A Comeback? Just War Never Left!

Regarding “Battling by the Book: Just War Makes a Comeback,” Oct. 21-28:

While almost always I find the Register to be the most insightful of all daily or weekly news sources, I was greatly disturbed by several unchallenged assertions made by individuals quoted in your article on just war and the war in Afghanistan.

To begin with, while Britain's Royal Air Force did target German residential areas at night, the American 8th Air Force practiced daylight precision bombing, targeting factories. While the precision of the time was far from precise, the Air Force did its best within the limits of technology to hit only military targets.

Furthermore, to argue that the Allies’ insistence on unconditional surrender was morally unjustified because it prolonged the war ignores that a conditional surrender would have left the fascist leaders in control of Germany and Japan. Besides setting the stage for another war, it would have let the Nazis continue to slaughter the Jews and others within Germany. Conditional surrender certainly would have shortened World War II, but greatly increased the death and destruction in the long run.

The same is true with the atomic bombing of Japan. As we learned after the war, the military government in control of Japan intended on fighting to the last, causing an estimated one million Japanese and 100,000 American casualties. Even after the blockade and atomic attacks, it took the personal intervention of the Japanese emperor to force the government to surrender.

Finally, I wonder about the reliability of the entire article, given the confusion the author seems to have between the 16th century and the 1600s. The article states that the traditional Christian rules on warfare were largely abandoned during the religious wars of the “16th century,” but then were returned to in the 17th and 18th century. The 17th century unquestionably saw the greatest period of religious wars and abandonment of Christian warfare. This period included the Thirty Years War (1618-48), the English Civil War and the subsequent holy wars of Oliver Cromwell (died 1658). While these all occurred in the 1600s, that makes it the 17th century, since the 1st century A.D. covers the period 0-99 A.D.

(Please note: These opinions are my own and not those of the Air Force.)

SIGURD R. PETERSON JR.

Dayton, Ohio

The writer is a major in the U.S. Air Force.

A Comeback? Just War Absent Still!

With regret I disagree with the statement in your editorial “Just War Returns” (Oct 21-28): “So what the U.S. is doing instead — so far — is to target the Taliban regime and take pains to keep civilian casualties as low as possible.”

It would appear that the hundreds of thousands fleeing to Pakistan are victims of “terrorism,” in a sense. As you pointed out, massive destruction by our country is not new.

BILL GOLDEN

Venice, Florida

Patriotic Like the Pope

Two recent items in the Register (“Neither Patriot Nor Pacifist, I'm Left With: ‘What to Do?’” by Benjamin Wiker (Oct. 14-20) and David Kluge's letter in the Oct. 21-27 issue come close to asserting that Catholics are not Americans. Mr. Wiker states that this is necessarily so because, at baptism, he assumed a “higher allegiance.” Patriotism is therefore beside the point. Mr. Kluge might have pledged allegiance to the American flag of 1789, but our country's fall from its Christian origins has left him little or nothing that is worthy of honor.

These views may be motivated by a desire to love God, but they are clearly wrong. First, they support the old libel that Catholics cannot be true Americans. Second, they are totally at odds with the approach of our Holy Father to faith and culture. John Paul II on his visits to the United States continually exhorts Americans to live up to what is best in our culture and heritage. This is, of course, his approach to the faithful in every country. The Pope himself is just as much a Polish patriot now as ever. Neither his election in 1978 nor any present difficulties in his homeland have changed this one bit, as all can see.

There is much to love in America. All Catholics should happily sing “God Bless America,” which, after all, is a prayer that God will bless our country.

DONALD P. BOYLE JR.

Alpharetta, Georgia

Clash or Dialogue of Civilizations?

Why is Father Richard John Neuhaus fighting his Pope? His “Just War Is an Obligation of Charity” (Perspective, Oct. 7-13) urges us to “appreciate” Samuel Huntington's “clash of civilizations” arguments. On the contrary, it is the implementation of such ideas that is destroying our civilization.

In the 1970s and 80s, our pathetic geopoliticians (like Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski) implemented Huntington's ideas by sponsoring and supporting the Afghanis, especially against the Soviet invasion of 1979. We had much help (you could even say “direction”) from especially British, but also French, intelligence circles, who have played the “Great Game” on the southern borders of Russia for centuries. We now have “terrorists for hire,” connected to the drug- and warlords of the area, who have been promoted by, and still may be influenced by, leading agents of the “Christian West.”

Such are the fruits of the “clash of civilizations.”

Pope John Paul II has tirelessly opposed such geopolitics by encouraging a “dialogue among civilizations” and by promoting a profound ecumenism between especially Christians, Muslims and Jews. These efforts [reflect] Pope Paul VI's formulation [in his 1967 encyclical Populorum Progressio]:“Development is the new name for peace.”

MIKE SMEDBERG

Sterling, Virginia

Father Neuhaus responds:

I am afraid that Mr. Smedberg conflates and confuses at least three distinct questions. As to whether the U.S. response to terrorist acts of war constitutes a just war as defined by Catholic social doctrine, I wrote that I believe the answer is Yes. As to his polemic against Messrs. Kissinger and Brzezinski, and whether their actions were based on Samuel Huntington's thesis regarding a clash of civilizations, I believe his judgments are excessively harsh and, meaning no offense, simplistic. As to the Church's irrevocable commitment to Christian unity and interreligious understanding, and to development as the basis of peace, there can be no question. Nor did anything I wrote suggest otherwise.

Excommunicating Politicians 101

Abortion is the most flagrant and widespread offense against the basic right to life of all human persons in the United States. A country that “legally” kills over a million of its children each year is fundamentally disordered and, despite any material or technological successes, cannot be considered peaceful or just, let alone a moral authority in world affairs.

Cardinal Cipriani's recent canonical action against Catholic politicians in Peru (“Peru Cardinal Puts Lawmakers on the Spot” and “U.S. Drive Wants the Same, But Critics Raise Questions,” Oct. 14-20) brings into a clearer light a specific dimension of this problem: the complicity of Catholics. There currently are dozens of Catholics in Congress who consider themselves “pro-choice.” What can be done to reverse this negative Catholic witness?

Last April, Catholics United for the Faith issued a position paper that addresses this controversial topic. It reviews magisterial teaching on the subject, examines the particular situation in the United States and the U.S. bishops’ response, examines specific issues raised by the Ashcroft hearings and offers practical, constructive steps for lay people to take in addressing these serious concerns.

To request a copy of this position paper, contact

CUF

827 North Fourth St.

Steubenville, OH 43952

(800) 693-2484

www.cuf.org

LEON J. SUPRENANT

Steubenville, Ohio

The writer is president of Catholics United for the Faith.

Correction

Due to an editing error, the first name of the president of Syria was misspelled in Gabriel Meyer's Oct. 21-27 op-ed, “Mao as Important as Mohammed to Terrorists.” The president's name, correctly spelled: Bashar Assad. We regret the error.