal case in some international court against the United States for what took place at Abu Ghraib. He was talking broadly about the impact of what's happened.

But you sound like you're making a moral point—that the content of the Geneva Conventions material shouldn't apply to the U.S. in it's activities in Iraq and elsewhere.

I was just pointing out that the Secretary of Defense and an important Army General and Investigator disagree with you on that moral point. As do the Catechism, John Paul II, and the Fathers who penned Gaudium et Spes at Vatican II.

[David]

That previous comment was responding to Victor. Not you, al!

[Tim A]

I like the fact that he is described as "an anti-abortion Republican".

Ummm... what did abortion have to do with this story?

It's like if there was a story saying "pro-abortion Democrat John Kerry endorsed extending unemployment benefits today."

[catholic]

"Anti-abortion Republican" ... establishes the credibility of the candidate with the author of the statement and simultaneously impeaches the authors observations on the grounds of political bias. Its a two-fer!

[Joe]

King is dead on. The priest scandal is a hundred times worse--its within the Church, for crying out loud, and involves kids--and the Church's response has been muted at best. The Vatican's non-stop commentaryt on international strategy, when it won't even reign in heretical bishops, is sickening.

[Victor Morton]

Your citations earlier sounded like they were intended to prove the US

I'm not making any moral point about international "law." I say that, as a matter of fact, international "law" binds nobody because it is not law. (As an aside, I don't think it should bind anybody because it mostly empowers the cosmopolitan lawyer class with their decadent and evil morals, but I don't believe I've said that in so many words here.) And I protested the particular part you cited because it struck me as particularly vaporous bilge -- I mean if you wanna argue the moral point, c'mon David. How can a rule against "unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind" possibly be taken seriously? How is that "law" any more than the end of BILL AND TED'S EXCELLENT ADVENTURE, when Abraham Lincoln tells the kids at San Dimas to "be excellent to each other," is "political philosophy"? It's airy-fairy aspiration of the kind that, in practice, mostly empowers lawyer-tyrants.

Whatever rule book the military uses is fine with me; competent authority and all that. And if it or Rumsfeld wants to base it on some other code that happens to have won some international popularity contest, that's fine with me AS LONG AS it's understood as *their* exercise of discretion *as US sovereign officials* (not their legally binding obligation under international "law"). And nothing you cited from the generals shows they think otherwise.

As for Lajolo, I have no special regard for the prudential political judgments of Vatican officials.

[Victor Morton]

My first paragraph should have read (and this was all responding to David):

Your citations earlier sounded like they were intended to prove the US was in some sense "bound" by international "law." If not, no problem.

[Erich]

Here on earth we have no continuing place,
but we seek one to come.
(Hebrews 13:14)
America is a country, but it's no and never home country. A reminder for US-catholics.

[Jim]

Ellen:

Would you seek medical care from a physician with a festering open sore on his face? Legal advice from a lawyer being evicted from his offices?

At the moment, the Church has no credibility to lecture anyone about sexual abuse scandals. Period. The seeds of the next scandal are already germinating and the Church is simply clueless.

[Jason]

>>>"At the moment, the Church has no credibility to lecture anyone about sexual abuse scandals."

Yah, and Paul had no authority to tell the world to stop murdering. And yet he did anyway.

[Jason]

*That should read credibility, not authority

[Barbara]

Jason, there is a difference between a hypocrite and one who has been truly changed through conversion. Even so, according to the Acts of the Apostles, Paul was indeed distrusted by early Christians, and earned his credibility only after demonstrating to one and all that he was a changed man by, among other things, confronting those with whom he had formerly consorted, at great peril to himself. Indeed, one might say that Paul was hardest on those most like him -- fellow Jews -- and went out of his way to change their hearts. The parallel only serves to show the paucity of the bishop's current efforts, in my opinion.

[David]

From Evangelium Vitae:

"The Second Vatican Council, in a passage which retains all its relevance today, forcefully condemned a number of crimes and attacks against human life. Thirty years later, taking up the words of the Council and with the same forcefulness I repeat that condemnation in the name of the whole Church, certain that I am interpreting the genuine sentiment of every upright conscience:"

EV then repeats this passage from Gaudium et Spes:

"Furthermore, whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia or wilful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where men are treated as mere tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed. They poison human society, but they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are supreme dishonor to the Creator."

From the Catechism:

"Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity."

Interrogations that cross these lines are, as JPII says, crimes.

There are now a host of allegations (some with quite compelling evidence) that intelligence officials and Army personnel went well beyond these lines at Abu Ghraib.

All of your concerns about the independence of the United States from international law (even if accepted) do not nullify this.

Supporters of the War in Iraq do themselves no favors by hand-waving about other matters.

[al]

On international law, and how its natural law character means that the magisterium is the ultimate authority on

"Of course, for that part of the international law bearing on war, which may be justly said to be the natural law as binding nations in their dealings with one another, the existence of which is manifested by the common consent of mankind, there can be no controversy: here the international law is but a name for a part of the natural law. "

The application of the law the Church has resolutely placed under her auspices: " They must, however, act in accordance with the principles of the natural law, and observe the Church's social teaching and the directives of ecclesiastical authority. For it must not be forgotten that the Church has the right and duty not only to safeguard her teaching on faith and morals, but also to exercise her authority over her sons by intervening in their external affairs whenever a judgment has to be made concerning the practical application of this teaching. (67)"

[David]

There's a short piece in Slate Magazine on the American laws on the books that prohibit/punish torture:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2100460/

Here's an excerpt:

"The federal anti-torture statute is formally known as Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113C of the U.S. Code. The law consists of three sections (2340, 2340A, and 2340B), which define the crime of torture and prescribe harsh punishments for anyone—an American citizen or otherwise—who commits an act of torture outside of the United States. (Domestic incidents of torture are covered by state criminal statutes.) A person found guilty of committing torture faces up to 20 years in prison or even execution, if the torture in question resulted in a victim's death.

