« Varia | Main | Grace and a Frozen Turkey »
August 18, 2005
At the Corner
Why shouldn't the Catholic Church bring back its army?
Hold on, hold on. I'm serious -- at least insofar as I'm seriously asking the question. I'm not saying they should use an army for crusades for new lands or for conversion or anything like that. But why shouldn't the Catholic Church have peacekeepers of its own? The use of force isn't forbidden by Catholic law, I know that much. And the Swiss Guards still have weapons even on Vatican property. Why couldn't the Pope dispatch armed soldiers to restore order, open food supplies, secure humaintarian efforts etc? The benefits here are many. Normal nations have to answer to all sorts of political contituencies and considerations that would not apply to the Papal Peacekeepers. I'm sure unwanted and unwarranted violence would result at some point. But Church doctrine already covers this. Meanwhile the Church could do an immense amount of good in the world. It could establish clear-cut guidelines about how and when it would intervene and the soldiers would obvious be very motivated to behave in an ethical manner. Dishonorable discharges are one thing, excommunication is another.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d83459663669e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference At the Corner:
» What the World Needs Now from Naked Writing Dot Com
...is another religiously sectarian, armed military force.... [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 18, 2005 2:18:03 PM
» What the World Needs Now from Naked Writing Dot Com
...is another religiously sectarian, armed military force. The mind boggles with the possibilities.... [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 18, 2005 2:20:19 PM
Comments
Mr. Goldberg spends a fair amount of time speculating on many things Catholic. Others have thought their way into the Church doing less.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Aug 18, 2005 1:28:10 PM
I wasn't aware that the *Catholic Church* as such ever had an army. Christian secular states, including the Papal States or territories controlled by bishoprics, abbeys, etc. had armies. Big difference.
Posted by: Patrick Rothwell at Aug 18, 2005 1:32:15 PM
Seriously, that sounds like a really good idea. Talk about setting the right example in using force.
Posted by: Polish Prince at Aug 18, 2005 1:32:52 PM
I'm sympathetic to the idea in the abstract...But then come the concrete particulars. There are/will be Caholic "constituencies" on the ground clamoring for Vatican intervention. Then (no matter how clear your guidline are) big quandry: yes or no. BIG downsides effecting more than "power politics" no matter which the Vatican decides. Examples to conjur: the then-Yugslavia about fifteen years ago and Israelis and Palestinians now (don't get me started on that one). Too many parties with too many agenda would muck this up big time, as well, inside the Vatican and inside oh, say, the United States. But, as I say, in the abstract....
Posted by: bruce cole at Aug 18, 2005 1:33:30 PM
Heh. Mr. Goldberg's conservative membership card may be revoked now that he has argued for the creation of a new political/military entity, existing alongside all the old ones, on the rationale that it "could do an immense amount of good in the world".
Posted by: craig at Aug 18, 2005 1:33:56 PM
And military orders like the Knights Templar, Knights of Malta etc. But there wasn't a *Catholic Church* army as such. And certainly, while Catholic "blue helmets" are an interesting thought experiment, I can't hardly think of a more disasterous course of action for the Church to take than that.
Posted by: Patrick Rothwell at Aug 18, 2005 1:35:08 PM
I can see it now..."Cardinal of Los Angeles orders Catholic Peacekeeper Force to Protect Secret Archives."
Posted by: Zhou at Aug 18, 2005 1:37:50 PM
Why stop at an army? How about a navy? And an air force?
More seriously (perhaps), how about an intelligence service?
Why the need to recreate the Holy Roman Empire? I would settle for a true Church that shepherds the spiritual lives of the majority of those who follow Christ. Fortunately, we already have that.
Posted by: George at Aug 18, 2005 1:40:20 PM
Two words: Bad Idea.
One of the principles of the Just War doctrine is that the use of force must be *effective*. How on earth could the Vatican ever afford to raise enough money to field more than a token force that would hardly suffice to be of much use in even a small conflict.
The Church is guarded and glided by the Holy Spirit Who, why would she need an army too?
Posted by: TT at Aug 18, 2005 1:43:21 PM
Unlike most of the US on the other side of the Rocky Mountains, California was indeed settled by "the Church's Army" (well, Spain's army if you want to quibble). Those great American cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles were settled by "the sword and the cross," and this is still a rather murky part of the local history. Was this a good thing?
Posted by: Zhou at Aug 18, 2005 1:44:11 PM
Aside from the political problems this would create, there's one big reason this won't happen: the Vatican simply doesn't have the money.
Posted by: Matthew at Aug 18, 2005 1:45:12 PM
Well, Lucianne's spawn has always been pretty big on sending other people off in uniform
Posted by: ajb at Aug 18, 2005 1:59:07 PM
I forget was it Pius IX or St Pius X who forbad the Swiss Guard from carrying firearms?
