Nw~~0_1-255x340.JPG)
The Italian Jesuit periodical La Civiltà Cattolica has given its opinion on the death of Osama Bin Laden and mostly backs the U.S. operation carried out last month.
The influential fortnightly journal, whose drafts are passed by the Vatican Secretariat of State, focuses on the many risks that a trial of Bin Laden would have created, and the strong geopolitical implications.
According to Francesco Peloso, writing in Gesuiti News, La Civiltà Cattolica gives “a very careful and realpolitik assessment” of the death of al Qaeda’s leader, and doesn’t condemn the decisions made by the Obama administration.
“The ocean could dilute the memory of Bin Laden,” La Civilta Cattolica says in an editorial published June 18th, “and the myth of impregnability has been shattered.” It takes issue on one aspect of Bin Laden’s demise: his burial at sea which, it says, “is not appropriate for a Muslim.” However, it points out that “it is easy to imagine that no country would accept his remains” and that being cast into the sea “avoided the possibility of creating a place of pilgrimage” for the world’s most wanted terrorist.
The periodical says the way in which bin Laden was killed has enlivened debate “about the legitimacy and legality of the operation” - kill or capture - but adds that not releasing any photos and video of his death “seemed a practical way of not providing extremists with useful propaganda.”
After noting that, according to the White House, the operation was motivated by a direct order from the President against an enemy “of humanity,” it observes: “Bin Laden was still dangerous. And he was stopped. To presume his innocence was juridically legitimate but not reasonable.”
The periodical goes on to say that the truth about Bin Laden’s terrorist activities “may be ascertained by other means”, in particular by trying the detainees at Guantanamo. The Jesuit journal also asks: “Who in fact could reasonably believe that Bin Laden was innocent?” and adds that a long trial would risk giving the defendant “an opportunity for propaganda with unpleasant revelations, also for U.S. allies.”
Although it says a trial without torture would have helped avoid a glorification of his death by his followers, at the same time it says that “a prisoner like Bin Laden would have motivated his followers to capture hostages to secure the release of their hero.”
Comments
Post a Comment
Ironically, obama, or at least his use as a patsy, was also disposed of in a manner that avoids any means of verification. 9/11 was an inside job, it was not orcastrated by a terrorist suffering from kidney failure in a cave. and that is if obama was even still extent in september of 2001. Trillions of dollars, most impressively equiped military ever and it takes 10 years to find one man who needs dialasis? And where do they find him? Hidding in a suburb in pakistan? come on people, lets see the elephant here already. geeze.
Konieczny:
One thing that traking down bin Laden proved was tha he was NOT suffering from kidney failure and living in a cave before 9/11—otherwise, there would have been some kidney treatment drugs or equipment in his house—which was a house, not a cave.
And in reference to another American president that the left attacks, I’m reading George Weigel’s biography of Pope John Paul II, and JP II told Weigel that Ronald Reagan was “a good president.” (Reagan’s aides regularily consulted the Vatican, and programs like “star wars”—which were defensive, not offensive—were proposed in order to follow the true social teachings of the Church. And JP II fought what Weigel calls “the PAX movement>”
don,
You make a good point…there was no kidney treatment drugs or equipment in his house. yet the fact is he was diabetic. Just another reason the whole thing is suspect. Again, the evidence doesn’t fit the “offical story” just like 9/11. I am not sellectivly critical of obama and not bush, or of bush and not obama. they are the same, not different. failure to notice that the office of the president carries out the same agenda regardless of the man in the office should be obvious by now.
Forged Certificate of Live Birth. Totally unverified killing of Osama. Phony photograph of Osama’s dead body. No further need to stay in Afghanistan. What’s next?
FrankCioppa:
Are you going to accuse the ‘La Civilta Catollica’ article of being forged next?
Don. No, I can go look up the Civilta Cattolica article to verify it.
Re: When We Can Kill
So let me get this straight. The Jesuits are saying that if we know that the target is a civilian realy bad guy then it is OK for a police or military assault team, upon effecting entry into the bad guy’s home, to chase the unarmed, sick, old, civilian, bad guy into his room and double tap him in the side rear of his head? And this is NOT a violation of the 5th Commandment?
