Here Lies the Nation

     The other day my colleague in our team-taught course in Western Civilization made an interesting point about the passing away of medieval Christendom.  He did not say that it was a good or bad thing that it passed away, and did not say when exactly the demise occurred, but rather showed the students how to identify signs that it had occurred.  So, for instance, when Pope Urban at Clermont preached the First Crusade, regardless of how one views what Bohemond and Godfrey and the other crusaders did, one must still be struck by the bare and remarkable fact that they obeyed the preaching.  This they did, as my colleague justly observed, despite the fact that it was not in the best interest of their own power at home, and despite the fact that they had no discernible desire for colonies or for empire.  Or consider the popular movement, endorsed by bishops and popes, that led to the declaration of the Truce of God and the Peace of God.  Warrior nobles chafed against any encroachment upon their liberty to pillage and lay waste to the lands of their enemies, but they at least sometimes and halfheartedly obeyed, refraining from attacking women and children and the aged, laying their weapons down during the penitential seasons and on certain days of every week, and in general allowing themselves unwittingly to be transformed into something remotely resembling the ideal of a chivalric knights.  People derived their prime sense of identity not from where they lived or what language they spoke, but from the faith they shared even with their enemies; they were Christians before they were Tuscans or Flemish.  By the seventeenth century, the source of a man's identity had shifted: Cardinal Richelieu, that eminence grise, was French first, French second, and French third, and that is why he assisted the Protestants in the Thirty Years' War, and why he arranged a peace between France and the Turk, allowing the Turk to push deep into Hapsburg territories in the east.  Had the Pope then decreed that there would be no fighting between Christian princes, the princes would have laughed.  Christendom as a cultural and cross-linguistic reality was dead, and the nation-state had taken its place.

     But now, he suggested, the nation may be going the same way that medieval Christendom went.  I agree, and I'm not talking about the power of multinational corporations-- and neither was he.  I mean that the virtue of patriotism, which is linked to a sense of belonging to this land, here, and loving it, a virtue that did not begin with the nation-state but could at least survive in it, is fading away.  A man calls himself a doctor or a lawyer, a golfer, a husband and father, a collector of postcards, even a Methodist, before he calls himself an American.  I have an old Army-Navy hymnal at home, and to look through it is to be astonished by the number and variety and quaint eloquence of its patriotic anthems, most of them now long forgotten.  Even our most common patriotic hymns have been reduced, in the lived experience and memories of citizens, to a single verse, usually only dimly understood.  Lines such as these from the hymn that used to be called simply America are almost incomprehensible now, not semantically but affectively, and would certainly never be written:
          I love thy rocks and rills,
          Thy woods and templed hills;
          My heart with rapture fills
               Like that above.

     When did it die, this love, this sense that at the deepest springs of my being I am an American?  Again, I'm not saying that we should feel this way; I'm only observing that we don't.  I don't know when the worm turned, but it has.  How many of the people running for the presidency do not really like America?  How many of them never have anything good to say about it?  How many bear hearts that do not beat warmly when they hear of Teddy and the Rough Riders, or Washington crossing the Delaware to surprise the Hessians at Trenton?  How many do not truly love the ways of Americans, even in such harmless things as food and sport, but rather agree when other peoples think them crazy or foolish?  For how many has the Constitution sunk below a thing of contempt, to become nothing but a dead letter, along with all other venerable American traditions?  I can name at least four or five candidates from both parties, including one of the most prominent candidates, who have never shown the slightest trace of actually liking America, let alone hoping that America is victorious in her struggles with other nations.  We've had such candidates before, but nobody would vote for them; they remained on the fringe.  They are not on the fringe now. 

     And that raises the question: if faith is not the source of a people's prime identity and loyalty, and if the nation is not, then what is?  What do we revere and obey?  We are made for reverence and obedience; something must occupy the altar or the flag.

Comments

[Bill R]

"And that raises the question: if faith is not the source of a people's prime identity and loyalty, and if the nation is not, then what is? What do we revere and obey? We are made for reverence and obedience; something must occupy the altar or the flag."

I've been away from MC for a few days, pursuing one of the primary loyalties. (In my case, spending time with a visiting parent.) So I've read this thread almost at a single gulp. I think it's giving me indigestion (thanks to GL for trying to steer us back to Tony Esolen's original question).

What occupies the position of altar or flag these days? I think it's the television set. Certainly it gets more obeisance than either of its competitors. It tells us what to think of the world and ourselves. It demands obedience (buy this!) and if you peek in on those absorbed in its rituals, they certainly seem to be giving it reverence (burnt offerings or TV dinners?--it's hard to tell).

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Yes, it was. I suppose that points to a difference in our personalities, that I react far more pessimistically to uncertain information. But you already knew that about me.<<<

I suppose you are more normal than I am, because I tend to combine a high idealism with entrenched cynicism about human behavior (people always live down to my expectations, too). So I am always hoping for the best and expecting the worst. And yet, at the same time, I became a Christian because I saw that things always worked out when they shouldn't have--something I attribute to the hand of divine providence. That might by why my ring tone is "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life", from Monty Python's Life of Brian.

[T. Chan]

A tangent: Dr. Esolen's Zenit interview is up--Finding the Masculine Genius

[James A. Altena]

Q: What's the definition of an optimist?
A: A man who falls off the top of the Empire State Building and, as he passes the 100th floor, says, "Well, so far, so good."

I hereby challenge Ethan for the title of resident pessimist of MC! Choose your weapons, sir! (How about sarcasm at a distance of 10 sentences?)

[Judy Warner]

Thanks for the tangent, T. Chan.

[Ethan Cordray]

You asked for it, James. I'll deploy a line from my review of the Lovecraft book:

"The essential relationship between the universe and humanity is that of predator to prey."

En guard! :-)

[Francesca]

1) James asks: <

"It would show a profound lack of personal integrity if one standards were not "of one's own making." If not one's own, then whose?"
["one's own making" not those of the Church] and

"Individuals should be strong enough in their own belief system"
[one's "own belief system" -- not that of the Church]>>

James, these comments were made within a political context. Are you seriously suggesting that one should not be true to one's own political beliefs?! And if not to one's own, then to whose?

2) James writes: <

"Moral certainty is always a sign of cultural inferiority.">>

Mencken was a gifted wordsmith, had a refreshingly joyous spirit, and made people laugh. One doesn't have to agree with everything he ever said in order to appreciate those qualities. Many of his comments were made tongue-in-cheek. Some were frivolous, some contained an element of truth rather than absolute truth, and some were spot on.

3) James continues: <>

In fact I've said the opposite. One creates one's own value system WITH reference to the teachings of the Church (at least, that's what I do as a Catholic.) This doesn't mean that one can't disagree, that one can't select from multiple and sometimes conflicting teachings, and that one can't prioritize one's values during occasions of moral ambiguity.

4) James writes: < a) "inform" refers more to acquiring factual knowledge than to interior formation of moral character; and so
b) it is up to *you* to form your own conscience, rather than for your to surrender your conscience to being formed by the Church.>>

No to (a); yes to (b). One has to synthesize and integrate knowledge, not just "acquire it." And yes, it is up to me "to form my own conscience" and then to accept responsibility for the results. Remember the Catechism states: "A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself." I'm surprised you would stress conformation to the teachings of the Church while simultaneously trying to dismiss this pivotal teaching. If your conscience tells you to accept the Baltimore Catechism uncritically, then the Church teaches that you should do so. Mine doesn't and I don't and it's God's place, not your's, to assess the results.

[Francesca]

S. Koehl writes: "Jerk will do just fine."

He who insults his inferiors, doesn't have any.

[Francesca]

S. Koehl writes, '">>>It's very clear now that the war was predicated on false information and has been incompetently prosecuted.<<<

Really? And your qualifications for making this judgment are. . .what? I'd be interested in knowing what your current or prior involvement with the intelligence community was, and how much actual experience you have with the analysis both of intelligence and military operations. '

If you're trying to claim that this invasion was justified by accurate intelligence reports, I'd have to ask you the same question. The recently declassified Pentagon report is damning. The content of the report widely parallels claims made elsewhere in the run-up to and the aftermath of the invasion. What is more relevant is that the Pentagon's own watchdog was compelled to admit the nature of the operation.

