BLOODY BUILDING PART 2

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

The Pentagon's business is war and war is a bloody business. The US empire is built on the blood of the poor and the innocent. Our actions merely make visible that reality," said Baggarly and Frankel-Streit. Those gathered believe that the majority of Americans do oppose the war. They hope to give voice to this opposition by confronting the centers of power in this country. Amy Goodman of Pacifica Radio's "Democracy Now!" spoke to the group on Sunday night. She said that shortly before the congressional vote on support for Bush's war, her station called the majority of Senatorial offices. In every case, those answering the phones reported that constituent call-ins were at least 90% opposed to the war. Congress voted to support the war. (see Democracy Now web site for more information). The Pentagon protestors have court in March and April. The three Catholic Worker blood-pourers are scheduled to appear in Alexandria Federal Court on Friday, March 7th, at 9 am. No doubt Pentagon personnel has already scrubbed the blood off the columns and walls, but the image of that thick, red substance, the stuff of life, streaming off the building which is the warmaking center of the planet, will remain. Unfortunately, we can't share that image, as the MPs stole our camera.

-- TIO (TIO@AOL.COM), December 31, 2002

Answers

Tio, you are ignorant.
It is good that the police arrested the protesters who poured blood at the Pentagon's "Metro" entrance.
They broke a just law, and they deserve to be punished. They did a disservice to the Church by identifying themselves as "Catholics" and pretending that Catholic doctrine allows them to do what they did.

It's too bad that they didn't have sense to protest (in a lawful manner) at the Embassy of Iraq, where they could have encountered representatives of the illegitimate "fuehrer," Herr Hussein, and his third of the "Axis of Evil."

Contrary to the rubbish you copied above, Tio ...
(1) The Pentagon's "business is" NOT "war." The Pentagon is headquarters for the Department of Defense -- not the "Department of Offense." The DoD exists to PREVENT war. It only wages war when it is forced on it by nations doing evil things.
(2) If it were not for the DoD, your sorry butt would be working for some Nazi, Soviet, or Maoist dictator right now.
(3) There is no "war." There is no "Bush's war." There is no ongoing "war" for 90% to oppose. Besides, well over 60% support current diplomatic, and potential future military, efforts to disarm and oust Hussein. You can't get the truth from the aging hippies of Pacifica.

Happy New Year.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), January 01, 2003.


To play devil's advocate for a moment, though, J.F., I have read many of Dorothy Day's writings, and think that she might have been sympathetic with the protest, if not with the way she did it.

I certainly don't dispute the fact that we have every right to defend ourselves against the likes of Iraq and Al-Qaeda, but isn't it possible to believe that and still be opposed to military action? I know a lot of anti-Americans misuse Our Lord's command to "love your enemies" as a way to keep us from defending ourselves, but on the other hand, doesn't His command mean that we should at least *try* to avoid killing our enemies? No disrespect meant to the Pentagon, but they're not a Christian organization, and so might not always follow the precepts of "just war".

Like I said, devil's advocate! But my grandfather was a newspaper reporter and taught me at an early age to look at both sides of every story ... sorry! ;-)

-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), January 02, 2003.


How do the people who defend all that the Pope says, feel about this war talk. The Pope is against it, so now Eugene and the others must be against it.

I happen to be against it too, but for ny own reasons.

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), January 02, 2003.


I am against any unnecessary violence. And I have a question for J.F. - would you be as quick to condemn their actions if they'd done exactly the same thing but in front of an abortion clinic? Remember that any time limits are placed on public protest, they are felt by *all* the movements, not just the one that's prosecuted.

-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), January 02, 2003.

(2) If it were not for the DoD, your sorry butt would be working for some Nazi, Soviet, or Maoist dictator right now.

Or Imperial Japanese. Don't want to leave anyone out.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 03, 2003.



Thank you, Frank Someone. I thought of the imperialist Japanese the next day, but forgot to come back to the thread and add them. The atrocities that were perpetrated in southeast Asia and in the Pacific islands between 1930 and 1945 -- including to civilian women -- were mind-boggling, almost enough to make a person wonder if a sub-human primate species was controlling that part of the planet.


Hello, Christine.
It is quite possible that Dorothy Day would "have been sympathetic with the protest." I am in favor of the right of those Catholics to speak out as they did, but not to break the law, damage things, and cause a waste of money. This was not a legitimate use of "civil disobedience," in keeping with Catholic doctrine. Here is how the Church teaches on that subject (from the Catechism):

[continued below]

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), January 03, 2003.


