What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Uh-huh
War, huh, yeah
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again, y’all
Yesterday, Matthew posted a story about posthumous Medal of Honor recipient Michael Monsoor who sacrificed himself in order to save the lives of his brothers in arms. Matthew also says, correctly in my mind, that such self sacrifice and love transcend opinions about the war. It is a light in the darkness. Noble. Honorable.
Not so for the folks at Vox-Nova. For Morning’s Minion, the prosaic lyrics (above) from the well known anti-war song are gospel. Literally.
Mornings Minion writes that no good can ever come of war. NO good.
In the zeal for military force, they often forget that war is a last resort, and is therefore–by definition– a sign of failure. And, following from this, no good can come of something that derives from failure and defeat.
When I first read this I naturally presumed that this was rhetorical hyperbole designed to highlight the horrific nature of war. It turns out that the benefit of the doubt is not warranted in this case. No, he proposes that the Nothing in the Edwin Starr song is a literal nothing. There is no nobility in it.
In fact, not only is there no nobility in it, but he argues that the participation in the defense of your nation is such a grave sin that soldiers should be denied communion. Yes, let me say it again. Soldiers who participate in war should be denied communion.
To close, I would remind everybody of the wise counsel once given by St. Basil of Caesarea. In trying to square Christian teachings with the miltary profession, be noted that soliders who kill in war should not be treated in the same way as those guilty of homocide. But they are not off the book either: “it is well to counsel that those whose hands are not clean only abstain from communion for three years.” I think it would be a good idea to resurrect this teaching, so show that the Church must stand apart from a culture that glorifies military service.
This distorted perspective is a lot of things, but Catholic is certainly not one of them. Let us first look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
2310 …Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.
Honorable. Contribute to the common good. This is what the Church teaches. Of course, the public authorities responsible for making or avoiding war have a very grave responsibility to avoid it wherever possible. But the soldiers who fight in our defense can do so with honor and very often do.
As to the notion that no good can derive from failure and defeat, this is decidedly un-Christian. I would remind the good folks over at Vox-Nova of something called the crucifixion. From this failure, from this defeat, from this intrinsically evil act, the Lord wrought our salvation.
War is most certainly a failure. But to deny soldiers who honorably carry out their duty in defense of their country communion would be an even greater failure.
April 10, 2008 at 3:02 am
While our soldiers are fighting to protect his right to be an idiot, he wants to deny them communion.
Who wants to put money on the fact that the author would never deny communion to those who persist in manifest grave sin by advocating abortion?
Disgusting.
April 10, 2008 at 3:03 am
Morning’s Minion is a grade-A asshat. I stopped reading Vox Nova a couple weeks ago because he’s such a dipshit.
April 10, 2008 at 3:05 am
Its A Outrage!
April 10, 2008 at 3:42 am
Life’s too short to read Vox Nova
April 10, 2008 at 5:04 am
I agree with Paul about Vox Nova.
Minion though needs to get his message to Saint John the Baptist who according to him horribly misled soldiers when they asked him what they were suppose to do.
April 10, 2008 at 2:36 pm
YOu guys can be flip about this all you want but what about “Thou Shall Not Kill” don’t you understand?
I understand that WWII can be considered a just war but this war is clearly not a just war so all that goes on is sin, don’t you think?
April 10, 2008 at 2:50 pm
“Thou shall not kill” is an oversimplification of the translation. It’s more properly “thou shall not murder.”
Also, while the current Pope and the past Pope have been critical of the Iraq war, neither one has declared it to be an “unjust war.” On that note, what about the troops in Afghanistan? The Philippines? Do you want to blanket-deny them communion as well?
April 10, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Are we to take your word that St Basil’s perspective is distorted? Or are we to place your interpretation of a conflict between the catechism and a Saint above Morning Minion’s unstated and assumed opinion of non-contradiction? And since it is the quote from St. Basil you reserve such contempt, are you claiming that you have greater insight into the Resurrection – you’re supposed proof – than he?
April 10, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Irenaeus: you do grave dishonor to the noble name you have adopted. That’s all I have to say to you– your own foul language condemns you.
April 10, 2008 at 4:37 pm
I find it very interesting that there is such a strong pro-military feeling in the US, that is only mirrored in other countries with strong nationalist sensibilities. It is no exagerration to say that, indeed, the men and womens with guns are glorified in this country. As a Christian, I find that a little repulsive.
