Just War

I want to thank you for the very insightful article by John Langan, S.J., about whether or not we should invade Iraq (9/9). But I wish to offer some points for you to consider. First, the use of the term vigilante justice seems to be an oxymoron, based on the question raised about the justice being done by the aggrieved and angry party, which implies that it is more likely to be vengeance than justice.

Second, Father Langan seems to imply that if one could prove that the consequences of an invasion of Iraq can be mitigated, then such action might be acceptable. This can never be the case, because the primary consequence of such a unilateral action would be to undermine the rule of law. What makes us different from Iraq? We claim that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons, but we have more weapons than any other nation on earth. Isn’t our willingness to restrain our power and abide by international law the very essence of the difference between us and Iraq? Wouldn’t a unilateral invasion of Iraq destroy that difference? Wouldn’t it make us the most dangerous rogue nation in the world? If we got away with such an invasion, what would convince other countries that we can be trusted to restrain our power in the future?

Even if we are able to gain support from other countries in the region, wouldn’t a pre-emptive strike undermine the just war principles? The author chose to defer consideration of the just war principles until after all can agree that the goals for the region would not be hampered by an invasion of Iraq. That is a mistake. While I have serious reservations about the just war principles (to some extent because I do not believe that the church ever applies them honestly or in a timely manner), I believe it is a mistake to wait until after everyone agrees that a war is necessary to bring up the moral principles that should instruct such decisions. Once everyone believes that war is necessary, there is great pressure to bend the just war principles to conform to that belief.

Many are looking at the issue of war with Iraq in simplistic terms. Evil must be resisted. Your article has done much to remove the blinders from people’s eyes so that they can see the complexity of what they contemplate. But it does not challenge them to see the ultimate truth. If evil is to be resisted, why aren’t we resisting war itself? The just war principles give us permission to use evil to attain justice and security. But what good is justice and security when we have embraced evil?

Stephen D. Stratoti

Complicity

Pope John Paul II’s affirmation of humanitarian intervention, mentioned by Drew Christiansen, S.J., (8/12), contrasts with the U.S. policy of acting only if it is in its strategic interest. East Timor showed the tragic gulf between the two.

The East Timorese voted overwhelmingly for independence in a United Nations-mandated referendum, believing as they courageously went to the polls that they were under the protection of the world community of nations and, certainly, its superpower, the United States.

Instead, they were sheep to the slaughter, as militia gangs wrought carnage that Americans watched on television news for weeks.

The United States not only failed to act, fearing to offend Indonesia (though the United Nations had never recognized the bloody annexation of East Timor), but blocked Australia, East Timor’s near neighbor, from acting.

When the combat-ready Australian troops were finally allowed in as peacekeepers, the game was over. East Timor was a land of corpses, rape victims and rubble.

As we preen ourselves on the moral high ground in the world arena, we ought to look in the mirror. In East Timor and elsewhere we have been complicit in the loss of thousands of innocent lives.

(Rev.) George P. Carlin

Wise Investments

The call for an end to the Cuban embargo by John W. Donohue S.J. (Of Many Things, 7/15) is well intended, but should not be considered uncritically. Indeed, there are two considerations, both legal and moral, that should give us pause: collaboration and ideological apartheid. Is it moral for American tourists to stay at hotels where Cubans are not allowed, even if invited by foreign friends or relatives? Is it right for a baseball team to play in Cuba when tickets are doled out to government supporters, and Cuban players are barred from baseball because of suspicions that they are politically disloyal or potential defectors? Is it right for an intellectual to speak at a university, when dissidents have been expelled from the faculty and are not allowed to attend? Should American investors be allowed to build a factory where the politically incorrect are denied jobs or higher paying positions? Ideological apartheid is as objectionable as racial apartheid. Though we do not make the owners of a sweatshop in Asia responsible for poverty in the countries where they invest, we should make them responsible for conditions and wages in their factories. So too we should simply require that American companies and travelers not collaborate with political apartheid through their commercial or investment activities. And this rule should not single out Cuba, but should be applied to all foreign investments, while keeping an eye on those countries where violations are most likely to occur. That way the United States would not be imposing its values on other countries, but on its own citizens and companies.

Pedro J. Saavedra

Cautious Hope

The article by Thomas P. Rausch, S.J., linking Catholic and Evangelical theologies (7/15), is well crafted toward ecumenical hope. Another article is needed, however, to see the stark differences that indeed have grave implications for U.S. domestic and foreign policy. Most Evangelicals value charity but do not consider justice a Gospel imperative. In Central America, to the joy of elitist rulers, Evangelicals preach that poverty and the death of children are the will of God. Systemic sin is unacknowledged; financial success is the reward of right-eousness; weaponry is admired; enemies are satanic. An option for the poor or the oppressed matters little when the end-time is at hand. Why does this scare me about our president?

Robert J. Brophy

God in the Ripples and Waves

We want to compliment Valerie Schultz on her excellent reflection, God in the Tangled Sheets (7/1). We heartily endorse her point of view, except for two small quibbles. The first concerns the parents of those called to celibacy. One of our children is currently making final plans to join an order of nuns who work in South America. No one should feel sorry for us, even though our daughter’s decision has cut in half our chances of ever holding a biological grandchild. Perhaps we hear the wise words of Ms. Shultz’s father, It’s what makes the world go round, slightly differently from the way she does. We believe that the it is not grandchildren themselves, but the love reflected in their eyes. We have been blessed to see many ripples of love spread out from the small splash of our commitment to each other. It appears that this love will soon raise a wave that will reach all the way to Bolivia and wash over 50 or more young girls who have known far too little love in their lives. We stand in humble awe of what God is doing, and feel rewarded in ways we never could have imagined when we said I do 25 years ago.