[Bill R]

"A tangent: Dr. Esolen's Zenit interview is up--Finding the Masculine Genius."

Get your advance orders in now for Tony Esolen's "Ironies of Faith." (I was going to make a crack about Dr. Esolen having so many ironies in the fire, but decided to refrain....)

[David Gray]

>If you're trying to claim that this invasion was justified by accurate intelligence reports, I'd have to ask you the same question.

Again you display an unawareness of how intelligence works.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>If you're trying to claim that this invasion was justified by accurate intelligence reports, I'd have to ask you the same question. The recently declassified Pentagon report is damning. The content of the report widely parallels claims made elsewhere in the run-up to and the aftermath of the invasion. What is more relevant is that the Pentagon's own watchdog was compelled to admit the nature of the operation.<<<

I assume you refer to the Inspector General's report, which does not claim what you claim it does. I suspect you did not read the report, but relied upon third-hand accounts of it. And again, I am in full agreement with David--you simply have no idea of how intelligence works. Or war, for that matter.

People say I'm being too mean to you. But your repeated refusal to engage in any fact-based discussion and continued reiteration of unsubstantiated and erroneous assertions, indicates an absolute lack of respect for the truth, whch at the very least mandates a serious reproach. However, as you do not engage in serious arguments, I can only assume you are not a serious person, and therefore ridicule seems an appropriate response to your continued tirades.

[James A. Altena]

"James, these comments were made within a political context. Are you seriously suggesting that one should not be true to one's own political beliefs?! And if not to one's own, then to whose?"

These comments make universal claims; and whether in a political context or another one, they are wrong and antithetical to properly formed Christian conscience. You keep missing the point, Francesca. The issue is not one of being true to the convictions that one holds, but rather that one should not be trying to create one's own convictions in the first place, using the Church only as a "reference" (on the level of the Encyclopedia Britannica?), instead of conforming one's understanding to that of Scripture and Tradition. To put it another way, the Christian does not judge Scripture and Tradition, but accepts that he is judged by them. It is ultimately a question of who is the master -- self over the Church, or the Church over self. Such solipsistic individualism as you advocate is as inherently anti-Christian as is Communism or Fascism.

"Mencken was a gifted wordsmith, had a refreshingly joyous spirit."

That is news to anyone who has extensively read Mencken, and about him. While indeed a gifted wordsmith, he was a thoroughly vicious and bitter man. And do you consider his virulent anti-Semitism to be part of his "refreshingly joyous spirit"? Someone who can't distinguish atheistic cynicism from the Christian virtue of joy is in deep trouble.

3) James continues: <>

"In fact I've said the opposite. One creates one's own value system WITH reference to the teachings of the Church (at least, that's what I do as a Catholic.) This doesn't mean that one can't disagree, that one can't select from multiple and sometimes conflicting teachings, and that one can't prioritize one's values during occasions of moral ambiguity."

I don't know what passage is missing from between the <>. But, first, my point (which you once again evade) is that you did not say this *originally* -- you only introduced it later as a CYA fig leaf. Second, if you think that you can "creates one's own value system WITH reference to the teachings of the Church", then you simply are not thinking or acting as a Catholic Christian. As I already pointed out, this is the party line of Hans Kung & Co. professional dissidents speaking once again. I am the one upholding a pivotal Catholic teaching here, not you who are violating it.

To repeat -- Christians, particularly Catholic Christians, do not presume to "create" anything of their own. They humbly accept something *given* to them.

Of course, your last paragraph proves my entire point in spades. Once again, you quote the Catechism out of context, ignoring that "conscience" refers to "properly informed conscience", and that properly informed conscience is defined and characterized by humble submission to the teachings of the Church.

And even though one can in principle disagree, one cannot do so in the autonomous manner that you presume. E.g., you have specifically violated the restriction that in dissenting, one may not represent one's self to be acting as a Catholic, or to be presenting a valid teaching of the Church in so doing.

Please point to a section of the modern Catechism (I'm not referring to the old Baltimore one at all) where it states, in black and white, that a believer can and ought to "create one's own value system" and supposedly "select from multiple and sometimes conflicting teachings" (care to cite some of those "conflicting teachings"?) to do so. Also please cite the "moral ambiguity" in the present discussion.

Finally, as to "Mine doesn't and I don't and it's God's place, not your's, to assess the results."

I didn't presume to assess the results -- only the accuracy of the statement of the principles. On the other hand, this statement could be used by any felon to commit any crime with absolute impunity.

You confuse two faculties of judgment here. The first, discernment, or the distinction between right and wrong, good and evil, Christians are specifically called upon to exercise. The second, which is forbidden, is to presume to judge the present state or final fate of another person's soul. Thus, I am perfectly in accord with Scripture in judging whether or not your views correspond to a proper understanding of RC teachings regarding the formation and exercise of conscience, and whether or not your views are properly Catholic and Christian. I would be wrong if I presumed to go from that to judging whether or not you are (or will be) saved or damned, or to speculating without the special knowledge of a confessor as to how you are spiritually formed that you hold such views.

A grammatical coda -- since the general standardization of English in the 18th c., possessive pronouns do not take apostrophes -- the word is "yours", not "your's." "It's" with an apostrophe is a contraction for "it is" and not identical to the possessive pronoun "its". (You aren't the only here committing this error.)

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>And do you consider his virulent anti-Semitism to be part of his "refreshingly joyous spirit"?<<<

His anti-semitism was only a concomitant of his fascism. Mencken hated democracy, thought people too stupid for self-government, and looked forward to a day when superior men like himself would rule the world. He is revered by the left mainly for his anti-religious and anti-Southern diatribes, which is ironic, because he would probably loathe the left for its egalitarianism and socialism.

[GL]

I figure out pretty early that arguing with Stuart about military matters is a big mistake. That is his area of expertise. An amateur is well advised to avoid arguing with an expert.I figured out pretty early that arguing with Stuart about military matters is a big mistake. That is his area of expertise. An amateur is well advised to avoid arguing with an expert. He might be wrong (just as I might be wrong about some legal issue), but it would take another expert to point out how.

For the record (and repeating myself from months ago), whether it was wise or not to open a front on the War Against Islamofascism in Iraq, we did so and it would be a monumental mistake not to finish the job that we started. We can and we must.

Harry “McClellan” Reid ought to read some history.

[GL]

By the way, is there an expert out there on cutting-and-pasting that could help me. ;-)

[Francesca]

>>These comments make universal claims; and whether in a political context or another one, they are wrong and antithetical to properly formed Christian conscience. ... But, first, my point (which you once again evade) is that you did not say this *originally* -- you only introduced it later as a CYA fig leaf. Second, if you think that you can "creates one's own value system WITH reference to the teachings of the Church", then you simply are not thinking or acting as a Catholic Christian.<<

James, at the risk of repeating former points, you are adopting a dangerously authoritarian position here. If *I* do not determine my own political views, who does? You've repeatedly ducked that question and I'd be very interested to hear your answer. You seem to be suggesting that there is only *one* "correct" opinion that each of us is permitted to have, whether about political or religious issues. Would I be a better little Catholic if you just told me how I should vote? In fact, why should I be allowed to vote at all if it means I might get really subversive and disobey *your* properly formed Christian conscience? You need to think through your accusations about "CYA fig leafs," etc. It was suggested some time back that it might be a little uppity (I think "egotistic" was the word used) to presume to criticize one's country and a discussion about personal responsibility and integrity ensued which led me to elaborate in defending politcal and religious freedoms. Maintaining integrity of conscience is a personal responsibility.