As I said in my post, the only reason for using the military is as a last resort, when all else fails, when sin in the world is painfully manifest. This was the struggle that engaged the Church fathers like St. Basil– I notice you are all dismissing him too. And as I said on the VN comments, perhaps the denial of communion is a really bad idea–the point, however, is that we need to return to the sensitivities of the early Christians when it comes to being Christian in a war, and get past the idolatrous Enlightenment-era glorification of the nation state.
Also, what you seem to mean by “freedom” is radically different from the Christian conception– the American conception of freedom encompasses much good, but it is based on a flawed anthropology– an concept of individual supremacy without any notion of the common good and a harmonious social order. And, by the way, most countries in the world enjoy the same “freedoms” as the United States– the great blindness of many Americans is to assume, Calvinist-style, that they are exceptional and somehow ordained by God to bring light to the nations. Not so. God doesn’t play favorities.
April 10, 2008 at 5:06 pm
MM,
You act as if all the Doctors agreed with St. Basil. On the contrary, here’s a little St. Augustine:
“If the Christian Religion forbade war altogether, those who sought salutary advice in the Gospel would rather have been counseled to cast aside their arms, and to give up soldiering altogether. On the contrary, they were told: ‘Do violence to no man… and be content with your pay.’ If he commanded them to be content with their pay, he did not forbid soldiering.”
April 10, 2008 at 5:14 pm
You mean other free countries like Canada where Mark Steyn could be fined or imprisoned for his book on the threat of Islamo-fascism?
April 10, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Where you seem so far off, Minion, is your seeming assumption that anyone who joins the military does so because they want to go to war in a foreign country and kill people. There might be some people like that… but it’s a pretty broad characterization, don’t you think?
You’re confusing joining the service with espousing the beliefs of a particular president or congress.
Absolutely, using the military should be a last resort. But you’re confusing using the military with joining it.
Soldiers are placed in fox holes by twos. Why? Because, as combat psychologists have told us, they wouldn’t shoot if they were alone. They shoot to protect the person next to them.
So perhaps, when they join the service, they do it out of a sense of wanting to protect – their neighbors, their town, their family – perhaps even their sibling who joined before them.
And here’s the deal – the deal without which no military would ever work – when they join, they give themselves up. They put their trust in the government and their officers to use them wisely, but if the government says you go to this place and give your life – you do.
So if you want to argue for denying communion to someone, deny communion to the people who put them in those foxholes, who make them endure that fear, that want, that pain, that hell, and perhaps, that death.
But to deny soldiers (who have gone through confession and penance) the eucharist at a time when they have faced this hell and buried their friends, at a time when they need it most? That, to me, is unchristian.
April 10, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Matthew
Several points. First MM never said one could not be a soldier. Second, the quote from St Augustine you gave pointed out that one was to ‘do no violence to no man.’ So one can be a soldier without doing violence and there is no stipulation given (early soldiers did all kinds of work, like bridge building, and not just fight — this context is so often forgotten). Third, the Augustine quote does not go against St Basil about what happens if one kills in war. It wasn’t just in St Basil’s time such restrictions were put into place; it was normative for the first millenium.
If people would honestly read what the Popes have been saying about war and peace for the past century, they would see the vision of the Church is far different from the militarism we have pushed into the world by neo-conservative American imperialists.
It is interesting to see such a twisted, equivocal reading of “failure” to make the Pope’s words about human failure when war starts as if war is therefore soteriological. Doing that demonstrates the idolatry inherent within a dangerous subsection of the American populace. Of course, the same people will be the same ones which say they won’t want to have a “failure” in the war on terror and lose that war… they wouldn’t claim such a failure would bring about salvation to society, would they?
April 10, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Well, I need to edit my replies better. Sorry about that.
“So one can be a soldier without doing violence and there is no stipulation given (early soldiers did all kinds of work, like bridge building, and not just fight — this context is so often forgotten).”
Should have read, “So one can be a soldier without doing violence and so there is a stipulation given”
April 10, 2008 at 5:37 pm
“And here’s the deal – the deal without which no military would ever work – when they join, they give themselves up. They put their trust in the government and their officers to use them wisely, but if the government says you go to this place and give your life – you do.”
Anonymous — the trials after World War II actually point out if you follow what you said, you would be able to be tried for crimes against humanity and “I was doing my orders” wouldn’t cut it.
April 10, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Henry,
Thank you for inferring that I’m a nazi. You also could have brought up certain instances in Vietnam, or even in the current conflict. And I’ll agree, there’s a point at which we are all responsible, as long as you’ll agree that there’s a difference between combat and intentional murder of innocents.
