But He's a Catholic....

Jerod Patterson writes at Frontpage.com about the political controversy that arose between Evangelicals supporting either Gov. Huckabee (a former Southern Baptist pastor) or Sen. Brownback (a former Evangelical now Roman Catholic).  The "Catholic card" it seems may be played against Brownback, though Huckabee won't have any of it, calling Brownback his "Chrisitan brother."

I've met Brownback and have heard him speak and give his testimony. I don't see why he should have any problem with (most!) Evangelicals when it comes to his "Catholic" faith being a "turn off." (No endorsement implied.) One may have a perfectly orthodox and sincere faith and be a very inept governor, so I do not look for theological orthodoxy in candidates, but I do expect it from clergy. 

(Thanks, Judy Warner!)

Comments

[Judy Warner]

Anyone who writes for a living knows that it's not only easy, it's a great relief, to turn out reams of words on any subject other than that on which he is supposed to be writing. Or for that matter to do anything else at all. I have accomplished great feats of weeding while avoiding putting words on the page.

[William Wilcox]

TUAD said: "Lastly, sometimes the only Path to Peace is through War. It's a paradox, but it's true. A total war that extinguishes the will of the enemy."

C.S. Lewis from God in the Dock: “If war is ever lawful, then peace is sometimes sinful”

H.S. Truman: "The absence of war is not peace"

“I learned that a great leader is a man who has the ability to get other people to do what they don't want to do and like it”

[Judy Warner]

My comment wasn't meant to minimize Stuart's obviously awesome posting ability. Just to affirm the motive behind it.

[Beth]

Oh, yes, Judy -- I have even been known to wash the coffee stains from the tables in our writing center to avoid writing myself. This does not, of course, enhance my (desired) reputation for avoiding domestic work at all costs, and sets up all kinds of (unfulfilled) expectations in my (male) colleagues' minds. But it's worth it. As for reams of words that are not on topic -- oh, yes, to that, too. I do wish my avoidance writing came out as clearly and coherently as Stuart's does, though . . . :)

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Dude, you da man when it comes to prodigious written output that's of A-1 quality in a short period of time.

I stand in awe of your God-given talent.<<<

Thanks. Ninety percent of writing is applying the seat of the pants to the seat of the chair (the other half is mental, to paraphrase Yogi). The problem with writing for a living is you can't always write about what you want or what interests you. As I tell my daughters, I write term papers for a living, about one term paper every other day or so.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>H.S. Truman: "The absence of war is not peace"<<<

Peace is a theoretical condition that man has deduced from the fact that there are intervals between wars. Or, to quote Thyucidides, "Only the dead have seen the end of war".

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>But it's worth it. As for reams of words that are not on topic -- oh, yes, to that, too. I do wish my avoidance writing came out as clearly and coherently as Stuart's does, though . . . :)<<<

Actually, this helps quite a bit. Kind of like when you lose your keys and are driving yourself (and your family) nuts looking for them. Stop looking, do something else, and soon you'll spot the keys lying out on the counter where you put them an hour or so before. When I run into a block, I do something else--it might be writing something else, or reading a book unrelated to the topic, or doing mindless chores (last time this happened, I built an entire basement workroom for myself). Meanwhile, I guess the composition process is going on in the background, and when it has resolved itself, I can put down my distractions, sit in front of the screen, and turn out the finished product in one sitting. It's a gift--and a curse!

[Ethan C.]

>>Who was the legitimate authority in the American Revolution?<<

I know this one! His Majesty King George III, By the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, Prince-Elector of Hannover, Duke of Brunswick.

Not that I'm ungrateful that he magnanimously granted us our independence in 1783...:-)

[Judy Warner]

Ethan, would you really like to be looking forward to Charles, Defender of the Faiths, being your next sovereign?

[GL]

Judy,

If Elizabeth II stays around as long as her mother, the next sovereign may be William V, sparing the Brits the embarrassment you suggested.

[Bill R]

"Ethan, would you really like to be looking forward to Charles, Defender of the Faiths, being your next sovereign?"

Actually, Judy, I think it's now, "Charles, Defender of Faith, or, um, Whatever."

