Many people in this forum have been referring to the pope as an “Idealist”, in the sense of non-realist.

It is not the first time I hear this.

In my country, the Government distributes condoms for free and spends lots of money on TV commercials preaching the use of it.

The Church, of course attacks it.

The most “moderate” critics of the Church say something like this:

“We respect the Church position, but She cannot impose her view upon society. We agree that, if people lived as the Church preaches, there would be no AIDS epidemics.

However, this is clearly idealistic. Of course, people don’t live like that. Young people will go on having casual sex, spouses will go on having extramarital affairs and so on. So, if we don’t distribute condoms and preach its use, AIDS will soar. It is our Government’s responsibility to see that AIDS infection rates be reduced by *realistically* addressing the issue. The Church should not invoke religious arguments to oppose something that is not even under her responsibility.”

This is very common liberal argument. Actually, I received a letter similar to this from the Ministry of Health when I wrote them to ask why they did not support abstinence campaings. I think those who want financial support for UN AIDS prevention programs use it also.

As you can see, the “Idealistic Church” argument is not new. But I admit I am surprised to hear it coming from faithful catholics.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 21, 2003

Answers

A final remark.

We who are adept to intellectual warfare (me and others here) should always remind that:

(1) Arguments very rarely change one’s mind (let alone one’s heart); only God’s Grace may do that; charity and good example have always been the supreme weapons of evangelization;

(2) When we die, our Judgment will not be like an end-term test in school, in which God will ask us doctrinal questions and, if we get 7 out of 10, we go to heaven, otherwise to hell. Our “Christianity” is not measured by how many canons or CCC paragraphs we know by heart. Our “saint-o-meter” is not gauged in how much scholastic knowledge we have. Even less by how many argument battles we “win”. We will be judged by our Charity. And many that “spoke in the name of God” will hear from him: “I don’t know you!”

These are things I am all too prone to forget day after day.

I’m Sorry.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 21, 2003.

Sorry, the above response was supposed to be poste in Carolyn's thread, where it makes sense.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 21, 2003.

Atila, there is only one issue on this board that features people calling the Pope an idealist... (although I haven't used the term or the concept for John Paul the Great). Of course he is not an "idealist" - he is very much a "realist"...but like every other human being, his moral judgements are based on what he actually knows of a particular situation.

That issue at hand is the moral status of a prudential decision for the US to wage war with Iraq.

He has judged that Iraq needs to respond to the UN demands. But he has not affirmed that Iraq is guilty of violating UN resolutions because He is not sure of their guilt - and if he chooses to doubt US evidence (as many do), then he quite obviously COULD NOT deduce Iraqi non-compliance. Now Catholic sexual moral teaching on the other hand is a matter of principles being applied in black/white fashion: you can't get someone partially pregnant, and there's no such thing as a prudential decision whether or not to masterbate or contracept.

Prudence is a virtue that chooses not between good and evil, but between two goods. Thus, one may decide between getting married or following a possible call to the consecrated life. Both are good things, and call for prudence.

Since abortion is by definition the direct killing of an innocent human being - it is always evil. Black and white. This doesn't permit questions of "prudence".

Since euthanasia is by definition the direct killing of an adult human being - regardless of their desire or pain, it is always evil. It doesn't matter what the specifics are... no one can kill themselves, and no one can kill someone else who is innocent and non- threatening...

Since contraception via drugs or barriers is the direct, willful rupture of marital union with marital fruitfulness desired by God through the natural health of the woman's body... it is always evil. Now, certainly the subjective moral culpability may vary given one's knowledge, full willfulness, and moral freedom...but these acts are of themselves always disordered. Black/white.

Similarly, regardless of motive, non-married sex - be it fornication or adultery, is always evil because sex is sacred and demands permanence and totality of self-giving...again, individuals may be more or less subjectively culpable (guilty), thus a rape victim is totally innocent - and a girl sold into prostitution is often times hardly guilty at all... but the act itself is ALWAYS sinful.