"2242. The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons, or to the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. 'Render therefore to Caesar ...'. 'We must obey God rather than men': [Acts 5:29.] When citizens are under the oppression of a public authority which oversteps its competence, they should still not refuse to give or to do what is objectively demanded of them by the common good; but it is legitimate for them to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens against the abuse of this authority within the limits of the natural law and the Law of the Gospel. [GS 74 #5.]"

The mere existence of the Pentagon and the Defense Department do not constitute a "directive of civil authorities [that is] contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons, or to the teachings of the Gospel." Therefore, Catholics cannot go around throwing blood on property owned by all citizens collectively. If the bloody criminals in question here had been ordered by someone in the Pentagon to do something immoral, then "civil disobedience" could have been legitimate.

[continued below]

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), January 03, 2003.


Christine, you continued: "I certainly don't dispute the fact that we have every right to defend ourselves against the likes of Iraq and Al-Qaeda, but isn't it possible to believe that and still be opposed to military action?"
Yes, it is permissible to take a pacifist stance, but only if one does not try to prevent others from making a legitimate choice not to be pacifist.

Continuing, "I know a lot of anti-Americans misuse Our Lord's command to 'love your enemies' as a way to keep us from defending ourselves, but on the other hand, doesn't His command mean that we should at least *try* to avoid killing our enemies?"
Yes, and world leaders are doing that right now -- "try[ing their utmost] to avoid killing our enemies." They are doing this through diplomacy, inspections, attempts to get the dictator to exile himself, etc.. Even the whole trend in modern warfare is increasingly to avoid killing civilians (through the use of "smart" bombs) and to concentrate on destroying the enemies' means of war (inanimate objects).

[continued below]

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), January 03, 2003.


Continuing, "No disrespect meant to the Pentagon, but they're not a Christian organization, and so might not always follow the precepts of 'just war.'"
You are quite right. But I would suggest (along with some theologians, who have begun to speak up) that, with the ever-changing ways of tyrants and the threats of WMD, the current Catholic "just war" doctrine is in need of further development. The doctrine does not seem to well enough cover some situations that are springing up like weeds around the globe.

Continuing: "I am against any unnecessary violence. And I have a question for J.F. -- would you be as quick to condemn [the] actions [of the Catholic criminals] if they'd done exactly the same thing but in front of an abortion clinic?"
I too am "against any unnecessary violence. I even used to consider myself a complete pacifist. I would indeed "condemn [the] actions [of the Catholic criminals] if they'd done exactly the same thing but in front of an abortion" mill. People have a right to private property, and others do not have a right to damage that property, even if it is being used for an immoral purpose (such as abortion). As a pro-life activist, I had countless opportunities to damage abortion mills, to take part in "rescue" operations, etc., but I concluded that it would be immoral to do those things (not to mention tactically unwise).
It's the same in the present circumstances, with the blood. It is immoral AND stupid, gaining no new people for one's cause.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), January 03, 2003.


Thanks for your thoughtful comments, John. Granted I was writing my own kind of "off the cuff" opinions, so I appreciate your taking the time to go indepth. :-)

-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), January 03, 2003.


Here I offer the words of a great American; gifted outside of all modern comparison as a commander, yet a flawed human being. God Almighty allowed us our deliverance from a truly diabolical power on earth, giving us a soldier like this; who prayed on January 1st, 1944:

''God of our fathers, Who by land and sea has ever led us to victory, please continue Your inspiring guidance in this, the greatest of our conflicts.
Strengthen my soul so that the weakening instinct of self-preservation which besets all in battle, shall not blind me in my duty to my own manhood, to the glory of my calling, and to my responsibility to my fellow soldiers.

Grant to our armed forces that disciplined valour and mutual confidence that ensures success in war.
Let me not mourn for the men who have died fighting, but rather let me be glad that such heroes have lived.
If it be my lot to die, let me do so with courage and honor in a manner which will bring the greatest harm to the enemy; and please, Oh Lord, protect and guard those I shall leave behind. --Grant us the victory, Oh Lord!''
George S. Patton Jr, General, U.S. 3rd Army /

May he rest in peace, Amen.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 03, 2003.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