>>To repeat -- Christians, particularly Catholic Christians, do not presume to "create" anything of their own. They humbly accept something *given* to them ...
Of course, your last paragraph proves my entire point in spades. Once again, you quote the Catechism out of context, ignoring that "conscience" refers to "properly informed conscience", and that properly informed conscience is defined and characterized by humble submission to the teachings of the Church.<<

This leads to the danger that one might "humbly submit" to someone else's *interpretation* of the teachings of the Church or that one might deliberately violate one's own conscience in the name of submission to authority. In 655, the Ninth Council of Toledo decreed, in an effort to enforce celibacy, that the offspring of offending clerics should become permanent slaves of the Church. Pope Urban II in 1089 gave princes power to enslave the wives of clerics. If I had lived back then, should I have humbly submitted to these dictates? Or would I have been a better Catholic if I'd broken with these views, as Pope Leo XIII did in 1891 when he affirmed that slavery was incompatible with universal and fundamental human rights? Do you see the problem?

>>And even though one can in principle disagree, one cannot do so in the autonomous manner that you presume. E.g., you have specifically violated the restriction that in dissenting, one may not represent one's self to be acting as a Catholic, or to be presenting a valid teaching of the Church in so doing.<<

You're confusing two different assertions. I've presented the teaching that *conscience is ultimately binding and that one condemns oneself by disobeying one's conscience* as a valid Church teaching. After all, it's in the Catechism (even though it's not currently in vogue with magisterial Catholics.) The claim that one may (and *should*, if one's conscience so insists) dissent from Church teachings (for example, on the above-mentioned early teaching on slavery) is not the same thing as presenting *that particular area of dissent* as "valid Church teaching." Do you see the distinction?

>>Please point to a section of the modern Catechism (I'm not referring to the old Baltimore one at all) where it states, in black and white, that a believer can and ought to "create one's own value system" and supposedly "select from multiple and sometimes conflicting teachings" (care to cite some of those "conflicting teachings"?) to do so. <<

We've been through this a couple of times, but I suggest you review articles 1777 through 1782. I'll just quote from 1782 here: "Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as to PERSONALLY make moral decisions." PERSONAL moral decisions are directly involved in creating one's own value system, which one has an obligation and a responsibility to do, whether Catholic, Christian, or not.

>>Also please cite the "moral ambiguity" in the present discussion.<<

I'm thinking of such situations as whether or not I have the right to steal food if my child is starving. I couldn't turn to page 492 of the Catechism for an answer, but would have to do some independent thinking about how close she was to death, what other options I had, the effect stealing food would have on the other party (does that person have excess or is s/he starving too,) etc., etc. Nearly all political decisions involve some moral ambiguity.

>>I didn't presume to assess the results -- only the accuracy of the statement of the principles. On the other hand, this statement could be used by any felon to commit any crime with absolute impunity. <<

What sort of impunity? A crime wouldn't keep the felon out of jail, but might cause God to forgive him if he genuinely believed he was doing the right thing. Practical consequences on earth are not the same as a judgment from God. There's a connection here to reserving judgment. That poor, crazy lady in Texas who drowned her five children apparently thought God had told her to do so.
While I hope, in the interest of keeping other children safe, that she's locked up for the rest of her life, God may or may not not hold her deeds against her (none of us can speak for Him.)

>>You confuse two faculties of judgment here. The first, discernment, or the distinction between right and wrong, good and evil, Christians are specifically called upon to exercise. The second, which is forbidden, is to presume to judge the present state or final fate of another person's soul. <<

Exactly (not that this has ever discouraged anyone from presuming to judge the state of another person's soul.) No disagreement here. In fact, it's about what I've been saying all along.

>>Thus, I am perfectly in accord with Scripture in judging whether or not your views correspond to a proper understanding of RC teachings regarding the formation and exercise of conscience, and whether or not your views are properly Catholic and Christian. I would be wrong if I presumed to go from that to judging whether or not you are (or will be) saved or damned, or to speculating without the special knowledge of a confessor as to how you are spiritually formed that you hold such views.<<

You might want to leave it to God to decide whether my views are "properly Catholic and Christian" (not that I've never presumed to pass this judgment on others either.) The best I can do is to determine what I regard as right and to act accordingly (if I ever decide to determine what *you* regard as right and to act accordingly, believe me, you'll be the first to know.) I seem to remember that you *were* telling me my spiritual formation was imperfect, but I'm late getting a child to an appointment and have to rush. Later:-)

[David Gray]

>You might want to leave it to God to decide whether my views are "properly Catholic and Christian"

Odd to see an alleged Roman Catholic have a lower ecclesiology than many evangelicals.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Odd to see an alleged Roman Catholic have a lower ecclesiology than many evangelicals.<<<

There was ecclesiology in the midst of all that solipsism?

[Gene Godbold]

Hey David and Stuart,
I agree that you've got Francesa stomped on facts, but she's got more spirit than most folk show and your posts have been pretty slighting. (I'd be ticked if you addressed me like you've been addressing her.) I can see how a reader of the MSM--not to mention "The Nation"--could come to have her opinions. Like you said, it isn't what you don't know that bites you, it's what you think you know that turns out to be wrong. Most of what you relate about (at least) the discovery of chemical weapons in Iraq hasn't been widely disseminated by the mainstream press, for obvious (ideological) reasons. (I learned about it through my job.)

[Mr Two Cents]

>>>>>>Stuart, would it kill you to be polite to people you don't agree with? Such low, mean-spirited, vulgar, and uncharitable attacks do nothing but discredit you. It's not charitable, it's not funny, and it's really not appropriate for grown men to behave like 6th graders.<<<

Not in this case. I dislike fools, and I dislike liars, and I have a nasty tendency to tell them both exactly what I think of them.<<<

Stuart,

How do you know you're not a fool?

[David Gray]

>How do you know you're not a fool?

Well "Mr. Two Cents" in the matter at hand he has a clear grasp of the dynamics at play. That would indicate that he is not being a fool in this matter.

[David Gray]

"I’m tired of Christians themselves being silent because of some misguided sense of good manners. Self-censorship is an even bigger failure than allowing ourselves to be bullied by outsiders."

Charles J. Chaput

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>How do you know you're not a fool?<<<

No doubt I am a fool, for thinking that people could be pursuaded by an objective presentation of the facts. Call it the triumph of hope over experience.

[James A. Altena]

"James, at the risk of repeating former points, you are adopting a dangerously authoritarian position here. If *I* do not determine my own political views, who does? You've repeatedly ducked that question and I'd be very interested to hear your answer. You seem to be suggesting that there is only *one* "correct" opinion that each of us is permitted to have, whether about political or religious issues."

I adopt no such stance, except in the eyes of someone who is utterly self-willed. And I've already answered the question – you simply don't like the answer. To restate it, for a Catholic Christian, moral decisions are made in accordance with the teaching of Scripture and Tradition as normative, not as a merely advisory reference that one can accept or reject as one pleases. That is why the RC Church has something called the Magisterium, after all. And once again, you try here to evade the main subject of debate – whether one creates one's own standards, or accepts the teachings of the Church as divinely guided.

"Maintaining integrity of conscience is a personal responsibility."

True – but a conscience that is not properly formed does not have integrity – at best, it only possesses consistency, which is not the same thing. Hitler and Pol Pot were consistently evil, as is Satan, but no one imputes moral integrity to them.

"This leads to the danger that one might 'humbly submit' to someone else's *interpretation* of the teachings of the Church or that one might deliberately violate one's own conscience in the name of submission to authority."

Mostly wrong. First, it is not a danger is undertaken with proper spiritual guidance.

Second, nothing in this fallen world is risk -free. What guarantees do you offer that when you "create one's own values system" that you do not veer into equal or greater evil? What is there within your method to stop you from creating standards that assert preborn babies can be aborted, sodomites can marry one another, the elderly can be euthanized, etc., etc., if you so wish and no one else has moral authority to gainsay you? Your principle is exactly the one that has given rise to these things – women who declare that they can “control their own bodies”; people who assert that they can choose when and how they die, and others, too (“for their own good”, of course); same-sex couple who declare they it is up to them to define “love”; etc.

Third, what makes you suppose that someone else’s interpretation of Scripture or the teachings of the Church aren’t better than your own? Do you really think you’re smarter than everyone else? Didn’t you ever learn anything from teachers in school? As G. K. Chesterton said, in direct opposition to you, “A Catholic is a person who knows that someone else is smarter than he is.”