Thus the Church, which deals with teaching us principles for use in our moral choices, has supplied clear "black/white" limits to the licit use of our freedom. There are no circumstances which render Abortion, euthanasia, fornication, adultery, or contraception valid and OK.

But in the cases of capital punishment, direct self-defense, police action and warfare... those who are responsible for the common good are taught by the Church to make prudential decisions.

The Church supplies the principles for their use in deciding what course of action is best (i.e. "prudent" in their particular case and situation) given the facts, their motives, their chance for success, and the known or reasonably guessed consequences.

In other words, sometimes you should not kill a criminal, but condemn him to life imprisonment...Other times, it is permitted for civil authority to execute someone whose continued life carries grave danger to the bodies or souls of society.

Sometimes a person can choose to not defend himself with deadly force - though if he chooses to do so, that would be licit. You can shoot an unjust, violent intruder in the leg - indeed that's best, but if you kill him, that's permitted too...and the one to "make the call" is the one being attacked - not bystanders.

All moral judgements are based on knowledge.

Similarly, the Church proposes 5 principles or ideals to be met before civil authorities use violent force in police or warfare... and since those principles include shades of grey - and involve specific knowledge of capabilites, intention, and questions of fact (are there weapons of mass destruction or not? Do they intend to use them? what consequences are most LIKELY to follow...? etc.) people outside the loop of information are NOT RESPONSIBLE for making the prudential decision.

The Church can say "war is a tragedy for humanity". That's true. War is.

And the Church can say "This is not a Crusade or Christian war against Muslims" and that's also true: it's not a crusade (because crusades by definition are military actions called for by the Pope in defense of Christians and the Holy Places) and Christianity as such has not been directly threatened by Islam per se.

The Pope is also free to call for further diplomacy and urge both sides to settle their disputes diplomatically - as he has done. That is a GOOD THING AND I AGREE WITH HIM. Diplomacy is always preferrable to warfare...so long as diplomacy stands a chance to affect positive change!

But according to Catholic doctine and historical practice, the decision to wage war in self-defense or defense of hapless innocent civilian victims is not primarily the Pope's or local clergy's call to make...

In other words, the Pope has done what he must do as shepherd of all Christians: proclaim the truth that war is bad, that diplomacy should be mankind's preferred avenue of conflict-resolution, and that there is no reason for Muslims to think the West is 100% equal to Christianity...

He has also stated the obvious truth that those civil authorities whose decision it is to wage war, will answer to God for their decisions - as indeed they must answer to God for EVERY DECISION they make - such as their vote on Abortion, Gay-"rights", and whether or not to legalize human cloning or expand the practice of invitro- fertilization in which human beings are procreated artificially...

By not naming names, the Pope is also not placing blame.

His officials have said that, given what they know, a US invasion would be illegal and immoral... but that teaching is contingent on WHAT THEY KNOW.

Technically, the American Revolutionary War was "illegal rebellion" from a legitimate King, George III. But who among us believe that it was not - ultimately proven to be the moral thing to do?

Technically, the UN followed legal proceedure in refraining from stopping the genocide in Rwanda in 1995 - because the Rwanda delegation sat on the Security Council and vetoed proposed resolutions to stop the Rwandan Government-led atrocity!

And Technically, if you posit an American-led invasion was motivated by oil and geo-political advantage rather than self-defense and liberation of Iraq, and posit that American war-plans call for the nuclear or conventional fire-bombing of civilians, the intentional targetting of civilians, and the destruction of huge swaths of the environment... then, YES, IT WOULD BE IMMORAL IN THAT CASE.

But who knows what the American invasion is motivated by if not the US Government? And their stated goal is not oil or occupation, their plans do NOT include indiscriminate bombing, intentional civilian casualties, and widespread and intentional ecological damage.

All questions of FACT as to the threat and aggressive intentions of the enemy have been ascertained by professionals with the technical means to do so - unlike the Holy See which has no military intelligence or spy network.