Our second quibble comes from the last line of the meditation, which seems to imply that the Schultz household has no resident saints. We beg to differ, and suggest she look more carefully in her photo album, where we are sure she will find saints aplenty.

Joseph and Jane Kupin

Another Word

Every time I thought I just couldn’t handle another word, article or program on our current scandal, America would appear on my desk with its plenitude of scholarly, sane, informative articles. Your coverage over the past weeks has been outstanding! Each issue seemed even better than one before.

As someone who has spent the past 25 years teaching and writing about the role of the laity, baptism and the teachings of the Second Vatican Council and facilitating prayerful discernment decision-making throughout this country and down under, I was especially delighted to read Mary Jo Bane’s article Exit, Voice and Loyalty in the Church (6/3). Keep up your wonderful work!

Mary Benet McKinney, O.S.B.

Inquisitorial Witch Hunts

The editorial Toward Dallas (5/27) contains many thought-provoking concepts for structural changes that I pray our church leaders will consider and implement during their upcoming meeting in Dallas. The church has been guilty of hiding behind the obfuscation of legal minds more interested in reducing liability than promoting justice. When Cardinal Egan equivocates, If mistakes were made, or Cardinal Law stonewalls the many lay Catholics in his archdiocese about urgently needed reforms, then we as concerned lay Catholics cry out to God to change their hearts and ask the Spirit to give them courage to reform themselves and the church.

But reforms can go too far in the opposite direction, causing more harm than good. I am referring to your suggestion that the church must step in when the police refuse to investigate because the statute of limitations has passed or because there is insufficient evidence. I respectfully disagree. All of us are protected by the law, even priests. You are correct in suggesting that every allegation (no matter how flimsy) of sexual abuse of a minor by a church worker will be turned over to the police. Then you state, It will be up to the police to determine the credibility of the allegation. I agree. But after the legal authorities have determined that the allegation is groundless, your suggestion that the church renew the investigation strikes me as cruel and unusual punishment. Let the police do their jobs. Inquisitorial witch hunts after the priest has been exonerated by the police remind me of a time in the church that I don’t think anybody wants back.

Edward J. Thompson

Renewal on All Levels

There have been many excellent articles in America on the current crisis (6/3). Different perspectives, often complementary, have been presented. It was, however, refreshing to read Christopher Ruddy’s thoughts from the Second Vatican Council seeking inspiration for a renewal in the heart of the church’s tradition rather than outside of it. There is a salutary and lucid optimism here, a confidence that the Holy Spirit has sowed the seeds of resurrection and given the church the means to confront the crisis. As Mr. Ruddy points out, the theological tools are there; they need only be deployed with seriousness and consistency. If there is not a renewal on this level, all the other remedies will only be superficial patchwork. We have, indeed, been offered a terrible and graced opportunity. Mr. Ruddy has done a great service by reminding us of the need for the church to become what it has already defined itself to be.

Jerry Ryan

Powerless

I am writing in response to Professor Mary Jo Bane’s article, Exit, Voice, and Loyalty in the Church (6/3). In 1968 I was 29 years old and had six children. I remember exactly where I was when Pope Paul VI spoke from Yankee Stadium and essentially said, Set another place at the table. That was the message of Humanae Vitae. I sat in my kitchen listening to the radio and sobbed. My husband and I had had six children in seven years, and two miscarriages.

Did I experience lay dissatisfaction and anger? No. I think it was desolation, futility and awful resignation. We were two good, educated, Catholic parents; what could we do? We did the only thing possible at the time to preserve our marriage and our family. We exited from the teaching, and that only after prayer, more tears and lots of guilt.

The current scandal, or Catholic Watergate, has also made me cry, and I have incredible anger. I was not so angry in 1968, just more resigned. I have changed; my church has not. They are still in my bedroom!

Sexual abuse of children is not even in the same category with the teaching of Humanae Vitae. It is despicable, sinful and manipulative. Yes, I live in Boston and have been assaulted by all of it for five months, but never in 1968 did I feel as powerless as I do now. My faith is much stronger now; it is who I am; it is the peaceful, powerful part of me. It speaks to me and says, You are mine, I have counted every hair on your head.

If in two years nothing much has changed, if the same dusty, musty mitres and crosiers are still around, I will be so angry at myself for not speaking out. Please don’t anyone compare the encyclical on birth control in 1968 to this mess. I was there. Then it was resignation and personal decisions; now it is rage, and all decisions are completely out of our hands.

Barbara M. Donahue

In Remembrance

I had to chuckle while reading Elizabeth Ficocelli’s Avoiding Mass Hysteria: Teaching Children to Behave in Church (5/6). She and her young ones would be as discomfited as I was by the children wandering loose at Sunday Mass in the Catholic chapel of the state penitentiary in Tijuana. Some are visiting their fathers; others are in residence with their mothers. None of their motion or commotion, however, seems to distract the prisoners from close attention to the Eucharist or the word, God bless them. As to my own reactions as a priest, I have this poetic meditation, called Suffer the Little Children:

the benches crowded and solemn