The examples you then cite here are apples and oranges. The first two are specific actions taken by particular popes. They are not general moral teachings or principles, nor were they issued in an encyclical such as in the third instance. Thus the first two are not in any way morally binding, whereas the third is. So, once again, you demonstrate an inadequate grasp of history, theology, and logic alike. Furthermore, you also once again show yourself a charter member of the Hans Kung Fan Club by adopting a favorite and tiresomely familiar tactic of all RC dissidents – flourish some disreputable particular action by a pope from centuries before and pretend that it somehow discredits universal moral principles or the Church’s ability and authority to set forth the same.

And you still haven't answered *my* question, Francesca. The passage you cite about freedom to "PERSONALLY make moral decisions" does *not* either say or even remotely mean that Catholic Christians may “create one’s own values system.”

But at least this does get us closer to a central problem in your train of thought. You state: “PERSONAL moral decisions are directly involved in creating one's own value system.”

This is absolutely false. You obviously have imbibed the thoroughly fallacious notion, first propounded by non-Christian philosophers and artists only during the Enlightenment and Romantic eras, that “personal” means “individual” and “subjective”, and that something can be personal *only* if it is self-created. By contrast, the authentic Christian understanding of the “personal,” which the Church Fathers derived and adapted from Plato, is the participation of the particular soul in the objective and universal. Thus, such participation means precisely what I have been saying, and the opposite of your assertion here – that for a Catholic Christian, the personal does *not* mean to “create one’s own value system”; it means to subsume one’s self within something pre-existing that is greater than one’s self, to submit to being changed by that than seeking to change it to conform to one’s self. (For that matter, “values” is also a secular term for subjective preferences that stands in opposition to “virtues” as objectives standards – read historian Gertrude Himmelfarb on this subject.)

In a nutshell, Francesca, your fundamental problem is that when you read the Catechism, you do so with a mindset formed by secular concepts of “personal”, “conscience”, “love”, etc., which are very different from the long-developed Christian meanings of those concepts. As a result, you end up misunderstanding the proper sense of what you read in the Catechism and come out with a distorted apprehension of it all. You presumably do so unawares, but that is what you do. But such seemingly everyday terms have highly technical denotations and connotations that differ considerably from their ordinary usages in daily conversation. You are rather in the position of the novice who picks up a textbook on quantum physics and insists that subatomic particles have particular hues and savors because qaurks ae said to have “colors” and “flavors”.

Next, I asked you to cite the moral ambiguity in the present discussion, not any example of moral ambiguity that comes to your mind. Once again, you evade rather than answer my question.

“What sort of impunity?”

Apparently you don’t grasp an obvious point. If no one but God can judge you to be right or wrong (which is not what either Scripture or the Catechism says), then the logical corollary is that no one (either a person, a government, or any other agency) can hold you accountable and punish you for anything that you do. That is what every claim of moral autonomy reduces to – a claim to a license to do anything, no matter how evil, with impunity.

[Regarding my distinction between judgment of actions vs. judgment of souls]; “No disagreement here. In fact, it's about what I've been saying all along.”

You’ve said nothing of the sort. Please point to where you previously made this explicit distinction, in black and white. On the contrary, your constant gambit here has been unjustly to accuse anyone attempting to exercise the first type of judgment with exercising the second instead.

And my comments here on impunity and your tactical gambit both apply to your statement that “You might want to leave it to God to decide whether my views are ‘properly Catholic and Christian’.” That is a perfectly proper exercise of the first type of judgment that does not presume to enter into the second. Your assertion simply seeks once again to hold that no one else that God can hold you accountable. Never mind all that Scripture says about due obedience to authorities duly ordained by God, including parents, teachers, and magistrates.

Finally, to save the best until last –

“I suggest you review articles 1777 through 1782" [of the Catechism].

Invitation accepted with alacrity. Let’s look at some passages in the articles on conscience in the Catechism that Francesca all too conveniently omits citing:

1776: “Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey.” Note: “discovers”, not “creates”; and discovered “within his conscience”; one does not create one’s own conscience either.

1780: “Conscience includes the perception of the principles of morality. . . .” Note: man perceives these principles as something pre-existing him; one does not “create one’s own value system.”

1783: “The education of conscience is indispensible for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.” Got that, Francesca? Those “tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.” “Prefer their own judgment”; “reject authoritative teachings” – i.e., = “create one’s own value system”. Does this need to be repeated again?

1785: “In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path, we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice.” Note: “assimilate”, meaning to incorporate organically into one’s self, such that the self is changed by what is taken in rather than changing it; and what is taken in is objectively independent and external, not self-created.

1792: Sources of errors in moral judgment include “. . . assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching. . . .” Got that, Francesca? “A mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience”; “rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching”; i.e., = “create one’s own value system”. Does this need to be repeated again?

And, lastly, article 1793 invokes a venerable theological concept that covers Francesca here quite well: “invincible ignorance.”

With this, Francesca, I will leave you to have the last word – serenely confident that, as before, anything you post will simply provide more evidence of your errors.

[Mr Two Cents]

>>>>How do you know you're not a fool?

Well "Mr. Two Cents" in the matter at hand he has a clear grasp of the dynamics at play. That would indicate that he is not being a fool in this matter.<<<

Isn't there something about foolishness/wisdom of God, or something like that in the Bible?

Incidentally, Mr. Altena does not seem to know what "in a nutshell" means. Unless that's one big honkin' nut.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Isn't there something about foolishness/wisdom of God, or something like that in the Bible?<<<

The wisdom of God is based on truth, not baseless opinions.

>>>Incidentally, Mr. Altena does not seem to know what "in a nutshell" means. Unless that's one big honkin' nut.<<<

James has really big nuts, tis true.

[Bobby Winters]

>>James has really big nuts, tis true. <<

1) Glad I didn't read this in the morning when I have coffee.

2) Look who's talkin'.

[Mr Two Cents]

Amen, brother Dominic. Amen.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>It seems to me like Francesca is the more honest of the lot; at least she labours towards a firmer and more comprehensive embrace of the Magisterium. <<<

Or she seeks to prune it to make it conform to her own image. Something as fundamental as the understanding of what is meant by primacy of conscience is not an area in which one can or should temporize.

>>>We all pick and choose in different ways; get over it... The superiority complex I sense on here is reeking of self and pride. What pleasure do you derive from writing so harshly against a sister in Christ? We must all render an account for our deeds.<<<

Sometimes, Dominick, one has to choose between being nice and being truthful. This is one of those times when truthful wins out (as opposed, e.g., to when your wife asks whether her new dress makes her look fat).

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Amen, brother Dominic. Amen.<<<

Just remember that two cents is eight cents short of a paradigm.

[Mr Two Cents]

Stuart,

I seldom agree with you, but you are one funny mofo.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>> "Catholic morality is a love affair with Christ and His people..." (p. 158).<<<

"If you love Me you will keep My commandments".

[Bill R]

Only on MC do you find Anglicans and the Reformed (e.g., David Gray--see above) lecturing the Roman Catholics on how to be better, um, Catholics! ;-)

Gotta love this joint....

[JRM]

"You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.

This is the greatest and the first commandment.

The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments."

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Only on MC do you find Anglicans and the Reformed (e.g., David Gray--see above) lecturing the Roman Catholics on how to be better, um, Catholics! ;-)<<<

It's a dirty job, but somebody has to do it.

[DGP]

>>Only on MC do you find Anglicans and the Reformed (e.g., David Gray--see above) lecturing the Roman Catholics on how to be better, um, Catholics!<<

On the contrary, it's rather routine. What's extraordinary is that here at MC, they're usually right.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Keeping the "Commandments" does not equal "love". Obedience to Christ's supreme Royal Law flows from a fully informed, rational, freely made choice to follow Christ and conform one's self to Him.<<<

Which requires a certain degree of spiritual humility in submitting one's self to the Tradition of the Church which Christ founded, for He did not create an aggregation of unconnected individuals, but a new society, the People of God, who would be the New Israel. Therefore, life in Christ for the most part is life in the Church, accepting that those who are the Fathers of the Church and that which the Church has done can and should be models for how we live, which is not a call for mindless imitation of outward forms, but rather an attempt to think as the Fathers thought. In this regard, the Fathers were towers of reticence, seldom putting themselves outside of the mind of the Church, and only when the Church had fundamentally departed from the Truth.