Moral judgments - like EVERY OTHER SORT OF JUDGEMENT - are based on WHAT YOU KNOW. If you don't know the specific facts upon which a threat is based, or the facts involved in one's proportional and successful response to said threats... your moral judgement will OF NECESSITY be contingent and provisional - not a case of "black/white" as in the sexual or "de fide" arenas!

A Catholic can not in conscience refuse to listen to the Church's teaching when it deals with matters of principle such as in sexuality or doctrine - but all people, Catholics included, have been taught by the Church that prudential decisions are theirs to make when they are in possession of the needed facts, and the authority to make them!

The Church is the expert on all things human and divine - but the civil authorities are expert on some very restricted fields pertaining to the common good, such as security, economics, and political discourse.

-- Joe (Joestong@yahoo.com), March 21, 2003.

Jmj
Joe, as usual, you impress me greatly.

Your facts are accurate.
Your knowledge of Catholic morality is exact (according to all I have read through the years).
Your logical reasoning is flawless and convincing.

I wish that every person on Earth -- especially every Catholic -- could read your essay.
I have begun to read through all the war-related threads (about ten of them). If any of them is missing the kind of lucid argumentation that you have provided on this thread, I will add a link to lead people here, so that they can read your words.

May God reward you for this great service to so many who are in doubt and to those who have been misguided until now.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 22, 2003.

Gentlemen

Ham-fistedly separating prudential judgments from the rest of Church Teaching, or limiting the scope of such judgments to liturgy, governance, and directives to prayer, penance, and fasting, does two things:

1) It whittles the prudential judgments by bishops and the pope down to slivers of opinion that are basically personal and subjective.

2) It empties the very principles that are being applied in the prudential judgment of any real significance and clips them out of their context as principles that are designed to be applied to the world.

Church Teaching doesn't arise in a vacuum. In large part, it's the result of concrete, particular objective situations rearing up and demanding resolution. Flip through any history of early Christianity and you'll see nearly every article of faith challenged by particular individuals with particular notions and agendas. There is an integral relationship between doctrine and its application –it is not of the hit and miss type as you seem to believe either . Specific situations gave rise to doctrine and the further elucidation of that doctrine. Specific wars gave rise to the proposal and clarification of the Church's much bandied about just-war principles.

Why, then, do some insist on denying that the moral authority of the bishops and the pope has weight and significance that ought to at least cause one some trepidation when publicly dissenting from its conclusions? We all know that these prudential judgments are NOT binding and DON'T require the assent of the faithful. I realise this may seem like a small victory to you . Can we move past this objection ?

The reason they don't require assent is because they're applications to a particular situation that can't be universally applied or cover every possible circumstance that someone might find him or herself in. But they still pack a proportionate authority that makes such judgments different from your own personal opinion, and the opinion of government officials, even President Bush (yes really!).

So Joe Hollis John and any other republican dissenters, I say dissent away. But any dissent against prudential judgments that the entire worlds bishops and Pope make is not a dissent worth spending any more of my time discussing-IMHO.

God Bless

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), March 23, 2003.

Thank you Kiwi for agreeing with my argument about the prudential nature of the civil authority's option for war.

You seem to imply that the application of Just War theory by a civil authority who has information not available to the Church, weakens the moral authority of the Church if it refuses to accept the moral judgements rendered by clergy who self admittedly do not have the relevant information needed for moral judgements of fact.

But that is a paradox.

What I find amazing is that those actually quoting the Just War theory - which is a Catholic thing - are not Catholics!

As for bishops and cardinals making fools of themselves...and thereby undermining their own moral authority, I urge you to recall the whole mess of the sex-scandals... bishops tripping over each other and their lawyers... not very edifying.

Nor were the USCCB documents on "nuclear war" or economics in the 1980's very enlightened - the bishops supposed their backgrounds in theology and philosophy gave them authority to talk about geo- politics and the economy...but their arguments were so trite and silly AND SUPERFICIAL that all they achieved was to embarrass lay Catholics whose expertise in the fields in question could have helped the Church...had the bishops bothered to ask for their help.