Does this new rule apply only to Muslim men or can we shoot unarmed Muslim women and children in the head too - provided they are really bad? How about Jews? I mean we Westerners have had a lot of relatively recent experience in shooting Jews in the back of the head rather than to go to the all of the expense and bother of gassing them.
And of course this new rule does not apply to us Christians. Does it? I mean I cannot even imagine agents of the State breaking into a Christian home in the middle of the night and killing the husband and father of the family in front of his wife and children. It would never happen.
Congrats to the Jesuits for explaining and clarifying this new and important moral ruling.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
P.S. Do I get a plenary indulgence if I X-out a really, really, bad Muslim?
“To presume his innocence was juridically legitimate but not reasonable”. What a contradiction. Legitimate - lex - legis, law. Did Aquinas not say that Law is an ordinance of the reason? A definition that has lasted till today. What a flaw in this so called article. Is it really coming from the Jesuits? I doubt. Or rather, the report was not balanced. Legitimate without being reasonable is a contradiction.
Stanley Ekwugha,
What “To presume his innocence was juridically legitimate but not reasonable” means is that what may be reasonable in a court of law ian’t reasonable in combat.
And the Church (including Aquinas) has and does hold that it’s the responsibility of the laity, especially the government, to determine the justice of situations like this. (See Canon 227.)
It’s leftists who lie about what the Church teaches.
Richard W Cornerford,
Again, read Canon 227 of the Code of Canon Law. That Osama bin Laden continued to plot to kill “infidels,” and that it would be difficult (to put it mildly) to arrest him and put him on trial, isn’t in doubt.
If you see a man murdering someone else, yes, you do have the right to do whatever is neccessary to stop him—even if he is an old man.
FrankCioppa,
How do you know that whatever copy of Civilta Catolica you look up isn’t forged? That’s what conspiracy theorists are doubtless going to say.
Osama bin Laden was head of an irregular organization that had declared war on a nation, the US, among others and the whole western, particularly Christian world. He had directed the killing of as many people as he could. He admitted and boasted of that fact numerous times on videos and via other media.
The civil law does not reflect reason. Just because something is reasonable does not mean it is legal. Something may be unreasonable but legal.
Finally, since Osama Bin Laden and others have committed and directed irregular acts of war against the US, Spain, UK and other countries, it is imminently legal, right and just to kill him when the military got the chance.
The article was right. Some of the commenters are breathtakingly naive and unable to tell the difference between right and wrong, good and evil and just and unjust. Your sympathies are misplaced. Perhaps you need better formation of your consciences.
Re: On Murdering Muslims
“read Canon 227 of the Code of Canon Law”
Canon 227 does not grant lay people the right to shoot, unarmed, sick old men in the head.
‘That Osama bin Laden continued to plot to kill “infidels,”’
No one but Osama knows what Osama was plotting. The Church forbids preventative acts of war.
“and that it would be difficult (to put it mildly) to arrest him”
A Navy SEAL assault element canno0t arrest one, unarmed, sick, old man?
“and put him on trial”
The NAZI and Japanese leadership was put on trial after WWII.
“If you see a man murdering someone else”
The SEAL did not see Osama in the act of “murdering someone else”.
“you do have the right to do whatever is neccessary to stop him—even if he is an old man.”
No. The Church puts limits on the legitimate use of force.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Re: On Murdering Muslims
“Osama bin Laden was head of an irregular organization”
There was no evidence that Osama (or anyone other single person) exercised operational control of Al Qaeda.
“He had directed the killing of as many people as he could.”
So has the President of Planned Parenthood.
“The civil law does not reflect reason.”
THat is certainly correct. Se Roe v Wade and the Dred Scott Decision.
“it is imminently legal, right and just to kill him when the military got the chance.”
You obviously fell asleep during the annual, mandated Geneva Convention briefing. U.S Service members do not have a right to kill someone just because that someone tried to kill them. The specific example given is that an enemy bomber crew that has just bailed out after bombing a friendly position may not be killed while under canopy or after they have landed unless they show armed resistance.