The law was added to the books in 1994, as part of the United States' efforts to ratify and comply with the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (more simply known as the CAT). The treaty was adopted by the United Nations in 1984, but not ratified by the U.S. Congress until a decade later. The CAT mandates that all parties to the treaty "take effective legislative, administrative, judicial, or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction."

[ellen]

Jim,

The issue is free speech: the right to speak in open forum. Credibility does not trump free speech. The fact is Archbishop Lajolo has that right. Whether one likes it or doesn't like it or finds it credible or not, does not nullify that right even if you or Rep. King would deny him that right even if the bishop speaks hypocricy.

[c matt]

They should keep quiet on such matters until their own house is in order, which, judging from this week's news, looks like it might be a while.

This statement just drips with irony. The very same argument was made against the US exporting its "values" through war, or any means for that matter, while it murders 1.5 million of its own defenseless unborn every year. Not to mention the US's "pristine" culture on sexual matters. Yeah, let's wait to get our own house in order before we start lecturing others.

Notice another irony here - an American politician criticizing a non-American b/c the politician's FELLOW AMERICANS were involved in sex-abuse scandals. The common thread is products of Amercian culture engage in sexual abuse, not products of Catholic culture.

[Victor Morton]

David:

I have never said anything about domestic laws against torture. Or about moral condemnations of torture. What I have something against is making binding in juridical-lawyer terms that pay no heed to necessity vaguely aspirational concepts like "exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind" or frankly "whatever insults human dignity."

[John Farrell]

Here's another example which should cause many Catholics to consider where their true allegiance lies: to Holy Mother Church, or to a pack of neocons who've hijacked our country to smash it into the middle east.

I thought this post was about Peter King. Somehow Al always thinks its really about...Jews.

Thanks for hijacking the discussion, Al.

[al]

There are plenty of non-Jewish Neocons John, Catholic one's too--who seem to have the greatest trouble reconciling themselves to Church teaching on Church/State relations and War and peace. They are mentioned in John Allen's column which I cited above, and which says that the real problem is that such Catholics defer more to Calvin, then they do to the Vatican.

[Victor Morton]

John:

I suspect Al's comments were (in that instant at least) aimed at me ... a dam-ned neocon Calvin-lover (hmm ... born in Scotland ... hmm, parents' mixed-marriage).

But he never mentioned Jews and so that was cheap and below-the-belt.

[al]

Victor,
No, certainly they were not--they were aimed generally--and specifically at Neoconservatives like Weigel and Novak who perpetuate the idea that Anti-Iraq must be a result of Anti-American.

[Joseph D'Hippolito]

Al, as you well know (but prefer to deny), there's quite a bit of anti-Americanism among the world hierarchy for various reasons, let alone at the Vatican. The best (and the craziest) example is Honduran bishop Rodriguez Maradiaga, who attributed the U.S. media's interest in the clerical abuse crisis to American support for abortion, contraception, capital punishment and the Israelis. It didn't seem to occur to him that such interest had to do primarily with the fact that "men of God" violated their trust and spiritually, psychologically and emotionally (let alone sexually) ravaged boys.

[al]

I don't deny there is anti Americanism in the hierarchy. I deny that it that rationale behind the opposition to the War in Iraq, and the Neoconservative plan for dealing with Islam.

I think that opposition is wholly reasonable and based in Church doctrine.

[marie]

More of King's comments from Newsday:

King acknowledged church officials' right to criticize the U.S. treatment of prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison. "But if they do that," he said, "then they should put it in perspective, and commend the U.S. for investigating the abuse and rooting it out - whereas they had decades of sexual abuse of young children that they systematically ignored and covered up."

On the same day, we have this story in the Albany Times Union:

"The former bishop of the Albany Roman Catholic Diocese insists there was little he could have done to prevent the clergy sexual abuse that plagued the diocese in the 1970s and continues to haunt church leaders today.
"In those days, we had 550 priests," the Rev. Edwin B. Broderick said. "What are you going to do, go down to every rectory at midnight and check to see if the priests are alone? Or if there are little boys around? They all take a vow of celibacy."

How can you reasonably expect 550 priests to behave? But why can't Rumsfeld control 130,000?

[catholic]

What al said.

To suggest it is anti-American for the Pope to oppose a very clearly unjust war shows that some people value country first and God second.

Seriously, what is wrong with so many of my countrymen? The article above concerning the Calvinistic influence in American psychology seems right on. I had these very same thoughts when I heard Bush and Evangelical preachers talking about God being on our side in our efforts to export our version of right social order to the rest of the world.

It is awfully convenient for Bush that his and his friends financial interests are directly served by this righteous crusade in Iraq. I suppose they take that as further proof that God is on their side.

[Victor Morton]

"To suggest it is anti-American for the Pope to oppose a very clearly unjust war shows that some people value country first and God second."

"very clearly" sez who?

catholic, let me make a suggestion. When attempting to decode other people's thought processes, you can only cite as premises the facts, opinions and values that those people themselves accept. All else is intellectual piffle.

[catholic]

Victor, yes, it is clear. It violates the first two criteria for a just war. (1) all other options were not exhausted to avoid war; (2) there was no threat from Iraq towards the US. If you wish to dispute that, feel free to provide your intellectual piffle.