For me, one of the most enjoyable features of the Internet is the access it affords to newspapers all over the world. I now know, for example, what people mean when they refer to the “Fleet Street” newspapers, the tabloids that both shape and reflect British public opinion.
James Fitzpatrick's new novel, The Dead Sea Conspiracy: Teilhard de Chardin and the New American Church, can be ordered directly from Winepress Publishers 1-877-421-READ (7323); $12.95, plus S&H. You can email Mr. Fitzpatrick at jkfitz42@aol.com.
(This article originally appeared in The Wanderer and is reprinted with permission. To subscribe call 651-224-5733.)
I recently came across a column with a specifically Roman Catholic angle in one of them, the Mirror, by their “Defence Correspondent,” Tom Newton Dunn. Guess who is giving British Prime Minister Blair a tough time these days? Catholic priests.
Over what? Abortion and divorce rates in London? British drug use? The proliferation of pornography on the Internet? Guess again. Blair is being scolded for his “moral surrender” on the question of war with Iraq, specifically because he has aligned himself with George W. Bush’s threat to attack Iraq in order to disarm Saddam Hussein. The Mirror headline proclaimed, “Blair Slammed Over Iraq by His Own Priest.”
Blair is not a Catholic, but his wife is. Blair has been attending Mass with her at St. Anne’s, the church near his residence at Chequers, since he became Prime Minister five years back. Fr. Timothy Russ, a priest at St. Anne’s has become, according to the Mirror, a “good family friend.” It was Russ who gave Blair the scolding, when Blair and his wife attended services on Christmas day. It took place, when, after giving the Blairs and other worshippers a sermon on peace, Russ told reporters, “Man must live by the will to integrity rather than the will to power. The Prime Minister is caught up in the will to power game. That is his problem. He has had a moral surrender from his past. His positions have changed over the years. He may not like me very much for telling you, but it is my job to try to speak the truth from God.” Russ added, “My sermon was all about the need to keep the light shining bright and not let the darkness overcome it.”
I have a few questions. First of all, do you think any American journalists will criticize Fr. Russ for “mixing religion with politics”? The question answers itself. You know they will not. But they would have, if he had chastised Blair for not doing more to end legal abortions in the United Kingdom.
It is a familiar, and vexing phenomenon. American priests and religious are never taken to task by the media for violating the First Amendment when they march for civil rights, to end capital punishment, to help farm workers organize, or to close the School for the Americas. And they are not reprimanded for violating the “separation of church and state” when they protest the prospect of a U.S. led invasion of Saddam Hussein’s regime. All these things are portrayed by the American press as examples of Christians “taking a stand.”
On the other hand, when a few priests say the rosary outside an abortion clinic, the heat gets turned up. People who spent years in sit-down strikes and marching in protest against the war in Vietnam and against Jim Crow laws in the American South line up to push for laws prohibiting protests outside abortion clinics. They find nothing hypocritical in this double standard.
Another question: Why is it that we don’t find Catholic priests wagging their fingers at Catholic politicians over legal abortion in the manner Fr. Russ reprimanded Blair? Why don’t the priests at the parishes attended by Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi call a press conference to rake them over the coals? Who do Catholic activists on the left seem so much more willing to take high-profile public positions in defense of their beliefs? Is it an example of what William Butler Yeats meant in his poem “The Second Coming,” when he wrote, “the best lack all convictions, while the worst are full of passionate intensity”?
I wouldn’t go that far. I don’t think Fr. Russ or the Catholic protestors against American military policy in Latin America and Iraq are the “worst.” Far from it. They are usually Pax Christi and Catholic Worker-types, individuals who conflate their religious beliefs and their political views. I think they are mistaken. I question their judgment. But they are not “the worst.” That is not what is going on.
Their “passionate intensity” comes not from a character defect as much as from the support they get from a sympathetic media, wherein their activism is portrayed as moral courage. They are not mocked as fanatics and religious zealots by television commentators and late-night comedians. You don’t find them depicted in the movies as deranged wild-eyed fanatics. The casting call for wild-eyed fanatics is reserved for characters representing anti-abortion protestors and religious leaders advocating censorship of pornography.
One last question: Why are clerics such as Fr. Russ so confident about their views on war with Iraq when there is so much room for disagreement over whether an attack on Saddam Hussein meets the standards of a just war as defined by the Church? Look: I have no idea what the evidence will be when, and if, President Bush calls for support for an attack on Iraq. But it will not be a flimsy. He will make a case that the Iraqi dictator is developing weapons of mass destruction that threaten world peace. He is likely to present evidence that he is supporting terrorist groups around the world.
Am I saying that the evidence will be so conclusive that there will be a moral imperative to support Bush’s approach? No: I am sure anti-war Catholics will be able to put forth an argument for why it is not the time for an attack and why ongoing negotiation makes more sense. Indeed, I am confident they will take that position even if the UN investigators come up with armed nuclear warheads programmed to hit Washington, D.C. But the point is that it will be a judgment call. Some will see the evidence as proof that the current Iraqi regime is comparable to Hitler’s Germany in the mid-1930s, as a dictatorship that must be stopped before the world is turned into a nuclear nightmare. Others will argue that Saddam can be contained, just as we contained the old Soviet Union and that war is not necessary at the present time.
But I submit that there will be no “Catholic position” on whether a U.S. invasion of Iraq is morally justified not unless the UN investigators come up with clear-cut evidence that the Iraqis are telling the truth when they say that they have no weapons of mass destruction and play no role in supporting Islamic terrorist groups. Instead, we will be faced with a situation where we will have to use our prudential judgment. We will have to ask ourselves what kinds of weapons is Saddam developing? What does his past behavior tell us about how likely he is to use them? How clear-cut are his ties to terrorist groups?
So, no matter what Catholics such as Fr. Russ say, it will not be a “moral surrender” if a Catholic, after carefully weighing the options, comes to the conclusion that the Iraqi threat is credible and proximate enough to warrant a preventive strike. Such a conclusion would be an application of just war theory, not a violation of it.
What would I say if it turns out that there is solid evidence of Saddam’s possession of nuclear weapons and involvement with terrorism, and some Catholics on the left still insist that we refrain from attacking Iraq? I would question their political judgment, but would not come to the conclusion about the state of their souls that Fr. Russ came to about Tony Blair’s. It seems clear to me that this is how this debate should take place; that we should not assume that the worst motives motivate those who disagree with us.
Hey, wait a minute: I thought it was the left that was always calling on us to be open-minded and tolerant of diversity of thought. Interesting times, no?