“Perhaps you need better formation of your consciences.”
Perhaps you should read the Geneva Conventions, the US Code and the UCMJ.Anyone other US Service Members who did what the SEALS did to Osama would be doing the long course now at Fort Leavenworth making small stones out of bug ones.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Richard W Comerford
Canon 227 does not apply. OBL was not a “sick old man”. Unless You were there, you cannot attest to that. He murdered people and called for their murder in an irregular war.
Geneva Conventions do not apply, either.
If you want to be a pacifist, fine. These are prudential judgments. Your prudence is very questionable as is your ability, from what I have read that you have written, to make moral judgments.
Re: On Murdering Muslims III
“OBL was not a “sick old man”.”
The reason why Third World countries are described as third world is because 54 year old men are old; and old guys who spent years living as guerrillas are sick.
“Geneva Conventions do not apply, either.”
The Geneva Conventions, to which both the USA and the Vatican are signatories, specifically provide protection to individuals engaged in irregular warfare, who are unarmed and are not in uniform.
“If you want to be a pacifist, fine.”
I do not wish to condone murder.
“These are prudential judgments.”
U.S. Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan who shot and killed unarmed Muslim suspects in raids on their homes were judged guilty of murder by Court Martial.
“Your prudence is very questionable”
Hey it is not me. I did not sign the Geneva Convention for the USA, nor enact federal statutes which prohibit the killing of of unarmed civilians nor did I approve the UCMJ which does the same.
“as is your ability, from what I have read that you have written, to make moral judgments.”
You mean like “Thou shalt not kill”?
God bless
Richard W Comerford
@Richard A few fact checks: The commandment is “Thou Shalt Not Murder.”
Neither the Vatican nor the US are signatories to the Geneva Convention.
The Geneva Convention covers the rules of war and treatment of regular, in uniform, combatants, not irregular combatants who can be summarily executed.
Just FYI OBL stated and wrote numerous times that he wanted to reestablish the Caliphate from east Asia to Poitiers, all of Africa, the Near East, and extend it further, by violence if necessary. Any means permissible.
3rd world life expectancy (in itself a patronizing term) for the poor is low, depending on the country. For the wealthy, it is a high or higher than western life expectancy. Check the WHO statistics.
You have confirmed my statement that your opinions to which you have a right are not fact, nor faith based, but naively sentimental.
May God grant you peace
Re: On Murdering Muslims IV
“The commandment is “Thou Shalt Not Murder.””
Sorry I am a Catholic. Thou shalt not kill appears in the Catechism.
“Neither the Vatican nor the US are signatories to the Geneva Convention.”
Really? Wow? I guess the Army was wrong all those years when we had mandatory briefings (every year)on our legal obligation to comply with all 4-Conventions, 3-major protocols, and numerous other declarations. And JP II must be wrong about the Holy See being a signature too.
“The Geneva Convention covers the rules of war and treatment of regular, in uniform, combatants, not irregular combatants who can be summarily executed.”
No. Exactly wrong. The 4-Convention, three major protocols and innumerable declarations provide protection to essentially every human being caught in a conflict and prohibit “summary execution”.
“Just FYI OBL stated and wrote numerous times that he wanted to reestablish the Caliphate from east Asia to Poitiers, all of Africa, the Near East, and extend it further, by violence if necessary.”
Oh my goodness. We should murder the guy for that. Oops, we already did.
“3rd world life expectancy (in itself a patronizing term) for the poor is low,”
I know. I served in a few.
“For the wealthy, it is a high or higher than western life expectancy.”
Wealthy guys who spent most of their adult lives engaged in guerrilla warfare?
“You have confirmed my statement that your opinions to which you have a right are not fact, nor faith based, but naively sentimental.”
And what is worse I am paraphrasing those Wojty?a and Ratzinger guys!
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Richard W Cornerford,
How is it that you claim to know that the Catechism of the Catholic church exists yet don’t know that it endorses the legitimacy of fighting in self-defense? Look it up.
