The debate over whether our attack against Iraq satisfied the Church’s standards for a just war brought many surprises. For me, the most intriguing was the curious phenomenon of Catholics on the left scolding those who supported the war effort for not being attentive enough to papal authority.
There were times when I was left scratching my head in perplexity; others when I groaned in exasperation. Talk about cognitive dissonance! The same folks who have made a career of challenging papal authority on abortion, birth control, women priests, sexual morality and the Church’s teaching on how to interpret the Scriptures, became impatient with those who did not agree with the Vatican’s understanding of the implications of a U.S. attack against Iraq. Impatient? At times, they seemed outright nags, questioning the integrity of writers such as George Weigel, who made the case that the war against Iraq met the just war criteria.
Before going further, let me make clear that I am not talking about conservative Catholics, such as Joseph Sobran and Pat Buchanan, who opposed the war. They were not inconsistent in their stance toward Rome. Whatever you think of their views of the war, they did not flip-flop. They were supportive of papal authority before war with Iraq became an issue; they remained supportive when the Pope cast doubts on the morality of a U.S. preemptive strike. My problem is with those Catholics who have championed the right to “dissent” their entire adult lives — until the Bush administration decided to move against Saddam Hussein.
They have some questions to answer, if you ask me. Are these folks hypocrites? Do they sit at night and brood about what they are doing? Do they ask themselves why they — career dissenters — do not respect the right to dissent of those who saw a danger in leaving Saddam Hussein in power? Do they ponder the paradox of their accepting the Church’s authority only when it happens to agree with their point of view? Or are they so caught up in their political enthusiasms that they don’t see the irony in all this? Then again, could it be that they are not as bright as we think, in spite of their university degrees? Perhaps they do not see the hypocrisy of their reversing themselves on the individual Catholic’s obligation to respect papal authority when it became politically expedient for them to do so? Maybe they don’t remember that they were not quoting the Pope when he spoke out against Bill Clinton’s military intervention against the Serbs?
I don’t know the answers these questions, of course. I can’t read minds. I am waiting for one of the Catholic publications that take the liberal position on the issues of the day to explain why it is wise and proper for Catholics to ignore the Pope on birth control, abortion and women priests, but unacceptable to not toe the line on overthrowing Saddam Hussein. I suspect that I will have to wait quite a while.
But can’t the same point be made about Catholics on the right? That they too are inconsistent, preaching for decades the obligation to respect papal authority, but now quibbling because the Pope does not agree with them on what is taking place in Iraq? No. It is not the same. Conservative and traditionalist Catholics who back the Bush administration’s policies on Iraq do not face the same quandary. They are not being inconsistent. They have not flip-flopped on the nature of papal authority.
Why do I say that? Because they do not challenge the just war theory. Their difference with Rome centers on whether Saddam Hussein’s regime was a clear enough threat to the United States, whether all peaceful means of settling the dispute had been exhausted and whether the loss of life, both civilian and military, was proportionate to the war’s objectives. In other words, they accept the just war theory, but disagree with the Vatican over how it should be applied in this case. This is what those who back the individual Catholic’s right to disagree with Rome on the war mean when they say issue is one of “prudential judgement.” It is not a quarrel with the Church’s teachings. It is a disagreement over whether specific U.S. political and military decisions are in line with those teachings.
The same cannot be said about the Church’s teachings that liberal Catholics have challenged over the years. You cannot say that you accept the Church’s teachings on abortion, divorce, married priests, women priests, and sexual morality — but merely disagree on their application, when you challenge the Church. Those who dissent from the Church’s teachings on these matters argue that Rome is wrong; that the fetus is not “fully human”; that the Church is wrong on the all-male priesthood because of the cultural conditions in place when the teaching was enunciated; that the Church is wrong on homosexuality for the same reason; that the Church is wrong on artificial birth control because of the link it makes between sexual relations and procreation.
They question the Church’s teachings; not whether or not they are being applied accurately in a certain set of circumstances. This is a crucial difference. Conservative Catholics who back the war against Iraq have no disagreement with the just war theory as taught by the Church. They have no doctrinal dispute with Rome. Were all peaceful means to settle this dispute exhausted? Peter says yes, Paul says no. No question of faith or morals arises. Was the United States military sufficiently careful to avoid the loss of innocent civilian life? How much collateral damage can be tolerated to achieve the goal of removing the threat that Saddam posed to the United States? Was he really a threat? These disputes are clearly about the facts of the case; not the moral principles involved — again, a question of prudential judgement.
An analogy: Let us say that a policeman kills an innocent man in a darkened hallway, mistaking him for an armed escaped convict. Theologians and lawyers and concerned citizens in general are free to disagree over whether charges should be pressed against the policeman. Did he take the proper precautions? Did he overreact? As the debate proceeds, no one would challenge the proposition that a policeman should go to great lengths not to kill innocent bystanders. Everyone would accept that principle; everyone would agree that the policeman should be charged with a crime if he fired his weapon in an irresponsible manner. The debate would be over what happened in the hallway that night; whether the policeman violated the accepted moral standard for police officers in such a situation. I submit that the debate over the behavior of the Bush administration and the U.S. military in this war with Iraq is in the same category.
James Fitzpatrick's new novel, The Dead Sea Conspiracy: Teilhard de Chardin and the New American Church, is available from our online store. You can email Mr. Fitzpatrick at [email protected].
(This article originally appeared in The Wanderer and is reprinted with permission. To subscribe call 651-224-5733.)