An example of dissention with an informed conscience would be Maximos the Confessor's stand against the Henotikon. Maximos, an unordained monastic, refused to acknowledge the doctrine of monothelitism proposed by the Emperor Heraclius as the means for closing the monophysite schism. Informed that he was alone in his opinion, for all the bishops (including, for a time, the Bishop of Rome) had accepted the doctrine, and therefore he had left the Church, Maximos serenely replied that, on the contrary, if what the man said was indeed true, he, Maximos, WAS the Church, from which all the others had departed. Maximos suffered for his temerity by having his tongue and his right hand cut off. There's a bit of a difference between that, and saying one can do what one wants because of the primacy of conscience.

it just so happens that this matter is addressed at some length in one of our Byzantine Catholic catechetical monographs, "Shown to Be Holy: An Introduction to Eastern Christian Moral Thought":

"In the fourth century, the Church knew two great churchmen. Each was deeply immersed in the Scriptures and the Traditon. Each held that he had the Spirit's guidance in his teachings. Each was defamed and rejected by Church teachers, hounded and exiled time and again. The two, Arius and St. Athanasius, were at opposite poles in doctrinal issues of their day. They both relied on the Church, but the mind of the Church was not made up on these themes. Each of these men depended on his fellow churchmen and fought with them as well. One of them, Arius, was later judged definitively to have been in error, but he--no less than St. Athanasius-- was convinced that he was led by God.

"It is precisely episodes like this that led to the teaching that there is no certain ground by which we can automatically discern God's guidance in situations that have not been the subject of revelation. We can seek His will prayerfully, consult the Church and its Tradition, and still be wrong. On the other hand, we may find ourselves opposed to the highest Church authority and be right. . .

"And so, after a person has deeply and seriously consulted the teaching ministry given to the Church, and reflected prayerfully on its directions as well as the leadings of his own heart, that person must follow his conscience, even if it runs contrary to the established understanding of the Church. We must be aware of our proneness to delusion, put our trust in God's hidden ways, and then act. We may be wrong, and even commit a transgression, but we will not sin, provided our conclusion is founded on solid reflection and prayerful maturity. We must know, however, that just following whim or convenience is not the same as an informed conscience.

"Normally, however, any doubtful question invites us to make a different response. It calls us to an even greater degree of trust as we continue to do as the Church does, even though we do not see all the connections. For it is precisely in the surrender of our autonomy that the greatest obstacle to our perfection is overcome."

Bishop Kallistos, as is his wont, puts this in a more succinct and humorous form. He recalls a particular episode of "The Goon Show", in which the phone rings several times before a man picks it up. "Hello, hello!" says the man. "Who is speaking?" The voice on the other end says, "It is you who are speaking". "Oh", replies the first man, "I thought I recognized the voice". And he hangs up. Kyr Kallistos likens our relationship with God to that phone call. The phone rings, and we are too busy talking into the receiver to listen to the voice at the other end. Instead, we hear our own voice, perceive it as the voice of God, and hang up on Him. To perceive what God is saying, the prerequisite is the ability to listen.

[William Tighe]

"An example of dissention with an informed conscience would be Maximos the Confessor's stand against the Henotikon."

I think you men the Ecthesis of 638, Stuart, rather than the Henotikon of 484.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I think you men the Ecthesis of 638, Stuart, rather than the Henotikon of 484.<<<

Can't tell your heresies without a scorecard.

[Ethan Cordray]

Thank you, Stuart. I find your last post to be a word of nuance and conciliation necessary to this discussion.

Brother Dominick, your quote from Thomas a Kempis was helpful as well.

Humility is the seed of kindness.

[Ethan Cordray]

Also, this conversation must be high in the running for "Most number of topics covered in a single thread" on MC.

[Gene Godbold]

Maybe Ethan, but we still haven't talked about depleted uranium saucepans.

[Judy Warner]

Now you have.

[luthien (the adverb addict)]

>>>Not in this case. I dislike fools, and I dislike liars, and I have a nasty tendency to tell them both exactly what I think of them.<<<
Why indulge a nasty tendency then? Gene is right; listen to him. It's not right to wipe someone's face in the dirt once you've got them down, and you really do have Francesca pretty well beaten. If anything, she's to be commended for having the nerve to try to argue with you and for having kept at it with such spirit. *ducks out of this thread*

[Bill R]

Will anyone ever Google "depleted uranium saucepans"?

[Echo]

What an adorable discussion.

"For how many has the Constitution sunk below a thing of contempt, to become nothing but a dead letter, along with all other venerable American traditions?"

The US Constitution has no more nor less to do with modern America than the film "Troy" has to do with Homer's Iliad.

"I mean that the virtue of patriotism, which is linked to a sense of belonging to this land, here, and loving it, a virtue that did not begin with the nation-state but could at least survive in it, is fading away."

"America", as the term is used in public discourse, is not a place. It is a proposition, a philosophy -- an ideology.

I believe Lewis has a discussion on the topic of patriotism in "The Four Loves", which marks a distinction between jingoistic nationalism versus genuine & earthy patriotism.

But then, what would I know ... I'm not part of y'all's cute little high-church Beltway-bandit club.

[Bill R]

"I'm not part of y'all's cute little high-church Beltway-bandit club."

Say what?

[Judy Warner]

You're welcome to join, Echo; there are no membership dues. That is, you're welcome to join the actual club, not the one of your fantastic description.

[GL]

The US Constitution has no more nor less to do with modern America than the film "Troy" has to do with Homer's Iliad.

Echo,

What do you mean by this sentence? Please elaborate.

[GL]

I accidentally posted the on the wrong thread.

What is the record for most replies to a thread? This has to be getting close. (Of course, if the replies must relate to the original post, that would be another matter. ;-))

[Gene Godbold]

Echo,
I don't mind incense, but I'm not particularly high church. And I live in the boonies of central Virginia with a passel of children. Forcing me to live within the Beltway would be sentencing me to hell on earth.

Stuart may live within the Beltway and is a Byzantine Catholic--I don't suppose you can get much higher church than that. Judy lives outside the Beltway in Virginia and is Anglican. James A is Anglican but lives in Philly. Bill R lives in L.A. (God help him) and is probably the lowest in churchmanship of any of the regulars. GL lives in Memphis and is sort of a high-church Presbyterian. (Would you agree with this GL?). Ethan is an evangelical who will probably find himself in an Orthodox congregation before he's 30, but I'm not sure where he lives--I know he went to Wheaton. Luthien (our precocious adolescent) is Orthodox and lives somewhere in Pennsylvania. All this is to illustrate that I don't think your language is accurate unless you're using it as an (uncharitable) sneer term. (Which you shouldn't do. :-)

[Gene Godbold]

Hey, no, I forgot Bobby. He's probably the lowest church guy here. Professor Winters is a Methodist who lives in freakin' Kansas! Professionally, though, he's a mathodist.

[GL]

Gene,

I would call it "mid-church." It is definitely high church for an evangelical -- my in-laws are appalled by it all, even accusing me of taking their daughter and grandchildren to a Catholic church ;-) -- but Stuart and James A. would laugh so hard that they might do themselves harm were I to call it high church.

[GL]

Gene,

Don't forget David Gray. He joins Bill R. and me as the Reformed trio here. We were all predestined to be a part of this "Beltway" cabal.

[Gene Godbold]

I don't know where he lives, but I don't think it's D.C. (Sorry, David)

[Bill R]

"...but Stuart and James A. would laugh so hard that they might do themselves harm were I to call it high church."

Hey, I'm high church. You oughta see how tall our belltower is! And it's on a hill too...

"Mathodist"--heh!

[Ethan Cordray]

I'm in central Missouri, so unless you're calling Route 66 the "Beltway"...

And Gene's right that I'm a "wanna be" high churcher, currently attending an EFCA where my parents play rock music on the worship team.