As for paraphrasing those Wojtyla and Ratinger guys, in 2004 Ratzinger wrote to the US bishops in the name of Wojtyla to remind them that “there may be a legitimate diversity of opinion among Catholics concerning war and the death penalty but not, however, in regard to abortion and euthanasia.” Which Wojtyla and Ratzingers were you paraphrasing?
(And by the way, “Thou shalt not kill” in Exodus 20 in modern English would be “You shall not murder; the words that Elizabethan English used as “slay” amd “kill” we would translate as “kill” and “murder.” And God goes on to say in Exodus 21 “When one man kills another after deliberatly plotting to do so, you shall take him—even from my altar—and put him to death.”)
...And Canon 227, which forbids the laity to propose their own opinions as the teaching of the Church, does apply to the liberals who still insist that you can’t prove (to their satisfaction) that Osama bin Laden had anything to do with al Qaida.
Re: Murdering Muslims V
“How is it that you claim to know that the Catechism of the Catholic church exists yet don’t know that it endorses the legitimacy of fighting in self-defense? Look it up.”
No. The Church teaches that under certain conditions, not all. nations employ force for self defense.
“Which Wojtyla and Ratzingers were you paraphrasing?”
Both
‘“Thou shalt not kill” in Exodus 20 in modern English would be “You shall not murder’
As mentioned above I am a Catholic. Our Catechism reads “Thou Shalt not kill”.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Re: Murdering Muslims VI
“does apply to the liberals who still insist that you can’t prove (to their satisfaction) that Osama bin Laden had anything to do with al Qaida.”
The question is not, for followers of Jesus Chris,t whether UBL had operational command and control of Al Qaeda or whether AL Qaeda as a functional guerrilla movement still even exists; but whether the President of the United States can order on his own authority U.S. Service members to shoot and kill an unarmed, sick, old man in his own bedroom in front of his own family for whatever reason.
U.S. Marines and Soldiers serving in Afghan and Iraq have been found guilty of murder by Court Martial for the exact same action. Why are the SEALS heroes and the grunts murderers? What if a SEAL had refused to comply with the President’s order? Would he be guilty of failing to comply with the order of a Superior in the face of the enemy. Would good Christians shun the SEAL for acting in an immoral fashion?
Jack Bauer is a fictional character. Jesus Christ is not.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Genesis 9:6:
“If anyone sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has man been made.”
Exodus 21:14:
“...when a man kills another after maliciously scheming to do so, you must take him—even from my altar—and put him to death.”
Psalm 82:4:
“Rescue the lowly and the poor; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”
Romans 13:4:
“It is not without purpose that the ruler bears the sword; he is God’s servant, to inflict wrath on the evildoer.”
Catechism of the Catholic church:
2263: “The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing.”
2265: “Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm.”
2309: “The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility fo rthe common good.”
(See also the answers to questions 467 and 484 of the Compendium of the Catechism.)
Re: Murdering Muslims VII
Breaking into a civilian home in the middle of the night and putting a bullet in the back of the head of a sick, old man in front of his family while he is trying to hide in his bedroom may be OK for Jack Bauer and Gestapo wannabes but it is not self defense. Nor is it prudential. It is blood lust and revenge.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
the whole thing is fishy anyway. I can’t imagine that OBL didn’t die along time ago. I have seen people with diabetes who require “kidney help” and they don’t hide out in caves. In fact if you do a news search on the subject you will find the reports of him being admitted to an american hospital in Dubai where he may very well have died…in 2001. 911 was an inside job, not an outside job. the entire “defensive” operation in the middle east has nothing to do with defense. it is imperialism and materialism at its absolute best. War is a racket and it is very very very profitable for the people who run the show.
michael konieczny,
So like Gerald Loughner, the guy who put a bullet into Congresswoman Gifford’s head, your a “9/11 truther”? that explains a lot about your grip on reality.
Richard W Cornerford,
What part of section 2309 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church is beyond your ability to comprehend?
Don Schenk,
Nancy Pelosi calls her self a catholic, is that a mark against me also because I am a catholic? So the media reports Gerald Loughner as a “truther”, so by your logic that makes everyone else who isn’t buying the offical stories from the government just like Gerald? You ability to make “logical” connections is not very impressive. I am also not impressed with the forged and false birth certificates that Obama has put out for public consumption. Those who share my opinion on this part of the establishment circus are called “birthers” by those of you who resort to name calling instead of arguement. I think I will refer to you all generally as “name-callers”.
