Bush more Catholic than JP2?

[argent_paladin]

Teaching Tradition
When it comes to traditional morality, President Bush — not John Paul II — has it right.

By David S. Oderberg

In the wave of well-deserved adulation and admiration that has swept the world since the death of John Paul II, one observation has continually been made as a characterization of his pontificate. Love him or hate him, agree with or oppose him, one thing is universally accepted as true: John Paul II stood up for “traditional morality.” In a world obsessed with the “culture of death,” John Paul stood resolutely for traditional ethics and for the “culture of life” that made him such a sign of opposition to the prevailing drift of people and governments.

But just how traditional was his morality? He opposed contraception — that, to be sure, is traditional. Until the 20th century, no one endorsed contraceptive use; and even then, among people of all classes — except a handful in the intelligentsia — no one believed in it until the 1960s. Not only did every religion condemn it, but even the Anglicans didn’t approve it until 1931. So on that score, John Paul II taught traditional morality.

The same, of course, goes for abortion. Pagan aberrations aside (though we must sometimes remember to distinguish between what people do and what they believe), the previous paragraph applies to this practice as well. When it comes to euthanasia, ancient history can be discordant, but it’s pretty safe to say that opposition to it is also a part of traditional morality. No problem on that score for John Paul II.

But once we get past contraception, abortion, and euthanasia, things start to get sticky. For belief in the permissibility of the death penalty is a part of traditional morality, as is belief in the justifiability of war. And yet whilst the president of the United States, for one, steadfastly supports both capital punishment and the concept of just war, John Paul II seemed resolute in his virtual opposition to both. I say “virtual” because, though he never condemned either explicitly, everything he said and did made clear that he regarded them as all but unreasonable and inapplicable in the modern age. Here it looks like George W. Bush’s morality is far more traditional — and I would argue more defensible — than John Paul’s.

Defenders of the latter, however, will respond than the late pontiff never taught that war or capital punishment were wrong per se. Indeed, to take war first, some have said that John Paul II never even explicitly opposed the 2003 Iraq war. This is contentious, however, since in an interview with the Catholic news agency Zenit on May 2, 2003, then Cardinal Ratzinger made it quite plain that John Paul opposed the invasion: “The Pope expressed his thought with great clarity [that] there were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq.” The more important matter of principle, however, is that John Paul did allow that sufficient reasons to go to war might exist.

How traditional is this position? Official teaching such as the Catechism of 1992/1997 allows the possibility of war justified by the right of self-defence or perhaps the defence of another country. But the traditional view has always been broader than this: Actual physical aggression or the threat thereof is one potential jus ad bellum (ground for war), but so, according to the standard moral theology manuals of the 1950s, are freedom from tyranny and liberation from religious oppression whereby a nation is prevented from worshipping God. Even a grave dishonor to a country can be a good reason for going to war. And the standard pre-1960s theology books also teach that it might be an act of charity for a nation to go to war to bring orderly government to a country in chaos.

These textbooks are merely echoing the centuries-old teaching of the Catholic Church as embodied in its greatest minds, such as St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. To be sure, the textbooks agree that war is a horrendous thing, only to be justified in serious circumstances. But they are at some remove from John Paul, who never seems to have met a war he didn’t abhor.

The same goes for capital punishment, where, even more egregiously, John Paul denounced what the Church has taught for centuries. Lest there be any doubt, the 1992 version of the new Catechism, at para. 2266, includes the death penalty as legitimate punishment “in cases of extreme gravity.” In the 1997 revised version, however, this has been replaced in para. 2267 by the statement that capital punishment may be inflicted as “the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.” But then it goes on to say that any such case, in contemporary society, would be “very rare, if not practically non-existent,” repeating what John Paul said in his 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae.

Again, traditional teaching, which is quite some way from this highly restrictive position, is summed up by Aquinas: He says, “if any man is dangerous to the community and is subverting it by some sin, the treatment to be commended is his execution in order to preserve the common good, for a little leaven sours the whole lump.” Far less restrictive, one can see, unless “some sin” is distorted to mean “the worst possible sin in the world” or some such.