We're not all like Stuart (though we love him)!

[CS]

Finishing what we start is a noble goal--but is there any point at which we might wonder whether it were really just to pursue this goal? Any number of civilian casualties? The establishment of a Shiite theocracy, or any government in which the practice of Christianity were illegal? Our vaunted Green Zone is littered with garbage and body parts. Iraq is not some chrysalis, waiting to burst forth with the dewy wings of freedom and democracy, if only we will hold fast for however many more months. When people speak of finishing the job, what do they mean? That's a bit more important that the sentiment that a quitter never wins.

I want an honorable solution, and as a citizen I will support good-faith efforts to achieve it. But I also want the people who brought us to this pass--400 billion dollars spent, the destruction of the social order of a nation, the staggering civilian casualty count, the wanton misuse of our excellent military--I want them out of power. The fact that they have yet to achieve their objective does not entitle them to extra innings. This is not a code for voting Democrat, by the way--something I have not done recently--but I'll be examining the candidates with great care in the upcoming election year, as I suppose everyone will.

I remember the very day I sat listening to Bush speak after 9/11. In making the case for a forceful response in Iraq, I heard him tell of pilotless drones and other threats that made it imperative to proceed. I can clearly remember gripping the arms of my chair tightly and saying "please, please, don't be inflating this..." And yet, this story, like so many others, was inflated. It's easy for us of conservative temperament to say that other nations didn't want to join us in this adventure because they were shot through with soixante-huitards at the highest levels of government, but it seems clear enough in hindsight that they were wiser to wait. We don't really believe that that footlocker full of Sarin was about to kill 68,000,000 people, and after the expense of our blood and treasure we are no safer from the next one.

If we care about the part the Nation plays in our loyalties (I do), then we must do our part to ensure that the instrument of war is used considerably more solemnly than it has been in this case.

[JohnD]

This has to be one of the best threads I have followed! I must admit, given the core group who generally post, Echo's Beltway comment was a bit humorous, if intended to be more cynical.

[Ethan Cordray]

Anybody know where Rob Grano is from?

I somehow think this thread will the the only google result for "depleted uranium saucepan" for some time, once the spiders find it.

[David Gray]

>I don't know where he lives, but I don't think it's D.C. (Sorry, David)

Home is over 100 miles north of St Paul Minnesota. Not where I reside for the moment but rectification of that problem is in sight.

[Gene Godbold]

What?! That's like almost Canada isn't it? Lake Wobegone territory?

[GL]

Finishing what we start is a noble goal--but is there any point at which we might wonder whether it were really just to pursue this goal? Any number of civilian casualties? * * * I want an honorable solution, and as a citizen I will support good-faith efforts to achieve it. But I also want the people who brought us to this pass--400 billion dollars spent, the destruction of the social order of a nation, the staggering civilian casualty count, the wanton misuse of our excellent military--I want them out of power.

I just looked up the supposed civilian body count from our more than four years in Iraq on http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ and found the following numbers: 62417 minimum and 68428 maximum.

I know that I have mentioned this before, but I'll do it again. My father fought in the Battle for Manila during WWII, a battle that is not even remembered by many Americans. That battle (a single battle mind you, not a war) which lasted a month (a month mind you, not more than four years) resulted in an estimated 100,000+ civilian dead. The war of which the Battle for Manila was a small part resulted in more than 50,000,000 dead. The one common factor between the civilian deaths in Iraq and during the Battle for Manila is that they were at the hand of our enemies, not us.

This beating of our chest over body counts is a very dangerous development. Of course, any deaths are sad and tragic, but casualties in a more than four year war of the size we have witnessed are small relative to past American wars and are minuscule compared to those sustained during WWII. If our War against Islamofascism is worth fighting, we are going to have to accept casualties. If we cannot, then much more has been lost than the war in Iraq and we, as a nation, are in deep trouble.

[David Gray]

>That's like almost Canada isn't it?

Much, much better...

>Lake Wobegone territory?

Thereabouts...

[David Gray]

>This beating of our chest over body counts is a very dangerous development.

Correct. It is used by hellish Islamofascists and hardcore leftists to manipulate gullible people.

[Judy Warner]

Gene, I'm in western Maryland, not Virginia. Many of us here would like to secede from the rest of Maryland and join Virginia, though.

[CS]

I can read, mind you.

It seems we have in common ancestors who fought valiantly in World War II.

Concern over the cost in life of a foreign policy is not the exclusive preserve of leftists and Islamofascists (as you call them).

You're quite happy with the conduct of this war? What denouement are you expecting?

I'll leave it to others to decide which of our posts was the more chest-beating (perhaps you meant breast-beating).

I remember reading this back when it came out. Back then, it seemed to me that a military adventure was worthwhile if it could solve the unsolved problem of Saddam Hussein. But in hindsight I have to say that these words have stuck with me:

To confess that you have inadequate information and that your attempts to assess the likely geopolitical outcomes of planned military action are almost certain to be wrong will not come easily if you belong to the chattering classes. What will come easily is the bombast of false certainty and the misplaced confidence of the self-styled expert.

[GL]

You're quite happy with the conduct of this war? What denouement are you expecting?

No. I have thought from the beginning that "shock and awe" should have been followed with annihilation of any group that refused to lay down their arms and live in peace. On this score, I have been with McCain: send in enough resources to beat the enemy into submission.

As to a conclusion in Iraq, I have to confess that I have been of the mind of Joe Biden well before I ever heard him propose it: Iraq will need to be partitioned into three spheres (one for the Sunnis, one for the Shiites, and one for the Kurds) under a lose confederation, with some resource sharing of oil revenues and each with enough armaments to defend itself against the other two. Iraq was a fiction from its inception, pasted together from incompatible parts by the British before they went home. It was destined to be either at war with itself or under the thumb of a strong man who maintained peace via fear. Saddam was the latter; the present situation is the former. We will need to implement what the Brits should have done 75 years ago.

Having said that, I am no military expert and Stuart might have some ideas in this regard that I would certainly give a lot of consideration.

[David Gray]

>Iraq will need to be partitioned into three spheres

It is hard to see Turkey tolerating that. Iraq was never likely to wind up an example of ordered liberty given the barbarous state of most of its residents. Some sort of relative hardline government would be required. But it could be something well superior to Saddam and certainly something less poisonous to US interests.

[Bill R]

"Ethan is an evangelical who will probably find himself in an Orthodox congregation before he's 30."

Ethan Skywalker,

Fear not, the Evangelical Force is with you. We won't let the white-garbed Darthodox lure you over to the Other Side!

Faithfully,
Bill R2D2

[GL]

It is hard to see Turkey tolerating that.

That is likely one of the primary reasons it has not been done, but then the U.S. must do what is in our national interest. If I recall, the Turkish support was lukewarm at best and certainly did not earn it the right to foreclose that option. It will, of course, leave it with a problem as to its own Kurdish population.

[GL]

I will say this of David's proposal, it is a realistic alternative. Democracy of Iraq is a Wilsonian dream that one would have hoped the Bush Administration would have rejected from the start.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>But I also want the people who brought us to this pass--400 billion dollars spent, the destruction of the social order of a nation, the staggering civilian casualty count, the wanton misuse of our excellent military--I want them out of power. <<<

They are. Saddam and his principal henchmen are dead.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Having said that, I am no military expert and Stuart might have some ideas in this regard that I would certainly give a lot of consideration.<<<

It is interesting that, as part of a war game scenario I did in the middle '90s for the U.S. Army, I postulated a partitioned Iraq, with a Kurdish north, a Shiite south, and a rump Sunni state around Baghdad. However, that Shiite state under Iranian domination represented in my scenario the primary threat to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. The objective of the scenario was a U.S.-Saudi defense of the Saudi oil fields against an Iranian-led invasion via southern Iraq, with additional attacks on the UAE by Iranian naval forces. If I was doing it over today, I would add in a big dose of "asymmetrical" warfare, including terrorist attacks.