[Judy Warner]

I said "faiths" not "faith" because that's what Charles has now decided to call himself. And I don't think he means to add Judaism as the second faith he's defending.

[Joe Long]

" >>>H.S. Truman: "The absence of war is not peace"<<<

Peace is a theoretical condition that man has deduced from the fact that there are intervals between wars. Or, to quote Thyucidides, 'Only the dead have seen the end of war'."

Somebody has to quote that repentent Yankee, Amborse Bierce, here:

"Peace (n.): In international affairs, the period of cheating which comes between two period of fighting."

Neither that sort of peace, nor the (generally illusory) "absence of war" variety, is the sort Biblical references to "peace" generally mean...

[Conor]

Reading these comments on the moral conduct of the victors of WWII and the American Civil War, I hear the words of Tacitus echo down the centuries:

"Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant"

[James A. Altena]

Dear Stuart,

I agree with much of your military analysis [including not only Hiroshima -- and I'll throw in Dresden as well -- but also your backing Sherman against Joe Long, who loses here just as his champions Lee, et al. deservedly lost in 1865. ;-)]

You missed my point, however. When it comes to doctrinal theology -- e.g. the Trinity, the Incarnation, etc. -- you are always ready to quote the Fathers and Tradition at length (as you should). But when it comes to moral theology, that suddenly disappears, and you make appeals solely to worldly criteria of succes, convenience, pragmatism or practicality. The problem is that morality has universal principles -- principles handed down from God in the Scriptures and through the Fathers.

I've asked this before, and I'll ask it again -- show me passages in the Scriptures and the Fathers where it says that worldly success, convenience, and practicality shall be one's guidng criteria in place of universal moral norms. Show me where it says that Christian moral principles may be set aside when it comes to political elections or war, in order for our side to "win". A "win" that, if it disobeys God-given principles, is no win, but the worst of all possible defeats, for it seeks to gain the world at the cost of losing one's soul.

I am always amazed at those Christians I encounter (including my own parish) who appeal to worldly criteria of "success" or "practicality" at the expense of obedience to the moral principles taught in the Gospel. It never seems to occur to them that going against the express will of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God is as impractical as one can get, and that their disobedience will find them out in the end.

So, it's worth looking at relevant parts of your post, Stuart:

">>>What remains most disturbing, Stuart, is your cavalier Machiavellian "moral" attitude that we can excuse or accept any sin so long as we think we'll get what we want in wordly terms. But what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his soul? <<<

"That's a question for each man to ask himself."

True -- but not a question for each man to devise his own criteria for action in disregard or disobedience to those moral principles given by God.

"If it is a major concern to a person, then assuredly he should not seek positions of political or military responsibility."

It is commanded by God to be a major concern to every man. The person who assumes such reponsibilitites should strive to fulfill Christian principles in them, and be prepared to step down from his office if secular powers order him fundamentally to disobey those. [Suppose the entire German General Staff had refused Hitler's orders to invade Poland?]

"Once having done so, however, perhaps the state of his soul is more closely connected to how well they perform the duties which they have accepted. In other words, the secular ruler, having assumed responsibility for the welfare of his people, must ensure the welfare of his people. If he decides to go to war, the reasons for doing so must be proper; and having entered into a war, his first responsibility is to win it."

No argument here with the wording. The problem is that you seem to conceive the "duties", "proper" reasons, and "welfare of his people" only or primarily in terms of proximate worldly criteria quite apart from Scripture and Tradition, rather than primarily in terms of an obedience to God which then determines what the worldly criteria should be.

"it is the same with the military commander. Having been ordered into combat, he must first ascertain that the orders he has received are proper (the German military, for instance, made its first error in obeying Hitler's order to invade Poland, which was neither justified nor in the best interests of Germany--as many recognized at that time)."

The great ambiguity is what you mean by "proper", which again you seem to define largely in terms of worldly "success" rather than obedience to universal moral law.

"Having taken his men into battle, his foremost responsibility is to lead them to victory, or, if the fortunes of war have gone against them, and further resistance is futile, to preserve their lives both for their own sake and for the future good of the nation."