Indeed it is somewhat amazing that John Paul seems to have remained so unmoved by the unrelenting violence, sexual decadence, and drug-fuelled vice of modern materialist society (the very society he chastised over and over for its naked greed) as never once to have advocated executing some of the criminals who make contemporary life such a misery for so many people.

The plain fact is that John Paul II’s moral teaching (at least on life-and-death issues) is far less traditional than George Bush’s. For traditional ethics relies on the fundamental distinction between guilt and innocence: It is at the heart of the traditional support for just war and capital punishment and opposition to abortion and euthanasia. The president clearly recognizes this; all he is doing is reflecting a moral position that only a few decades ago, and for millennia before that, people used to drink in with their mothers’ milk.

Without the distinction between guilt and innocence there can be no conceptual basis for distinguishing punishment from protection. And without that, morality collapses into incoherence.

Opposition to abortion and euthanasia on the one hand, and support for just war and the death penalty on the other, are not conceptual enemies. They aren’t even uneasy bedfellows. They belong together, and in a way each side justifies the other. Together they provide the traditional ethics at the heart of all mainstream moral thinking until the 1960s cultural revolution. It is clear that George W. Bush has made that thinking his own. It is the late pontiff, on the other hand, who struck off in a novel direction. When it comes to applying tradition to life-and-death moral issues, Bush 43 wins hands down over John Paul II.

— David S. Oderberg is professor of philosophy at the University of Reading, England, and the author of books and articles on moral philosophy, such as Moral Theory (Blackwell, 2000) and Applied Ethics (Blackwell, 2000).

[url="http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/oderberg200505030809.asp"]http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/oder...00505030809.asp[/url]

[Noel's angel]

[quote]David S. Oderberg is professor of philosophy at the University of Reading, England, and the author of books and articles on moral philosophy, such as Moral Theory (Blackwell, 2000) and Applied Ethics (Blackwell, 2000).
[/quote]

I say God help the University of Reading....

In January, 2003, Pope John Paul said:

“War is not always inevitable. It is always a defeat for humanity... War is never just another means that one can choose to employ for settling differences between nations… War cannot be decided upon…except as the very last option and in accordance with very strict conditions, without ignoring the consequences for the civilian population both during and after the military operations.”

According to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the invasion of Iraq did not “meet the strict conditions of Catholic teaching for the use of military force.” Bishop John Michael Botean of Canton, Ohio, even went so far as to declare that fighting against Iraqis was a mortal sin. Papal representatives met with President George Bush to try to change his mind.

*rolls eyes at the crazy professor*

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Noel's angel' date='May 4 2005, 11:14 AM']
I say God help the University of Reading....

In January, 2003, Pope John Paul said:

“War is not always inevitable. It is always a defeat for humanity... War is never just another means that one can choose to employ for settling differences between nations… War cannot be decided upon…except as the very last option and in accordance with very strict conditions, without ignoring the consequences for the civilian population both during and after the military operations.”

According to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the invasion of Iraq did not “meet the strict conditions of Catholic teaching for the use of military force.” Bishop John Michael Botean of Canton, Ohio, even went so far as to declare that fighting against Iraqis was a mortal sin. Papal representatives met with President George Bush to try to change his mind.

*rolls eyes at the crazy professor* [/quote]
He's not crazy he's right, JPII broke with Traditional Catholic Teaching on the Matter of War and on Capital Punishment. However the Protections given the Church by the Holy Spirit prevented him from making any substantial change to Church Doctrine on the subject. As for the US Catholic Bishops well, there stance on war since the late 60's has been so far out that it has verged on heretical, that is not to say it is herestical they have carefully danced around that line but the " reasonable chance for success" criteria directly challenges Divine Providence, for " if God is with us, who can stand agianst" and so on. The guy is right. What is truely upseting about this is that a Brit was right about it.