Re: Murdering Muslims VIII
“What part of section 2309 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church is beyond your ability to comprehend?”
The Catechism of the Catholic Church does not allow a U.S. Navy SEAL to put a bullet in the back of the head of a sick, old, unarmed man who is standing right in front of his family. Nor does the Uniform Code of Military Justice. There are soldiers and Marines sitting in prison right now for doing the exact same thing the SEAL did. Nor does common sense. IF UBL was so dangerous then why not capture him instead of murdering him? Dead men do not talk.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
The nazi leaders after WWII were brought to trial, they were not executed upon capture even though they had infinite times more blood on their hands. They were only executed or imprisoned if found guilty in a court of law. If we are to believe the laughable fantasy story of Osama’s capture as purported by the US Administration; then they execution was illegal and not only a black mark on the honor of our nation and military but a grave sin.
OBL is dead, but he has been dead for a long long time, from a combination of Marfans syndrome and Renal failure. Grow up people, a little brown man in a cave did not attack us, it was the same people that love the 50 million abortions in this country that attacked us. 9-11 was an inside job.
greg in San Diego,
Yes sir! I agree completely. Right on my friend.
Greg:
“The nazi leaders after WWII were brought to trial, they were not executed upon capture even though they had infinite times more blood on their hands.”
Some Nazis were indeed executed by hanging after being found guilty of serious crimes during the Nirenberg Trials after WW II.
“Grow up people, a little brown man in a cave did not attack us, it was the same people that love the 50 million abortions in this country that attacked us. 9-11 was an inside job.”
The evidence is overwhelming that 19 of our Muslim brothers, born in foreign lands, hijacked four US Air Liners, kidnapping the passengers and crews; and then murdered those same passengers and crew as well as many others by deliberately flying the hijacked aircraft into building that held an iconic quality for many Americans.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Richard,
Posted by Richard W Comerford on Tuesday, Jul 5, 2011 9:56 AM (EDT):
“Some Nazis were indeed executed by hanging after being found guilty of serious crimes during the Nirenberg Trials after WW II.”
That is indeed true, but only AFTER they were convicted of those crimes in a court of law, they were not shot in the face immediately after capture vigilante style.
“The evidence is overwhelming that 19 of our Muslim brothers, born in foreign lands, hijacked four US Air Liners, kidnapping the passengers and crews; and then murdered those same passengers and crew as well as many others by deliberately flying the hijacked aircraft into building that held an iconic quality for many Americans.”
Your statement is again correct in so far as the course of events; my strong belief as well as compelling evidence gathered over the last 10 years shows that those that orchestrated the 9/11 attack (not those that carried it out) were NOT little brown men of a different faith hiding in caves.
God Bless,
Greg in S.D.
Greg;
“That is indeed true, but only AFTER they were convicted of those crimes in a court of law, they were not shot in the face immediately after capture vigilante style.”
In the East Red Army did indeed execute captured Nazis after capture without conviction in a Court of Law. In the West, as the Reich fell, the Brits deployed a small SAS unit which targeted and murdered Nazi officials.
“my strong belief as well as compelling evidence gathered over the last 10 years shows that those that orchestrated the 9/11 attack (not those that carried it out) were NOT little brown men of a different faith hiding in caves.”
My dear friend.You may be right. Only God knows. But conspiracy theories are dangerous. They can become obsessive. For what it is worth I am a broken down Special Forces soldier. Despite my age I am still involved in anti-terrorism in the private sector (nothing important). This causes me to interact with a lot of guys from several countries who are a lot smarter than I. And I cannot think of a single professional who thinks that the 9/11 tragedy was anything else than what it appears. May I suggest that you leave this matter in God’s hands?
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Buona scrittura, io sono normale visitatore di www.ncregister.com, mantenere il funzionamento belle, e che sta per essere un assiduo frequentatore per lungo tempo.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.