Dueling Orthodoxies
There’s a fair amount of angst on the right about Mel Gibson’s repudiation of the “War” on “Terror”, almost a sense of betrayal. The prevailing view seems to be that Mel is trying to win back favour in Hollywood by adopting a fashionable stance. Their handwringing and mockery is puzzling, because Mel is a staunch Roman Catholic, and the highest profile, most vocal critic of the “War” was Pope John Paul II.
John Paul II spoke out repeatedly, clearly and consistently against the current invasion of Iraq. He sought at every opportunity to distance the Catholic Church from Bush’s idea of the manifest Christian destiny of the United States, and consistently argued against the sanctification of the “war” as an apocalyptic clash of Christian civilization against Islam.
Both John Paul II and the current Pontiff, then Cardinal Ratzinger, were scathing on the notion of Bush’s invasion as a “just war”. In an interview with Zenit on May 2, 2003, Cardinal Ratzinger said: “There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a “just war.”
It’s not surprising that a Catholic actor happens to agree with his Pope on the immorality of Bush’s invasion. The surprise is that so many American and Canadian Catholics haven’t. Or perhaps not. Harkening back to yesterday’s discussion on tribalism, we see here the clash of two conflicting sets of tribal values; confronted with two irreconcilable ideologies, it’s interesting to note that so many Catholic conservatives side consistently agree with and cite their Pope ONLY when he obligingly provides a useful endorsement for their political program on issues like gay marriage or abortion.
The assumption of course is that I adhere to the idea that the Roman Catholic Church should be making political policy or that Pope John Paul’s criticism of the War in Iraq was valid. In particular, John Paul and Cardinal Ratzinger did not agree with the idea of a pre-emptive war and that avenues should be taken through the U.N.; which of course they were.
Neither John Paul II nor Pope Benedict had the benefit of intelligence documents that the United States and Britain had. Even if they did it is hard to imagine that they would have backed the war for the reasons you mention.
However, I am not one that would rather sit back while American’s and American interests are targeted. For those of you on the left who forgot to pay attention there is an increasing amount of documentation being uncovered from Hussein’s regime that indicates that Saddam not only had illegal weapons programs but that he actively worked to hide them in the days leading to the war.
Not only that, one document indicated that Saddam was hiring suicide bombers to attack American interests as early as 6 months before 9/11.
There are many more documents along the same lines that talk about weapons programs, poison gases and attacks on American interests. Please don’t take my word for it and discount this as right wing propaganda; you can go read them for yourself.
You do realize that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was not the secular panacea that the left is painting it out to be. Saddam actively shipped people out to be killed and dumped in mass graves, men women and children. Not even babies were spared being shot in the head. Some estimates indicate that Hussein was responsible for 2 to 3 million deaths during his reign of terror. But that’s OK. As long as he’s not Bush, right?
The silly idea that Mel Gibson is a “staunch†Roman Catholic is just that, silly. Staunch Roman Catholics are not anti-Semites. Even if Mel were though that wouldn’t stand for much in this discussion because my views on this discussion are not formed through the lens of the Catholic Church.
Finally, the Catholic Church and the Pope are not playing up to Hollywood as Mel Gibson is. They have a role in speaking their moral conscious about war as they are the moral guide for millions of Catholics throughout the world. Not all Catholics agree with every word they speak yet they can appreciate and understand the basis from which they speak.
Mel’s comments are simply there to advocate for Mel, get people to talk about him and his movies, make money (gasp, should make the left cringe), and get back in the good graces of the Hollywood establishment who shunned him after making the Passion of the Christ and even more when he went on his anti-Jew rant. It worked and now all that anti-Jew ranting is forgotten. Seems pretty clear to me.
I generally concur with the Pope’s attitude towards the invasion of Iraq; however, where I part with you is the notion that Catholics are somehow bound by his critique. A pope’s opinion of the morality of a specific situation, when it regards as complicated a doctrine as Just War is just not binding. I do concur with the previous commentor that the Pope did not have the same information as the Bush administration, and it is possible the pope could have been wrong.