Ditto with the Pro-Life movement.

The fact is, bishops - if they stick to theology - are usually right. But the moment they stray into worldly issues which really do require alot of education, experience, and data... they walk onto thin ice.

As do we all!

So yes, I listen to the bishops and pope. I pray to see the world as they see it and to pray for the salvation of souls too.... but I also inform my conscience with the best information - both Losservatore Romano and (for example, US Naval Institute Proceedings...) And having a licenciate degree in philosophy - from a Roman pontifical college doesn't hurt either.

Moral judgements KIWI - if they are judgements and not opinions - have to be based on REASONS AND FACTS. There's just no other way short of divine revelation for the human mind to function.

I'm sorry. But your problem is not with me, but with human nature.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 23, 2003.

Jmj

Again, Joe, your message is superb in clarity and would be convincing to any person with an open and respectful mind.
Congratulations on your fine education.

I'll try a few responses to flawed comments made above ...

QUOTE: "Ham-fistedly separating prudential judgments from the rest of Church Teaching ..."
COMMENT: Naturally. They have to be "separated," because "prudential judgments" are not "teachings." We respect "judgments" (and may or may not agree with them), but we assent to "teachings." The Church does the "separating," not us. The only thing done "ham-fistedly" around here is the entering of anti-American posts.

QUOTE: "It whittles the prudential judgments by bishops and the pope down to slivers of opinion that are basically personal and subjective."
COMMENT: Not quite. The use of the words "whittles" and "slivers" is hyperbole. However, "prudential judgments" are indeed "opinion[s] that are basically personal and subjective." [In fact, all opinions are "personal and subjective."]

QUOTE: "It empties the very principles that are being applied in the prudential judgment of any real significance and clips them out of their context as principles that are designed to be applied to the world."
COMMENT: Nothing is "emptied." The prudential judgments have to stand on their own merit, backed by convincing argumentation. Otherwise they fall and are ignored.

QUOTE: "Why, then, do some insist on denying that the moral authority of the bishops and the pope has weight and significance that ought to at least cause one some trepidation when publicly dissenting from its conclusions?"
COMMENT: People who do not agree with some Vatican opinions on war with Iraq are not "denying that the moral authority of the bishops and the pope has weight and significance." Expression of "prudential judgments" are not exercises of "authority." Also, people who do not agree with prudential judgments are not "dissenting." The word "DISsent" applies only to refusal to ASsent to doctrine.

QUOTE: "[Prudential judgments] still pack a proportionate authority that makes such judgments different from your own personal opinion, and the opinion of government officials, even President Bush (yes really!)."
COMMENT: No, not really. In fact, they "pack" no "authority" at all in cases (like this one) wherein Catholic doctrine [see the CCC] leaves the decision up to "the opinion [prudcential judgment] of government officials."

QUOTE: "So Joe Hollis John and any other republican dissenters, I say dissent away."
COMMENT: As previously stated (and explained well) more than once -- [but some anti-Americans have very selective memories] -- I am not a "republican." I reject some planks in each party's platform, and I strongly favor other planks in each platform. I have never registered as a member of either party, because I am a "man without a party." I vote for the better candidate, regardless of party.
And, as I explained above, I am not a dissenter. [It is ironic to have to explain this to an actual dissenter!]

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 24, 2003.

Hi Joe it is sad indeed that the recent sex scandal has weakened the moral authority of the church in your country and indeed to a lesser extent around the world. The actions of a few sick men should not be the yardstick by which the standard of Christ’s church is measured. I was saddened to see that you seem to believe the legitimacy and authority of the voice piece of God has been weakened to the point you no longer trust our Pope or Bishops. Be not afraid!

To me no authority is better placed than the Vatican to guide us to take waht is the right and just approach to this war. I have outlined why I believe this is so many times with you and will not cover this again. Of course it is not only the Vatican that you must be claiming to be so woefully informed and morally bankrupt. Do you honestly believe Germany, Russia, France and most of the rest of the world also made subjective uniformed judgements, of course not, they simply refused to be bullied into a making an immoral and illegitimate decison. The position you take by sneering at Bishops perceived failings as intellectuals in non theological areas is also very sad to me, and something the more liberal members of our faith have of course been doing for some time. It is something I reject absolutely.