[corban711]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='May 4 2005, 11:52 AM'] He's not crazy he's right, JPII broke with Traditional Catholic Teaching on the Matter of War and on Capital Punishment. However the Protections given the Church by the Holy Spirit prevented him from making any substantial change to Church Doctrine on the subject. [/quote]
do you really believe that JPII would have tried to change the teaching of the Church but just luckily we escaped that by the seal of the Holy Spirit? i don't think there was a chance that JPII would have ever tried to change a doctrine of the Church. you are talking about a very holy man of God and of the Church, not some liberal modernist reformer.


i think the author was crazy to say he was amazed at how unmoved JPII was by the "unrelenting violence" in our society. what?!!! JPII was the man he was because God formed him in times of unrelenting violence. this man has not known misery in society like JPII has. living under the nazi's, the communists, seeing his friends tortured, killed, etc. i think he takes the positions he did because he saw how destructive these things are and doesn't want them to happen again. and yes, it is better to not go to war if it can be solved by other means. the Church would always support that, and JPII's job is to call the world to peace and try to seek a better solution if one is available.

[Oik]

I think there is more to it than either Pro-Death Penalty or no.

the reality is, JPII was a Pope and a great one. Why approach a pseudo-rejectionist mentality (which is what some non-catholics do when they attack the Pope for being a pacifist)?

I agree that there were not grave enough reasons (as JPII said) to go to war. Does that meanm that Saddam Hussien shouldn't have been removed? No.

President Bush wasn't the one who okayed the War and funded it, Congress as a whole did all that.

I take great contention with the Uited Nations for rejecting and real plan (with a chance of sucess) to take Saddam out of power. America, though we didn't go it alone (we had the allies and Canada) had a lot on our plate and the UN, though they knew what atrocities were being committed stood by and watched.

How silly then was it when those nations that didn't help us wanted to be part of the 'reconstruction' of Iraq, aka, the money-making portion?


I'm not a pacifist and neither was JPII. There were reasons to relieve Saddam of office, though not any reasons to go to War. The blame extends further that Bush and falls also on the shoulders of Congress and the UN.


I voted for Bush for a couple of fairly decent reasons, though a main reason was that Kerry is a heretic. At least Bush isn't pretending. Does that make him a great president, no.

As for the capital punishment thing, we don't need it in America, except maybe in theory.

Our nation needs to clean up its moral act instead of trying to punish criminals to death. Eliminating the agressor doesn't take a way the temporal effects of sin and crime. There is more to tend to than just the crime commited itself, namely the victims and the unjust effects caused by the aggressor that can only be relieved by the repentant action of the aggressor.

Edited May 4, 2005 by Oik

[philothea]

Um, woah.

You know, allowing that there might at times be justification for war doesn't make war good. Jesus didn't say, "Blessed are the warmongers."

No, He said "Blessed are the peacemakers," and, "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil."

Sometimes (maybe) the only solution is to execute a dangerous person -- and so that method is not condemned -- it doesn't mean that capital punishment is a great option we should all strive for it as often as possible.

Mercy is a really nice virtue.

[argent_paladin]

I don't think the professor is that crazy. Just because W's views of war and capital punishment are more traditional than JP2's doesn't make them more right. Doctrine develops. But, it is true that W has more in common with the views of the pre-Vatican II popes than JP2. The last execution in Vatican City was in 1903. The Papal States were still a contentioius issue and fought over until very recently. The prof makes good points about that.
I think his main point, which he argues in a very provocative way, is that Catholic doctrine on war and capital punishment has changed dramatically and quickly. The emphasis is no longer on justice, but on protection of society. This was not true even 100 years ago. And the change in the Church mirrors a change in society (always a suspicious thing). It was only in 1974, after all, that France outlawed the guillotine. Before WWI, virtually every country had capital punishment. Today, almost none do. It is the reasons behind these changes that should be highlighted and examined.