Mel Gibson’s loyalty to the Church is sometimes questioned. No one doubts his faith. But given his deep attachment to the Latin Mass, there is some question as to whether he’s not part of the Schismatic Traditionalist movement, as his dad is. He is not the best example of an orthodox Catholic, although he does not flaunt any kind of dissent or schism.
Thanks for the response, Weblogging. But I think we need a new name for this kind of argument. Let’s call it the “Tapioca Shotgun”; a whole mess of weak, marginal or irrelevant points packaged and fired off with the assumption that together, they constitute an effective argument. I don’t like to fisk, but fisk I must.
Doesn’t your second sentence kind of render the first sentence pointless?
Sorry to excise so much in the quote, but that refrain is irrelevant to the point of this post. I have read the Kay Report, as well the intermittent conservative attempts to spin it into evidence that Saddam represented a threat to the US. You’ll find those discussions, with some articulate spokespersons on both sides of the issue, in the Bunker archives.
Given that you can formulate an admirably coherent sentence, I will credit you with enough intelligence to understand the not very complicated idea that opposition to the Bush invasion does not equal adulation of Saddam. I’m surprised that exceptionally stupid canard is still being trotted out, but I suppose you feel it has a certain nostalgic charm?
Some are, some aren’t. The ones who are are staunch Roman Catholics in a state of sin. Anyway, neither you nor I can measure the degree or nature of Mel’s faith.
See final paragraph of original post.
Your ability to divine what’s really going on in Mel Gibson’s soul are impressive. You really should consider a career in the clergy: “We Read Your Heart! Confession by Telepathy, Penance by Blog!”
Seriously, you’re simply illustrating my point. You’re characterizing his behaviour with a cynical interpretation that flatters your personal beliefs and denigrates his. We all do it: I just enjoy pointing it out when it happens.
“Where I part with you is the notion that Catholics are somehow bound by his critique.”
I understand that they are not. I was commenting on the alacrity with which Conservative Catholic commentators and bloggers pounce on and promulgate papal pronouncements to promote their political agendas, in some cases actually calling for denial of the sacraments to politicians who decline to agree (ring any bells?), but somehow accord them less reverent attention when the Pope’s agenda doesn’t coincide with their own.
Well, from a Catholic perspective, it’s outrageous that Catholic politicians deny MAJOR doctrins of the faith and are never disciplined by the clergy.
Catholics will accord “critiques” less attention than major doctrines such as the respect of human life.
The “social doctrines” of the Church tend to be much less black-and-white than many left-leaning people make them out to be. They are often more right-wing than what they make them out to be.
But some doctrines are very black-and-white, and denying them is a scandal from a religious pov.
You also have to take into account the Catholic Hierarchy of truths. It is a much greater scandal to deny equality to unborn children and distort the true meaning of marriage and family, than to cut welfare. Why? Because respect for human life and family is a higher value than dealing with poverty. Without those two, you there’s no social fabric.
“From a Catholic perspective, it’s outrageous that Catholic politicians deny MAJOR doctrins of the faith and are never disciplined by the clergy.”
From your Catholic perspective, SUZANNE. Not from the Catholic perspective of my parents, nor that of any of my friends in the clergy, I’m afraid.
“Staunch Roman Catholic” is perhaps a silly label.
Gibson has, however, publicly and devoutly endorsed a “Traditionalist” Catholic doctrine which adheres to pre-Vatican II notions of the monarchical supremacy of the Pope, a disdain for dialogue with leaders of other non and Christian faiths and a good dose of anti-semitism.
Gibson seems to be sticking by his Pope more than any charge of sucking up to Hollywood.
it’s interesting to note that so many Catholic conservatives side consistently agree with and cite their Pope ONLY when he obligingly provides a useful endorsement for their political program on issues like gay marriage or abortion.
Is it interesting? Is it really, really interesting?