Joe, I do not pretend to have a better understanding than you on this issue, I have been studying theology only since arriving at this forum by chance this time last year- but both my sense of reason and conscience tells me this war is not just. .I have outlined many times my position why I believe that it is the right to follow our Church’s position and that it is an informed reasoned and objective position. Again I say its unlikely we are going to find common ground on the morality of this war , however we do agree the outcomes for Iraq and the world should be good ones(fingers crossed ;-)). I respect your right to dissent from the churchs view but hope that this is a cold comfort and a painful thing for you to do. Certainly nothing to shout from the rooftops nor something to be encouraged on a CATHOLIC forum. Peace and God Bless

John I refuse to correspond with you any more please read my comments why on the UN thread.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), March 24, 2003.

Kiwi. I know. It's a painful thing for me to do too... Look, I am ready and willing to die for the Catholic faith revealed to the world by Jesus Christ and entrusted to the apostles - and their successors who have been given the authority to "go ye therefore and make disciples of all nations, teaching them all that I have commanded you..."

Bishops are - no matter their personal intelligence or moral state, true successors of the apostles and therefore, must be respected.

But sadly, not all bishops are wise or prudent or holy. Their office must be respected absolutely. Their individual teaching however... like the teaching of everyone else, must be weighed by the believer against the Faith which has been entrusted to us...

After all, we are CATHOLICS - not members of diocesan sects. We are bound to read, meditated and understand as best we are able the teachings of "the Church" - which may or may not be reflected in our local parish or diocese.

Bishops have the authority and role to make prudential decisions for their diocesan flocks - and the people normally have the duty to accept their leadership in humble obedience.

It's just when a bishop goes "out of bounds" and begins talking about things that are not strictly under his perview or competency, that problems arise. Respecting the concept of "subsidierity", and wishing to avoid the age-old problem of "clericalism", lay people do have the duty and right to be heard, and to actively apply the Gospel truth to those areas of life which they intimately know.

Catholics are not (and never have been) a bunch of "Yes-men". We DO OBEY the doctrine and morals, but we have our own opinion as to prudential decisions.

For example; architecture. Some local Bishops thought it was just spiffy to knock down the relatively new Gothic cathedral (built less than 100 years previously) to rebuild some opaque, odd shaped box with no obvious religious significance...because some "hip" architect sold them on it's "relevance" for "modern people".

Well, the Bishop may well be pastor of souls, but that doesn't mean he has a pedagogical and aesthetic bone in his body! Lay people can and should "beg to differ" and explain to his excellency why architecture is not arbitrary and why good taste is not relative. Children respect sacred spaces - as traditionally arranged - far better than weird, white washed boxes with off-center windows that don't mean anything (unless you're smoking something illegal).

And if a building does not give children a sense of awe and reverence, then what good are they! Even the US government understands this basic, humanities 101 concept in the massive neo- roman architecture of Federal Banks and buildings.

Similarly, if a bishop starts telling Catholics that high taxes to pay for massive welfare programs are superior to any other form of support for the poor... lay people have the right and duty to explain to his excellence (with due respect and prudence) that his economic theory is simply wrong. The solution to poverty is not found in money but in human and moral formation! Bishops should know this. Dirt poor Vietnamese refugees arrived to the US in 1980 with nothing but their family and faith. By 1990 most were in the middle class thanks to hard work, pooling of resources, sacrifice, and family and parish solidarity; not by massive government welfare programs!

The list goes on... when bishops speak de fide and de moralis, we owe them our ears and hearts and minds. But when they start speaking about geo-politics, economics, and achitecture... we owe it to them to politely beg to differ and explain to them what is what. This is how we practically live out our service to the Church which is a family.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 24, 2003.