Where is Sandra when we need her?
Posted by: BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) at Aug 18, 2005 2:05:38 PM
Why shouldn't the Catholic Church bring back its army?
We already have an army -- and you guys are all in it.
Posted by: Sally Ear-Face at Aug 18, 2005 2:06:10 PM
More seriously (perhaps), how about an intelligence service?
You mean, you don't know they have one? It's top-notch too.
Which Tom Clancy novel had the Vatican send the Swiss Guards in as peacekeepers to Israel/Palastine?
Posted by: Der Tommissar at Aug 18, 2005 2:06:30 PM
The military example, and the person who gave it, is most interesting. Mr. Goldberg, a Jew, is more trusting of the power of the Catholic Church than many Catholics. I remember him commenting about how his father loved the way Catholics do things. I believe he was commenting upon the funeral of John Paul II and the Election of then Cardinal Ratzinger to Pope. Mr Goldberg remarked that he picked up his admiration for the Church and the Papacy from his father.
The reason I believe Mr Goldberg, and others like him, trust the Church is that they see the Church as it is, warts and all. While so many "activist types" within the Church want to make the Church something Christ never intended it to be, a "secular please all movement." Mr Goldberg is perfectly content to admire it for what it is.
What a bizarre take off of the Roman Centurion who asked Jesus to cure his servant. The centurion, who certainly wasn't a Jew didn't even expect Jesus to come to the house. The centurion knew his servant would be cured if Jesus wanted it done. Mr Goldberg is as trusting in the Church as the centurion was of Jesus. Much like Jesus who wished the people of Israel had the faith of the centurion, wouldn't it be nice if most of the people in the Church had the faith of Mr. Goldberg!
Posted by: Dave Hartline at Aug 18, 2005 2:07:09 PM
Count on ajb to say something enlightening and valuable.
That said, I think it a horrible idea. Nobody should be under any illusion that the Vatican city-state doesn't already have "all sorts of political contituencies and considerations." Even fewer people should be under any illusion that the Church isn't already seen by the outsiders who make up most of the world as having "all sorts of political contituencies and considerations." In some cases (Yugoslavia, Northern Ireland, Israel), sending a Church-affiliated force would be the equivalent a trying to douse a fire with gasoline.
Giving up claims to secular power was one of the best things the Church has done in modern times. An army = power, whether one likes it or not.
Posted by: Victor Morton at Aug 18, 2005 2:09:09 PM
Where do I join up?
Posted by: Cornelius at Aug 18, 2005 2:11:21 PM
This is the stupidest thing Mr. Goldberg has ever written. The Church's job is to effect the conversion of the world, not to secure humanitarian rights, etc. She already has an army, which consists of those who worship God and produce worthy fruits of penance.
Btw, the Church already has the greatest intelligence force in the world. It is equipped with an international force of human intelligence gathering informants. It does not need spy satellites.
The Church's mission is not the world's temporal but its spiritual welfare. Providing humanitarian aid, etc. are a means to the end announcing and bringing about the Kingdom of God.
Posted by: Brian Amend at Aug 18, 2005 2:14:32 PM
Dave, I think the problem is that Jonah Goldberg is NOT "perfectly content to admire it for what it is."
Posted by: bruce cole at Aug 18, 2005 2:14:33 PM
It's my understanding that the Swiss Guards do possess firearms although you don't see them on their ceremonial appearances. They're also well trained in modern security matters.
But the Vatican's human intelligence gatherers cannot match the usefulness of data from spy satellites and electronic eavesdropping.
The papacy did maintain soldiers, including mercenaries, in the heyday of the Papal States. Both are gone and good riddance.
Posted by: Sandra Miesel at Aug 18, 2005 2:21:25 PM
Why not?
One word:
Islam.
Posted by: Jason at Aug 18, 2005 2:22:19 PM
The upside is when the next communist dictator asks "How many divisions has the Pope", the Pope could give an answer the dictator would understand.
I'm with the folks that see this as more troublesome than helpful, but I do admire Jonah's confidence in the RCC.
If Zippy is correct about the Church's trend toward functional pacifism, when would it ever decide to deploy Papal Pistoleros if it had them?
Posted by: c matt at Aug 18, 2005 2:29:08 PM
The unit could only have swords and similar personal-cutting instruments. Crossbows are a murderous art, hateful to God, ya know (which would make firearms of any sort ... )
Posted by: Victor Morton at Aug 18, 2005 2:32:35 PM
Slow news day?
Posted by: Mark R at Aug 18, 2005 2:33:57 PM