Honestly, it’s a just a morass of ignorance, ahistoric speculation, dishonesty and bad faith argumentation that got old ages ago.
In keeping with the theme of shifting and opportunistic Catholic loyalties, Kathy Shaidle (the born-again everything) has gone off her favourite anti-religious, pro-war non-recovering alcoholic blowhard Christopher Hitchens. She’s re-baptised him a “Lefty.” As the Church Lady would say…”How con-veeee-nient.”
From a Catholic perspective, it’s outrageous that Catholic politicians deny MAJOR doctrins of the faith and are never disciplined by the clergy.
Translation: Those public figures who are compelled to be frank and open about what is inevitable in a secular, diverse society have to be disciplined, in a voyeuristic spectacle that satisfies the retributive lusts of authoritarian sadists. All the other holy-rolling dishonest hypocrites who keep their mouths shut are just fine. After all, if you don’t say anything, how will God ever know?
It’s odd, isn’t it? SUZANNE’S attitude is precisely what kept Roman Catholics out of the presidency in the United State until Kennedy, and gave rise in part to the KKK (who were violently anti-Catholic) – the fear that a “foreign monarch”, the Pope, would be exercising influence over the US government.
I suppose any day the religious lunatics are being only inconsistent or confused (as opposed to out and out lying) is a day that causes Jesus to feel a little bit less ashamed about these rather sorry excuses for human beings who self-righteously pronounce themselves “people of faith.”
Your response is a fisking? Please. You cite the Kay document as if it is the be all end all of the intelligence on Iraq. Fortunately intelligence procurement efforts didn’t stop at the Dr. Kay report. The documents I refer to have been uncovered since.
But let’s assume that Kay’s report is the end of the story. Did you bother to read the report? If you had you would see that Kay also stated WMD researchers made it over Iraq’s borders prior to the war and may have taken WMD evidence with them. In addition you will also note that Dr. Kays article refernces that “ISG teams are uncovering significant information – including research and development of BW-applicable organisms, the involvement of Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) in possible BW activities, and deliberate concealment activitiesâ€.
It also mentions bio weapons research related to ricin, aflatoxin, BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF) all of which were concealed from the UN inspectors. Dr. Kay’s asessment is only part of the story.
I do see that you somehow distance yourself from adulation of Saddam Hussein by brushing aside the completely irrelevant mass graves. I suppose that genocide trial is also a prop of BushCo. A mere side show to reinforce that Saddam was a bad guy but nothing else. That’s fine, I wasn’t trying to imply that you personally had some adulation. It’s juts that the left conveniently chooses to ignore these facts when talking about Iraq prior to the war. It is a nostalgic canard as long as you consider that the witnesses in the genocide trial are simply reminiscing with nostalgic yearnings for the good ol’ days under Hussein.
We certainly can’t measure Mel’s faith, nor did I profess to. You are the one who called him a staunch Catholic. We can measure his actions and although certain “staunch catholics†may share Gibson’s anti-Semitism it has nothing to do with being a staunch Catholic. On the contrary, it has everything to do with not being one.
I think your arguments are pretty weak. The fact that you are defending Gibson in this manner simply strengthens the original points I made in my article that you referenced above.
>It’s not surprising that a Catholic actor happens to agree with his Pope on the immorality of Bush’s invasion. The surprise is that so many American and Canadian Catholics haven’t.
Why is it surprising? Many American and Canadian Catholics disagree with the Pope on several fundamental moral and ethical issues on which the Catholic church has a clearly stated position. We can add “just war” and specific cases to the list. Ho-hum.
What is it with rightwingers and sourcing? They claim to substantiate something, but their links always point nothing compelling.
You’d almost think they’re trying to hide that their assertions are based on nothing particularly factual. A surprising conclusion to arrive at, if true.
Not only that, one document indicated that Saddam was hiring suicide bombers to attack American interests as early as 6 months before 9/11.
There are many more documents along the same lines that talk about weapons programs, poison gases and attacks on American interests. Please don’t take my word for it and discount this as right wing propaganda; you can go read them for yourself.