But that foremost responsibility cannot be defined absolutely, with disregard to divinely mandated universal moral principles. Taken absolutely, it would justify e.g. having soldiers slaughter of thousands of Jewish concentration camp inmates and complete obliteration of any trace of the camps (as was attempted at the end of WW II) in order "to preserve their lives both for their own sake and for the future good of the nation" by "preserving" them from imprisonment or execution for war crimes to rebuild a war-ravaged Germany. (Yes, it was primarily the SS rather than the Wehrmacht that mostly did this -- but the SS was also a military organization in all but formal name.)

As always, the devil is in the details -- particularly, the details of the definitions of terms.

"In pursuit of those objectives, the military commander is governed by a different set of values and a different moral paradigm than that which pertains in peacetime. This seems to be the part people have trouble grasping: War is NOT like peace. War sets up a different scale of values. Traits admired in peacetime are often worse than useless in war, and the man admirable and successful in peace is often a failure in war (conversely, the great war leader is often a failure once the sword is sheathed."

"In peace, we value introspection and deliberation; in war, we value decisiveness. In peace, we admire mercy; war requires ruthelessness. The war leader must do whatever is required to win victory--and this often entails commiting horrendous acts in the name of 'military necessity'. In war, innocents always suffer and many die. There is no way to wage war that avoids this. As Sherman said, 'War is cruelty. You cannot refine it. The crueler it is, the sooner it is over'. Often, attempts to temper the cruelty of war succeed only in extending its duration, thereby increasing the casualties and the damage to society. War is crude surgery, amputation without anaesthesia, and going slow, or being 'proportional' isn't doing anyone any favors."

I don't disagree with most of the specific details here (excepting one phrase, noted below). The problems here are that:

a) you equivocate on the meaning of "values" between moral criteria and competency ("traits");

b) as Gertrude Himmelfarb has pointed out, the appeal to "values" as opposed to "virtues" or principles, is an appeal to subjective rather than objective criteria. The appeal to subjective "values" is the linchpin of modern cultural and ethical relativism and the overthrow of universal moral norms.

"The war leader must do whatever is required to win victory--and this often entails commiting horrendous acts in the name of 'military necessity'."

No. The ends do not justify the means. To suppose otherwise is as profoundly anti-Christian a principle as one can hold (cf. my example of exterminating Jews above). If you disagree, Stuart, then show me a passage in the Scriptures or the consensus of the Fathers where it is said that the ends justifies the means.

As the moral principle of the "law of double effect" recongizes, there is a difference between the intentional pursuit of a moral end by a means that unintentionally and incidentally entails injury to some innocent party, and the intentional pursuit of an immoral end by means that knowingly and directly inflicts injury to some innocent party.

What your argument implicitly boils down to here is "we can set aside objective moral principles in favor of subjective 'values' in order to get our way and 'win'." Well, Leo Durocher may have thought that "Winning isn't everything; it's the only thing", but that's not a Christian mindset.

On a previous thread a few months back you approvingly quoted some TV show or movie in which one character worried about becoming like the enemy if he employed the same means as the evil enemy, only to be assured, "You couldn't become like them if you tried." That is false. There are some means that are inhernetly neutral, and may be employed to either good or bad ends. But there are others that are inherently immoral, which no Christian can ever employ. (C. S. Lewis points this out in passages in "That Hideous Strength.") And the moment we presume to assure ouselves that we could not become like the evil enemy if we tried, we have in fact taken the decisive step toward becoming that evil enemy ourselves.

Stuart, you have often criticized "just war" theory in Christian theology. But even if it has shortcomings, I find it far preferable to your (I presume idiosyncratic) representation of Eastern theology, which in effect says "When you go to war, do whatever you need to in order to win -- sin boldly -- and we'll absolve you afterwards with a stiff penance." The former both sets a priori moral limits on conduct to prevent and/or limit atrocities and other immoral conduct, and does not presume on God's forgiveness.

Again, I still await your quotations from Scripture or the consensus of the Fathers to demonstrate otherwise.

[Martin]

JW wrote: “So I think it very likely that many great leaders have been great sinners in their personal lives, and that's not even going into the other kinds of corruptions that power leads to.”