The partition of Iraq makes perfect sense if one looks solely at Iraq. If the Kurds, the Shiites and the Sunnis were separated, they would not be at each others' throats. However, once you step back and look at the regional implications, it becomes a lot less attractive. It would extend Iranian influence into the Arabian peninsula, letting the genie out of the bottle. It would create an independent Kurdish state that would be seen by both Iran and Turkey as a magnet for their own Kurdish separatist movements. It would provide Syria with access to Iraqi oil, which would render that country less amenable to international pressure regarding Lebanon and Israel. And of course, you have to consider that either the Sunni rump state or the Iranian puppet state--or both!--would quickly become safe havens for al Qaeda, Hezbollah and other Islamist terrorist organizations. Think Taliban Afghanistan, but thrust into the center of the Middle East. Not a good prospect.

In any case, I have no idea why everyone is so gloomy about our prospects in Iraq. We are in fact winning. We could win more quickly if we eliminated terrorist sanctuaries in Syria and Iran, but even with them we are winning. Victory is not determined on the battlefield, but inside the minds of the opposing commanders. The great secret is not to lose your nerve, especially in counter-insurgency warfare.

[David Gray]

>In any case, I have no idea why everyone is so gloomy about our prospects in Iraq.

The quality of American political leadership?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>It is hard to see Turkey tolerating that. Iraq was never likely to wind up an example of ordered liberty given the barbarous state of most of its residents. <<<

People said that about Japan, too.

>>>Some sort of relative hardline government would be required. But it could be something well superior to Saddam and certainly something less poisonous to US interests.<<<

That is the general idea.

[David Gray]

>People said that about Japan, too.

With less reason.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I will say this of David's proposal, it is a realistic alternative. Democracy of Iraq is a Wilsonian dream that one would have hoped the Bush Administration would have rejected from the start.<<<

Based on this reasoning, would I be correct in assuming that you would have endorsed the Morgenthau Plan in 1945?

[David Gray]

>Based on this reasoning, would I be correct in assuming that you would have endorsed the Morgenthau Plan in 1945?

Because all those German Lutherans and Catholics were pretty much indistinguishable from all those Iraqi Sunni and Shia?

[GL]

Stuart,

Do I take it that you believe that a genuine democracy in an integrated Iraq has a good prospect of success in the next half dozen years?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Do I take it that you believe that a genuine democracy in an integrated Iraq has a good prospect of success in the next half dozen years?<<<

As much a chance as a genuine democracy in an integrated United States had in the dozen years between 1775 and 1787. Or, if you prefer, in the 87 years between 1776 and 1863.

[CS]

misuse of our excellent military--I want them out of power.

They are. Saddam and his principal henchmen are dead.

Nope. They could have, and should have, been dealt with orders of magnitude more efficiently. It's not difficult to imagine scenarios in which their influence was neutralized wihtout our becoming physically enmeshed in the hateful anarchy that is contemporary Iraq. Being of a scientific mindset, I'm sure such scenarios have occurred to you, especially since you know the difference between Sunni and Shiite, which reportedly not every senior decisionmaker did at critical junctures. It seems we've been "winning" for at least two years. Looks like we've got more good years of winning ahead! Clink of the glass to ya'.

I'm happy to disagree with you about the wisdom of this war. I am hardly burning with unalterable certainty about the rightness of my own position, and I note that you bring special expertise to the question. You are sanguine (to the point of occasionally sounding like a Bond villain): good for your blood pressure. All's not lost.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>'m happy to disagree with you about the wisdom of this war. <<<

I'm sure you have a well-considered and factually based reason for so doing.

>>>Being of a scientific mindset, I'm sure such scenarios have occurred to you, especially since you know the difference between Sunni and Shiite, which reportedly not every senior decisionmaker did at critical junctures.<<<

Well, see, there ya go. Everything you think you know about Shia and Sunni is wrong, particularly in Iraq. Sorry to burst your bubble.

>>>Looks like we've got more good years of winning ahead!<<<

COIN is like watching paint dry. Better get used to it--insurgency is the form all wars will take for the next several decades at least. We ensured that, by becoming so good at "conventional" war. So, unless you want us to retreat within our borders and never poke our noses outside, we'd better get good at winning against insurgents. Starting NOW. Because if we lose this one, the next one will be in YOUR backyard.

[Francesca]

>>"If you love Me you will keep My commandments".

Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Apr 24, 2007 9:22:35 PM<<

Are you sure you didn't mean to use a lower-case "m"?

[Francesca]

GL writes: >>This beating of our chest over body counts is a very dangerous development. Of course, any deaths are sad and tragic, but casualties in a more than four year war of the size we have witnessed are small relative to past American wars and are minuscule compared to those sustained during WWII. If our War against Islamofascism is worth fighting, we are going to have to accept casualties. If we cannot, then much more has been lost than the war in Iraq and we, as a nation, are in deep trouble.<<

Except that the war in Iraq was not about Islamofascism. In fact, nobody seems to be quite sure what is is about anymore.

[Francesca]

Luthien writes: >>Why indulge a nasty tendency then? Gene is right; listen to him. It's not right to wipe someone's face in the dirt once you've got them down, and you really do have Francesca pretty well beaten. If anything, she's to be commended for having the nerve to try to argue with you and for having kept at it with such spirit. *ducks out of this thread*<<

Thank you, Luthien, but I don't feel I'm beaten at all:-)I just have very little time to read anything this week, never mind to respond. In terms of dealing with Stuart, I think David R. might be wise to simply state his case and disengage. Stuart appears to be so much more political than professional that it seems impossible for him to be objective. Also I find it distasteful and rather sad -- not to mention extremely boring -- to read his insults and his proclamations of personal infallibility. Cliches about mud-wrestling with pigs and being gummed by newts come to mind. I prefer to give him a pass for the same reasons I prefer not to listen to Imus.

As an example, take his comments about Darius the Great. In this post, he revealed a tendency to get a little bit right but a lot wrong. His claim that Islamic jihadism might be a continuation of the defeat of Darius' troops was simply absurd for any (self-proclaimed) military expert to make, given that Darius lived about a millennium before the founding of Islam! Then I recall some crack he made about "dirty, little Arabs" (this from someone filled with high-minded outrage about Mencken's supposed anti-semitism) and one wonders how much cultural and anti-Islamic prejudice was behind this blooper and how rational such a person could be about world events.

[Francesca]

Dominic writes: >>An unquestioning docile obedience to Church hierarchy is a foolish notion. Take any Commenter on here and ask them if they would lay their hand on their heart and one hand on the Catechism of the Catholic Church and swear before God that they believe and practise it all, and there would be few takers, if any. <<

And even if 100% of the US population practised such deference and formed a pure Roman Catholic theocracy as a result, people would still disagree vociferously because there are so many situations that are not explicitly covered by the Catechism and require sincere consideration and discernment.

[Francesca]

James writes: >>To restate it, for a Catholic Christian, moral decisions are made in accordance with the teaching of Scripture and Tradition as normative, not as a merely advisory reference that one can accept or reject as one pleases. That is why the RC Church has something called the Magisterium, after all. And once again, you try here to evade the main subject of debate – whether one creates one's own standards, or accepts the teachings of the Church as divinely guided.<<

And primacy of conscience is a very old and traditional teaching of the Church, not "a merely advisory reference that one can accept or reject as one pleases." If you reject this, it's you who is cherry-picking from Church teachings. If you want to be legalistic, at least be consistent.

>>"Maintaining integrity of conscience is a personal responsibility."

True – but a conscience that is not properly formed does not have integrity<<

I haven't disagreed. In fact integrity is a very important part of the process of both forming and following conscience. It would be fundamentally dishonest to disobey the sincere dictates of one's conscience.

>>"This leads to the danger that one might 'humbly submit' to someone else's *interpretation* of the teachings of the Church or that one might deliberately violate one's own conscience in the name of submission to authority."

Mostly wrong. First, it is not a danger is undertaken with proper spiritual guidance. <<

The Catechism is absolutely unambiguous on this matter. Article 1782 asserts "man's right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions." How does this in any way contradict anything I've said?

