WHO WAS THAT MASKED MAN?
Re: George Neumayr’s Michael Novak at the Stake:
It is a great feeling to have a stranger at a bar suddenly appear at one’s side in the middle of a fight, and land such good blows. Much appreciation to George Neumayr!
— Michael Novak
Re: George Neumayr’s Bishops Are Not the Solution:
“The bishops are not experts on defense policy. They are not even experts on Catholic teaching, as the widespread heresy in their clerical ranks illustrates.”
God Bless George Neumayr!
— Gregory J. Burcher
Bravo! Thank you, Mr. Neumayr.
We are constantly outraged not only at the lack of condemnation of brutal dictators such as Saddam Hussein and Robert Mugabe, but also at the unbelievable tolerance toward pro-abortion prominent Catholics such as Ted Kennedy and Martin Sheen, to name a few.
We thought we were alone in our disgust, but reading your article in the Prowler has given us new hope.
We hope that our liberal bishop Grahmann in Dallas, who managed to physically and spiritually destroy St. Patrick’s Church in Denison, Texas, and his fellow libs such as the one in L.A. with the $200 million monstrosity he calls a church, meet their fate soon. I know for sure that when they die, they won’t be able to con God. He is not an appeaser.
— Patricia Thomas
You have expressed my thoughts about the bishop’s (including the Pope’s) views on the inevitable war against Iraq perfectly. I’m glad I’m not a lone voice crying in the wilderness, although I am willing to be if necessary.
It seems that very few Catholics are speaking in favor of war being “just” these days. Conservative Catholics (i.e.: the current issue of the Remnant) have joined with the Pope, bishops, socialists, communists and flower-children in opposing the war (at least with Iraq, if not the “war on terror”).
I have submitted a letter to the editor of the Remnant expressing my ideas on this subject and taking exception to its current headline: “Bush’s War to ‘Liberate’ Iraq.”
— Joseph Sheppard
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
2308. “All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war. However, as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense once all peace efforts have failed.”
2309. “The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
“–The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave and certain.
“–all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective.
“–there must be serious prospects of success
“–the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition
“These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called ‘the Just War’ doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgement of those who have responsibility for the common good.”
2310. “Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense. Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duties honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.”
2321. “The prohibition of murder does not abrogate the right to render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. Legitimate defense is a grave duty for whoever is responsible for the lives of others or the common good.”
As far as I’m concerned, the current situation is applicable in all of these paragraphs quoted directly from the Catechism. From my view as a devout Roman Catholic, President Bush is doing the right thing.
— Todd Harshman
I appreciate your points on the war. I agree with a few of them, BUT,
Development of doctrine is in no way a euphemism for distortion of doctrine. It’s basically taking things that have changed in the world, and incorporating them into the infallible teaching of the Church. Now, whether a proposed development is okay or not requires thought, but a general condemning of all development is inappropriate.
Also, St. Thomas Aquinas, for all his skill, was not infallible on doctrinal matters. But, you are right that considering war an intrinsic evil has little justification in Church teaching.
The Bishops are quite often not trying to smuggle in pacifism either. Rather, they are more often trying to smuggle in approval by the U.N. being necessary for military actions. The idea of an organization of the community of nations being necessary is in the Catholic Catechism, but having them have to approve every action in self-defense that a sovereign nation takes is a distortion.
And finally, the Bishops should present just-war teaching, and, if necessary, where a President’s actions would indicate a breach, since that’s part of the teachings of the Catholic Church. But, your points on Bishops’ undue faith in weapons inspectors and Saddam is well taken. They may not know what they’re talking about, but they should know better than this, for the sake of the Church and the world.
— Joe Marier
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://thespectator.com/world.