[musturde]

I highly doubt we were saved from a saint almost changing the views of the Church. The American Intelligence Agency did NOT have all the right information sorted on Iraq (and if they did the weapons are in Syria hahaha). I believe the war did both good and bad...

Good: Sadam out
Small time for democracy
Possibly more womens rights

Bad: People killed in the process
Bombs going off everyday
The democracy will not last that long

I think Jp2 had a good view on the war. I'm glad this man's the only pro-bush in all of England() but I don't think he should have argued in this way. I defend Bush because his intentions were good and it wasn't his idea to do it.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='musturde' date='May 4 2005, 04:58 PM'] I highly doubt we were saved from a saint almost changing the views of the Church. The American Intelligence Agency did NOT have all the right information sorted on Iraq (and if they did the weapons are in Syria hahaha).  I believe the war did both good and bad...

Good: Sadam out
        Small time for democracy
        Possibly more womens rights

Bad: People killed in the process
        Bombs going off everyday
        The democracy will not last that long

I think Jp2 had a good view on the war. I'm glad this man's the only pro-bush in all of England() but I don't think he should have argued in this way. I defend Bush because his intentions were good and it wasn't his idea to do it. [/quote]
[b]STOP SAYING THAT JOHN PAUL THE SECOND IS A SAINT!!!!!!!!!![/b]

It is inappropriate on a level of which I cannot begin to express, the man has not even been declared venerable yet. He certianly would disapprove of the behavior. Likewise is this constant "JPII pray for us" nonsense. Until the Church makes a statement permiting us to pray to him it is an illicit practice.

********************************************************************

It is extremly unlikely that Sadams removal will be good for womens rights Sadams Iraq gave women more rights than any other Arab state. Simularly he proteccted the Chaldean Catholics there and even included them in the government, on those issue the war was probably a bad thing.


Democracy is not Good, any more than Dictatorship is Bad, there can be good democracies and bad emocracies( which historicly dominate the field) there can be good dictatorships and bad dictatorships, we will have to see if thedemoncracy we have brought is good or not, but the fact that we brought democracy is niether good nor bad.

Edited May 4, 2005 by Don John of Austria

[musturde]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='May 4 2005, 05:14 PM'] It is extremly unlikely that Sadams removal will be good for womens rights Sadams Iraq gave women more rights than any other Arab state. Simularly he proteccted the Chaldean Catholics there and even included them in the government, on those issue the war was probably a bad thing.


Democracy is not Good, any more than Dictatorship is Bad, there can be good democracies and bad emocracies( which historicly dominate the field) there can be good dictatorships and bad dictatorships, we will have to see if thedemoncracy we have brought is good or not, but the fact that we brought democracy is niether good nor bad. [/quote]
[quote][b]STOP SAYING THAT JOHN PAUL THE SECOND IS A SAINT!!!!!!!!!![/b]

It is inappropriate on a level of which I cannot begin to express, the man has not even been declared venerable yet. He certianly would disapprove of the behavior. Likewise is this constant "JPII pray for us" nonsense. Until the Church makes a statement permiting us to pray to him it is an illicit practice.
[/quote]

He was a saint though. It's also i(a) saying, I know he's not literally not claimed a saint under the Church but they're working fast on it.


[quote]It is extremly unlikely that Sadams removal will be good for womens rights Sadams Iraq gave women more rights than any other Arab state. Simularly he proteccted the Chaldean Catholics there and even included them in the government, on those issue the war was probably a bad thing. [/quote]

In a democracy, I'm assuming that women and people in general will get a bit more rights. However, I agree that the democracy won't stay up for very long.


[quote]Democracy is not Good, any more than Dictatorship is Bad, there can be good democracies and bad emocracies( which historicly dominate the field) there can be good dictatorships and bad dictatorships, we will have to see if thedemoncracy we have brought is good or not, but the fact that we brought democracy is niether good nor bad.[/quote]

Sadam's dictatorship was bad. I HOPE we both agree on that. America's democracy set up there will not work for the people. Now, Iraq has three different Muslim sects in it. All of them believe THEY should rule the land. There is no possible way that people so fixated on the belief that they should control all of it for themselves will be able to unite under a democracy peacefully.