I’ve seen the Captain’s Quarters use these documents as official sources, but there are nothing of the like. From the webpage that provides these sources:
At the request of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the US Army Foreign Military Studies Office has created this portal to provide the general public with access to unclassified documents and media captured during Operation Iraqi Freedom. The US Government has made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents, validity or factual accuracy of the information contained therein, or the quality of any translations, when available. The ODNI press release and public affairs contact information is available at http://www.odni.gov/
In short, these documents have never been validated as official Iraqi documents. There is no proof that they are real. If they were, why isn’t the admin trotting them out to try and shut their critics up?
Thanks. Err…?
Nope. I cite the Kay report as if it was the most comprehensive analysis to date. I’m aware of additional information, reportage, analysis and interpretation. As noted, that’s been discussed on this site. If you’re curious about that discussion (which also takes to task bloggers who uncritically reprint poorly sourced material from clearly biased Palestian or other Arab media), you might save yourself a bit of time providing us with dead horses.
I guess you missed the bit where I said I had.
Sorry, deleted a long bit there that just reprises a bunch of tired stuff irrelevant to this discussion.
You’re not really responding to my point, which WAS germane, I think. Delete the word “staunch” if you wish: the argument doesn’t depend on it.
Oh, dear. Well, sorry I didn’t want to talk about Saddam, and sorry you missed the point of my post.
“Many American and Canadian Catholics disagree with the Pope on several fundamental moral and ethical issues on which the Catholic church has a clearly stated position.”
Heh. I guess you don’t find the spectacle of folks like SUZANNE et al demanding that the Pope bully politicians into submission…but ONLY when he agrees with them…as funny as I do.
“Ho-hum.”
Sorry. Next time I’ll try to find a way to add torture to the mix.
In short, these documents have never been validated as official Iraqi documents. There is no proof that they are real. If they were, why isn’t the admin trotting them out to try and shut their critics up?
Oh, that’s what that was. I only moused over the link and when I saw “Captain’s Quarters,” I didn’t go any further, since that bucket-head’s obscurantism is legendary. I remember now when all of those documents were made available. The fact that they cannot be authenticated means they cannot be considered as evidence at all.
*farts at tiguay*
Trailer trash.
Yes you are. Yes. You. Are.
No I’m not. I don’t live in Redneckland, Alberta, after all.
Just another Ontario pussyfart. Yeah we get your noxious fumes down here across the praries. Try to clean up the bacterial overgrowth would you. Disgusting……
Hey Jeff,
If you divorce your wife, is she still your sister?
Yes! *oops I mean….*
“Those public figures who are compelled to be frank and open about what is inevitable in a secular, diverse society have to be disciplined, in a voyeuristic spectacle that satisfies the retributive lusts of authoritarian sadists.”
Oh gag. Adjective overload!
Bad writing, thy name is Ti-Guy.
God, the bitch is on my ass again.
…Come out yet?
Ti-Guy, I think it’s Jeff that has a crush on you. I remember grade 7 very well, and that kind of mindless, bawdy, and repetitive poking at is all the rage for elementry school courting.
Jeff, honey. I don’t think Ti-Guy’s interested.
Arwen, dear, ti unit was actually refering to Peter. But thanks for playing sweet cake. Now get in the kitchen and grab me and the boys a beer…
I know he was referring to Peter, dear Jeff, since I am in possession of a reading comprehension above that of Grade 3. That’s why I said “I think it’s Jeff”, suggesting that, in fact, Ti may have mistaken who is in the closet.
And although I am happy to fetch the beer for someone who has a disability regarding their mobility, unfortunately for you mental disability doesn’t fit that criterion. So you’ll have to fetch your own beer – although I must say, I discourage it, since it may make your thinking even more unclear.
I’m not paying you to think. Move it before I lose it, woman…
Lose what, little man?
You’re not paying me.
Just pretend I’m black, Arwen. lmao