But of course the issue at hand has nothing to do with courts. It has to do with communion. And again, denying communion to a soldier after combat – denying nourishment to a hurting soul – to me is cold, mean, and petty.
April 10, 2008 at 6:37 pm
When pulling out ideas like St. Basil’s on abstention from communion after killing in war, it’s important to remember the very different understanding of sacrament and forgiveness in the early Church. Remember, this is the same period in which it was a well accepted practice to not be baptised until you were on your deathbed, when reception of the Eucharist by the laypeople was very rare, and when lengthy periods of exclusion from the Eucharist and public penance were routine. (Several sexual sins resulted in exclusion from the Eucharist for 2-5 times _longer_ than killing in a war.)
So while one should certainly not mock or lightly discard St. Basil’s thought, it’s very important to see it in context. The Church’s understanding of the sacramental life has developed a lot since that time. And I think it’s key to note that the same people are not advocating any sort of universal return to these approaches to penance — they are cherry-picking the one thing that they like in order to score points against a group (the military) which they despise.
I think it’s also to look a little closer at MM’s claim that we live in a highly nationalistic society, and that this results in a glorification of “the men and womens with guns”.
First off, it betrays a bit of a mis-understanding of the roles in the modern military. Most people in the armed forces these days are not trigger-pullers. As in the Roman Legions, our soldiers spend a lot of time working on civic projects, serving as peace keepers and police, dealing with supplies, etc.
But getting at the root of the question, I think it’s important to look at the question of _why_ people admire the military in our country. Sure, there may be some element of liking the idea of big powerful people with big powerful weapons, but what one actually hears about all the time is sacrifice. Sacrifice is also an ideal which the military consciously cultivates. Note that of the three Medal of Honor recipients so far in the Iraq War (all postumous) two threw themselves on grenades to save the lives of others, and one was shot while working under heavy fire to drag wounded comrades to safety. I think it speakes to US military ideals that it awards its highest medal to people for cases of self sacrifice to save the lives of others — not “he died in order to kill 50 bad-ass Al Qaeda fighters”.
Now, Iafrate acknowledges this to an extent over in the comments of the Vox Nova thread this post links to, but he claims that lots of non-Christian cultures place a value on sacrifice for the tribe. First of all, one could question the “for the tribe” aspect, since Michael Monsoor is credited with sacrificing himself to save three fellow SEALs and nine Iraqis. But more importantly, the Church has provided us (especially in and since Vatican II) with the insight that no good can truly be separate from Christ, and no evil be truly done in His name.
Thus, even if the US military ideal of sacrifice to save the lives of others was somehow tribal in its origins, that ideal is (even if unknowingly so) Christian to the extent that it is an ideal of giving one’s life to save the lives of others. While Michael, Henry and MM might have no probelm admiring such an ideal in among non-Christians, they seems to blind themselves to it in regards to members of our military.
Finally, one should question the claim that because the war was unjust in its aims (if one accepts such a view — I don’t) that everything done there by our military is therefor wrong and unjust. At this point, our soldiers are primarily providing security in Iraqi cities and towns — protecting civilians from criminals and lawless elements who seek to oppress them. Regardless of how we got there (and the Roman soldiers John the Baptist spoke to were stationed in a land, Israel, which had been forcibly occupied) the work we’re doing there now is primarily that of protecting civilians and providing order — as the Vatican has acknowledged.
This urge to label everything done there as evil and thus logically to hold that all our soldiers should leave immediately is essentially a vengefullness which seeks to inflict further instability and suffering on the Iraqi people. It is not peaceful, and it is not admirable.
April 10, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Once again, I would suggest people actually deal with the argument itself and not some side arguments. No one has said “don’t be a soldier.” People have questioned how we should treat a soldier engaging in violence – a far different question.
And it is well and good to point out that a soldier doesn’t have to be engaged in violence — that was one of my points. However, if people want to eliminate the system by which a soldier can question orders and the violence they are forced to use, then that distinction doesn’t matter. If, however, people are willing to support a soldier’s refusal to engage in actions they think are a-moral and not be told they have to do it anyway, then that distinction can hold.
April 10, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Anonymous
I didn’t infer anyone was a Nazi. I just pointed out that international law has overruled the concept of “orders is orders.” It was certainly an ancient way of dealing with moral quandries, but it is one which no longer is allowable –but of course, many people will be more than willing to force a view that doesn’t allow enemy combatants to have such a defense but will demand it for their own.