>>What is there within your method to stop you from creating standards that assert preborn babies can be aborted, sodomites can marry one another, the elderly can be euthanized, etc., etc., if you so wish and no one else has moral authority to gainsay you? Your principle is exactly the one that has given rise to these things – women who declare that they can “control their own bodies”; people who assert that they can choose when and how they die, and others, too (“for their own good”, of course); same-sex couple who declare they it is up to them to define “love”; etc.<<

It's definitely a danger. Before you know it moral relativists will be throwing out vast chunks of established Church teaching -- for example, the Church's full teaching on conscience -- just because they think nobody else has moral authority to gainsay them. Why, they might even be supporting the death penalty or unjust wars that result in tens of thousands of deaths and untold human misery.

>>Third, what makes you suppose that someone else’s interpretation of Scripture or the teachings of the Church aren’t better than your own? Do you really think you’re smarter than everyone else? Didn’t you ever learn anything from teachers in school? As G. K. Chesterton said, in direct opposition to you, “A Catholic is a person who knows that someone else is smarter than he is.”<<

A little projection at work here?

>>And you still haven't answered *my* question, Francesca. The passage you cite about freedom to "PERSONALLY make moral decisions" does *not* either say or even remotely mean that Catholic Christians may “create one’s own values system.”<<

*Discerning* the law of God is not the same thing as *creating* the law of God. *However*, based on such discernment, one most certainly *should* create a personal value system (please let's not ALL confuse our personal value system with the law of God.)

>>Apparently you don’t grasp an obvious point. If no one but God can judge you to be right or wrong (which is not what either Scripture or the Catechism says), then the logical corollary is that no one (either a person, a government, or any other agency) can hold you accountable and punish you for anything that you do. That is what every claim of moral autonomy reduces to – a claim to a license to do anything, no matter how evil, with impunity.<<

This argument is so clearly specious that I don't quite know where to start. I would suggest that moral robotism or apathy reduce to "a claim to a license to do anything, no matter how evil, with impunity." Moral freedom does not imply civil anarchy or the abolishment of civil law. Civil law is not the same as moral law. To quote from Veritatis Splendor:

41. Man's "genuine moral autonomy" in no way means the rejection but rather the acceptance of the moral law, of God's command: "The Lord God gave this command to the man. . . " (Gen 2:16). "Human freedom and God's law meet and are called to intersect," in the sense of man's free obedience to God and of God's completely gratuitous benevolence towards man. Hence obedience to God is not, as some would believe, a "heteronomy," as if the moral life were subject to the will of something all-powerful, absolute, extraneous to man and intolerant of his freedom. If in fact a heteronomy of morality were to mean a denial of man's self-determination or the imposition of norms unrelated to his good, this would be in contradiction to the Revelation of the Covenant and of the redemptive Incarnation. Such a heteronomy would be nothing but a form of alienation, contrary to divine wisdom and to the dignity of the human person.

>>Your assertion simply seeks once again to hold that no one else that God can hold you accountable. Never mind all that Scripture says about due obedience to authorities duly ordained by God, including parents, teachers, and magistrates.<<

It is God who ultimately decides the fate of our souls (which is quite different from being held accountable by a civil authority.) And if my parents and teachers are pro-abortion, in what sense do I owe them due obedience?

>>1776: “Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey.” Note: “discovers”, not “creates”; and discovered “within his conscience”; one does not create one’s own conscience either.<<

In this and your comments on the other articles, you again confuse discerning universal principles with creating a value system that prioritizes and utilizes these principles within complex and ambiguous situations.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Are you sure you didn't mean to use a lower-case "m"?<<<

That would be your ecclesiology, not mine, Francesca.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Stuart appears to be so much more political than professional that it seems impossible for him to be objective.<<<

Excuse me? I cite sources, I provide numbers, I deal in facts. You respond with drivel such as this, and constantly sing the refrain "Everybody knows. . . " I have to assume that by "objective" you mean my views must necessarily accord with yours. Which is why you are a solipsist at heart. Want to change my mind? Provide me with an analysis built of something a little more durable than tissue paper.

[Rob Grano]

"Anybody know where Rob Grano is from?"

Pittsburgh, Pa., born, raised, and still here, by choice, mostly. I hate the very thought of living anywhere near the Beltway, let alone in it.

[Gene Godbold]

Good for you, Rob, it's a sign of sanity.

[Rob Grano]

Thanks, Gene -- I need all the signs of sanity I can get.

Pittsburgh, by the way, was just voted "Most Livable City" by the Places Rated Almanac; this is the first time since 1985 it's been No. 1, but it has consistently been ranked in the top 20 every year since then, the only city to do so. There are 379 cities considered in the ratings.

[Ethan Cordray]

>>"To the common man, all religions are equally true; to the philosopher equally false; and to the politician equally useful".<<

Mostly due to the Iron City Beer, no doubt. :-)

[Ethan Cordray]

>>Are you sure you didn't mean to use a lower-case "m"?<<

Francesca, what exactly do you mean by this?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Francesca, what exactly do you mean by this?<<<

Aw, come on, Ethan. Miss Francesca politely suggested that I should elevate myself to the second person in the Trinity. I politely decline the offer, though.

>>>Mostly due to the Iron City Beer, no doubt. :-)<<<

"Ahrn" is the official beer of the Byzantine Ruthenian Catholic Church.

>>>Pittsburgh, by the way, was just voted "Most Livable City" by the Places Rated Almanac; this is the first time since 1985 it's been No. 1, but it has consistently been ranked in the top 20 every year since then, the only city to do so. <<<

Due to the proximity of Kennywood, no doubt (official amusement park of the Byzantine Ruthenian Catholic Church).

[Rob Grano]

As an unapologetic beer snob, I'll drink "Ahrn" only by necessity! Fortunately, we also have the Penn Brewery which does some good craft brews. I once gave Fr. Reardon a six-pack of their seasonal 'St Nicholas Bock' for Christmas. Seemed appropriate, on more than one level.

[Steve Nicoloso]

Just remember that two cents is eight cents short of a paradigm.

Isn't that 18 cents short?

[GL]

Except that the war in Iraq was not about Islamofascism. In fact, nobody seems to be quite sure what is is about anymore.

Francesca,

A little history. In 1991, Saddam's Iraq invaded and "absorbed" Kuwait. An international coalition came to the defense of Kuwait and drove Iraq back into its borders, creating no-fly zones in the north and the south of Iraq to keep it within its borders and then agreed to a cease fire. A cease fire means that a state of war still exists but that the parties agree to cease active aggressive actions. A breach by any party to a cease fire constitutes a resumption of hostilities. It is, in fact, an act of war against the other side. Throughout the 1990s, Saddam repeatedly and in ever increasing acts of aggression, violated the terms of the cease fire, yet President Clinton refused to reopen hostilities (except for a brief time when he needed to distract the media and the American people from his peccadilloes. That was a bad mistake because it only added to the perception in the Arab world (and particularly among Islamofascists) that America was weak.

Then, 9/11 happened. Saddam celebrated. He continued to violate the terms of the cease fire. He continued his efforts to make the world believe he had or was developing weapons of mass destructions, though he denied this action. The UN sent in inspectors, who could find nothing, but who were constantly having to deal with obstacles put in their way by Saddam. He was playing a game. He openly denied he had weapons of mass destruction, but he acted in such a way that no one could be sure. Former President Clinton believed that Saddam posed a real threat and said so – I know those now opposed to our action in Iraq want to forget that. No one was denying that Saddam was a threat, though there was disagreement as to whether armed action should be taken against him, despite the fact that he was constantly and ever more aggressively violating the terms of the cease fire. Throughout this entire period, that is, since 1991 to March 2003, a state of war existed between the U.S. and Iraq, with our side abiding by the terms of a cease fire since 1992 and the Iraqi side taking actions which justified our resuming hostilities. He continued and even intensified these actions after 9/11. One who takes hostile actions against a nation when it is at war with another become, de facto if not de jure, an ally of the one against whom that nation is at war.

Thus, both by violating the terms of the cease fire from the first Gulf War and by acting in a hostile manner toward the U.S. after 9/11, we were justified in resuming hostilities in a war that began in 1991 and has to date not ceased.