Yes. Positional and privilege based power, taken to heart, always corrupts. Absolute power always corrupts absolutely, even if it’s only within a family structure.

I believe our powerful leadership systems create voluminous opportunities for corruption and it is a rare person who can resist the temptations completely. And yet, we need them because of the rampant corruptions of society.

JW wrote: “Leadership is a quality quite separate from goodness. That it may be used for good or ill is obvious, but it is not the same thing.”

Exactly! And it may be that only a small percentage of society possesses it's skills.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>"When you go to war, do whatever you need to in order to win -- sin boldly -- and we'll absolve you afterwards with a stiff penance." <<<

We happen not to think of either sin or redemption in quite that way.

[John Roddy+]

"Good King Hezekiah" as he is called in holy scripture was not a very effective king, but he found favor with God.

The prophet Jeremiah was thrown in prison because he predicted the victory of Babylon over Israel. I think the charges were defeatism and providing aid and comfort to the enemy.

Can Christians have an army and defend themselves? I think so, but the only overtly Christian Army I know of is the Lebanese one, and that one only partially so.

I can accept that the definition of a competent and successful leader (good is too loose a word)is one who is able to fulfill an agenda, but if that agenda is contrary to the will of God I cannot support it.

Eastern Orthodox theologians teach that men will raise armies (non-Christian ones)to fight Antichrist. They also counsel for the faithful not to join those armies because by so doing they would be resisting God's will coming into being. Think on the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonian armies and Jeremiahs' reaction to the certain knowledge that it was the will of God.

We don't seem to learn from pleasure but only from pain.

[James A. Altena]

>>>"When you go to war, do whatever you need to in order to win -- sin boldly -- and we'll absolve you afterwards with a stiff penance." <<<

"We happen not to think of either sin or redemption in quite that way."

Which is why I preceded the quoted statement with "in effect", not with "in doctrinal statement". And if that's what you do in effect, then thoughts and words to the contrary are empty formalities.

I'm still awating your Scriptural and patristic citations that I requested.

[DGP]

The prophet Jeremiah was thrown in prison because he predicted the victory of Babylon over Israel. I think the charges were defeatism and providing aid and comfort to the enemy.

Nice try, but it's more accurate to say that he was backing a horse other than the one preferred by the aristocracy -- that is to say, he demanded submission to the Babylonians rather than the Egyptians.

[John Roddy+]

This is a scene that could only occur in a Christian army. It was not Archbishop Turpin's first fight.

"When Roland felt that the battle came, Lion or leopard to him were tame; He shouted aloud to his Franks, and then Called to his gentle compeer agen. "My friend, my comrade, my Olivier, The Emperor left us his bravest here; Twice ten thousand he set apart, And he knew among them no dastard heart. For his lord the vassal must bear the stress Of the winter's cold and the sun's excess Peril his flesh and his blood thereby: Strike thou with thy good lance - point and I, With Durindana, the matchless glaive Which the king himself to my keeping gave, That he who wears it when I lie cold May say 'twas the sword of a vassal bold."

XCII

Archbishop Turpin, above the rest, Spurred his steed to a jutting crest. His sermon thus to the Franks he spake: "Lords, we are here for our monarch's sake; Hold we for him, though our death should come; Fight for the succor of Christendom. The battle approaches - ye know it well, For ye see the ranks of the infidel. Cry mea culpa, and lowly kneel; I will assoil you, your souls to heal. In death ye are holy martyrs crowned." The Franks alighted, and knelt on ground; In God's high name the host he blessed, And for penance gave them - to smite their best.

XCIII

The Franks arose from bended knee, Assoiled, and from their sins set free; The archbishop blessed them fervently: Then each one sprang on his bounding barb, Armed and laced in knightly garb, Apparelled all for the battle line. At last said Roland, "Companion mine, Too well the treason is now displayed, How Ganelon hath our band betrayed. To him the gifts and the treasures fell; But our Emperor will avenge us well. King Marsil deemeth us bought and sold; The price shall be with our good swords told."

[Ethan C.]

>>Ethan, would you really like to be looking forward to Charles, Defender of the Faiths, being your next sovereign?<<

I think he would edge out Hillary Clinton.