[IcePrincessKRS]

I don't think I'd go so far as to use the term "more Catholic than" but I definately think JPII was alot more conservative in his views about war and the death penalty than GW (and a whole slew of others). He didn't believe they are necessary, but that is a view that we are allowed to differ in opinion on, and those of us who DO differ in opinion probably won't be swayed in our opinions (and vice versa).

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='musturde' date='May 4 2005, 05:33 PM']









[/quote]
[quote]He was a saint though. It's also i saying, I know he's not literally not claimed a saint under the Church but they're working fast on it.[/quote]

You don't know that, until the Church says differantly you don't know, don't act like a protestant and pick and choose what you like.



[quote]In a democracy, I'm assuming that women and people in general will get a bit more rights.  However, I agree that the democracy won't stay up for very long. [/quote]

Because that worked out so well in Iran.



[quote]Sadam's dictatorship was bad. America's democracy set up there will not work for the people.  I HOPE we both agree on that. Now, Iraq has three different Muslim sects in it. All of them believe THEY should rule the land. There is no possible way that people so fixated on the belief that they should control all of it for themselves will be able to unite under a democracy peacefully.[/quote]

Only 2 the kurds are not a sect of Islam just an ethnic group. America's democracy is bad, we kill far more of ours than he did of his. But your right it wll not last there. Praise God.

[musturde]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='May 4 2005, 05:45 PM']

You don't know that, until the Church says differantly you don't know, don't act like a protestant and pick and choose what you like.





Because that worked out so well in Iran.





Only 2 the kurds are not a sect of Islam just an ethnic group.  America's democracy is bad, we kill far more of ours than he did of his. But your right it wll not last there. Praise God. [/quote]

[quote]
You don't know that, until the Church says differantly you don't know, don't act like a protestant and pick and choose what you like.
[/quote]

Reread my post, i said he was a saint in terms of the expression. I believe he will be made into a saint but i will still pray for him. Jp2 pray for us isn't bad because u can poor souls in purgatory for help, cant u?

[quote]
Because that worked out so well in Iran.[/quote]

Alright, thank you for arguing my orriginal point. I'm actually against a democracy being set up since it won't last very long. I just thought the idea of one would be great for 20 years or less. Since America's directly helping to build it, I don't think it'd be too corrupt untill a bit later.


[quote]Only 2 the kurds are not a sect of Islam just an ethnic group.  America's democracy is bad, we kill far more of ours than he did of his. But your right it wll not last there. Praise God.[/quote]
You're right about the Kurds, sorry for mixing that up. Because of abortion? We're not the only country allowing abortion. Democracy not lasting there isnt neccisarily a good thing. The reason why it wont last is because it's highly unrealistic to think the sunnis, kurds, and shiite's are not going to have a civil war. and going through a civil war.

[Antonius]

Can we blame the Europe and the Pope for hesitating war? Two world wars would certianly would influence me.

When the memory of Europe in flames and the "greatest generation" recedes into history just as morality has, then maybe we'll see people more apt to violence.

What is the cause of this widespread societal aversion to violence, Don John?

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Antonius' date='May 4 2005, 06:11 PM']

What is the cause of this widespread societal aversion to violence, Don John? [/quote]
In Europe?

I would guess it is precisly because of the Two World Wars between the 2 of them most of their brave men diedor where otherwised prvented from reproducing, that tends to seriously screw your culture up. However, I think it is really just more of the trend towards the moral reletivism that encompasses everything now. Evil things are bad, evil things should be destroyed, but if you ddon't think evil really exist it is easy to argue that there is no reason for violence. I don't think that was the case in JPII, I think he was just personally affronted by war to the extent that he was overly hesitant about it.