Basically what you are generally promoting, Joe, and John quite often too, is a stubborn allegiance to the ways of this world.

It's couched in all sorts of flowery language and it is pounded into place in a sort of strange sort of adult peer-pressure, but basically that's what it is. It is a devotion to the Citadel of Man.

If asked the question "...but what about dying to self? What about meekness and humility? What about suffering? What about prayer? What about ultimate resignation to the Will of God?", no doubt you'll hear "well, sure! Yes of course! By no means do we wish to lose sight of our ultimate purpose and objective."

But it seems in practice to be little more than a loss-leader to attract people to the warehouse of worldly goodies... after the question addressed, it is put aside a back into its "proper place", and then off again it is into a discussion of men's ways of furthering men's methods and agendas in the furthered construction of the Citadel of Man.

It is a city in the image and likeness of Man.

What rings true to me Kiwi, is what you say: Fear not; I AM with you."

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 24, 2003.

Emerald thanks, as ever I have to decode your poetic eloquence into my primitive neanderthal type grunting thought processes but I think Ive got your drift and agree wholeheartedly....unless this is just another conspiracy theory :-).

Have a great and holy Easter

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), March 24, 2003.

"Why, then, do some insist on denying that the moral authority of the bishops and the pope has weight and significance that ought to at least cause one some trepidation when publicly dissenting from its conclusions?"

How can one, who is not inside the head, much less the mind, of the President or whovere, make the judgment on what kind of "weight and significance" he has placed on, or at least what "trepidation" they have endured while makeing, the decsicion for war?

The fact that President Bush actually asked the advice of our Pope, even though he is not himself Catholic, shows to me that he indeed is under very very heavy "trepidation" to make the correct choice. And it also proves that the Popes opoinion is extremely weighty and significant to Bush, otherwise he might have simply flipped on the news channel to hear him rather than meet with him inperson.

Excellent points Joe and John.

I am very much against the War, but I don't have the slightest clue whether or not it was the right choice. And I won't lie and say that I know. No one does. Not even the most informed person on earth right now. We will never know unless we wind back the hands of time, make the choice against war, and know for sure that Saddam would not have attacked us. In which case it would have been to late. Who knows, if we wind those hands back, and give Saddam more time, maybe he would have left office 15 minutes later.

Unfortunately, once we take a step in either direction, no one can know the "better" outcome, unless they can time travel.

So, since we have already stepped in one direction, we can only continue to pray and support our troops (who have chosen to fight for us regardless of whether or not Bush made the morally acceptable choice).

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), March 24, 2003.

Great post, Jake H. You can't get more honest than that!

-- David (David@excite.com), March 24, 2003.

Hi Jake nice to see you popping back, the forum has regained a sense of normality again, get that Mother of yours and Gail , Mary Lu back as well eh!

I agree with just about everything you have said, I have no doubt your President thinks he is doing the right thing and that he did not take this decision lightly. But he is not Catholic and he cares little for Catholic morality, his framework is not a Catholic framework. To value your Presidents opinion more than your Church's opinion on this issue is wrong IMHO. That is the point I was trying to make...

"they(The Clergy) still pack a proportionate authority that makes such judgments different from your own personal opinion, and the opinion of government officials, even President Bush (yes really!)."

Now here are your words

"but I don't have the slightest clue whether or not it was the right choice. And I won't lie and say that I know. No one does. Not even the most informed person on earth right now. We will never know unless we wind back the hands of time, make the choice against war, and know for sure that Saddam would not have attacked us. In which case it would have been to late. Who knows, if we wind those hands back, and give Saddam more time, maybe he would have left office 15 minutes later."

Ignoring the many political arguments about the illegitmacy of a pre emptive war and the dangerous precedant it makes under international law etc your sense of morality on this issue is a secular libertarian/utiltarian view point. Your above words could have been taken directly from Mills utilitarian approach to moral problems! It is badly out of line with the Catholic just war doctrine and natural law. Outcomes are not the focus here.

God Bless

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), March 24, 2003.