Once again, the position at EA is that the Pope—it doesn’t matter which Pope—is unethically abusing his authority and serving as gum in the works while fostering confusion when he presumes dictate national policy based on idealism and utopianism
A guy I never heard of who was an executive editor of The National Catholic Reporter and who, we are told, “directed coverage of the conclave that elected Pope Leo XIV,” was awarded an op-ed in the New York Times (Gift link, though it’s not much of a gift) to explain why he thinks the Pope thinks that “the age of artificial intelligence undermines the moral criteria for just war.” Ramalama ding-dong! Why is anyone listening to guys who have the luxury of dealing with the abstract and never having the responsibility of keeping a nation and a population safe and secure as they pontificate about the right way to do it? Why is anyone reading the analysis of an obscure functionary who has also never had to face the harsh human, military, geopolitical and practical realities of war as he rationalizes the basis for a Pope’s irresponsible interference with serious international matters?
The New York Times has demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is fully committed to undermining President Trump, his policies and his popular support. The “just war” blather, another phase of arguing how many angels can gather on a pinhead, suddenly became useful to the Axis of Unethical conduct when it wanted to root for a murderous, anti-Christian Islamic regime while it was fighting the United States of America. Popes never support wars, and it isn’t news when the Vatican condemns one. Infamously, the Vatican refused to take sides in World War II, or take any substantive steps to try to end the extermination of Jews in Europe. Now the Pope doesn’t think a war that has among its goals making as certain as possible that Iran doesn’t have the ability to do what it has been promising to do for decades—destroy Israel— is a “just war,” or to be more precise, that we should redefine “just war” to eliminate Israel’s and the U.S.’s justification for neutralizing Iran.
There’s a damning consistency there, no?
Ethics Alarms 
I wonder how he would feel if Iran wanted to wipe the Vatican off the map. I am sure they do, they are just focusing on one group of infidels right now.
When it comes to the Pope’s position on world affairs I take my cues from Frank Baum when he wrote “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!”
I just realized that I missed my chance to make an observation I was thinking about the whole time I was writing this post: Pope is one job that could be easily replaced by artificial intelligence, with no discernible difference or decline iin teh content or quality if the pronouncements. Especially regarding war. Unlike Robo-Christ, Robo-Pope wouldn’t be stuck in the First Century—it could be primed with every recorded popism since the beginnings of the Church.
I wonder how Iran and Iranians “would feel” about your rather bold hope that Trump employ a thermonuclear bomb to spite the Dreaded Leftists?
My view? “You people” are in fact veering to the shores of madness. It’s psycho-social and psycho-political. I am supposing that the conflicts, contradictions and confusions alive in the world become too much for the overheated mind.
Have you read much on (the Jungian theory) of “projection”? It is when you project on your ‘enemy’ exactly what you cannot, or will not, face about your own unconscious motivations and desires.
Oh, yes, Alizia! I’ve been wanting to play the Jungian card on this site for a long time.
Just remember: Most of the denizens here have “by jingo!” Trump cards hidden in their sleeves and under their hats! 🎩
If the Zionists would cease their wars of expansion and conquest, Iran wouldn’t care about Israel. And pray don’t accuse me of antisemitism. Being anti-Zionist does not make me anti-Semitic.
If the Zionists would cease their wars of expansion and conquest, Iran wouldn’t care about Israel. And pray don’t accuse me of antisemitism. Being anti-Zionist does not make me anti-Semitic.
If the Zionists would cease their wars of expansion and conquest, Iran wouldn’t care about Israel. And pray don’t accuse me of antisemitism. Being anti-Zionist does not make me anti-Semitic.
If the Zionists would cease their wars of expansion and conquest, Iran wouldn’t care about Israel. And pray don’t accuse me of antisemitism. Being anti-Zionist does not make me anti-Semitic.
See, that is impossible really. Because in fact (if we are to be truthful) Israel was established as a ‘settler/colonial’ project, an intrusion into the region. What was set in motion, remains in motion. America and Christian Zionism has supported that project without really being conscious of the true nature of it, and indeed deliberately blind to that nature. The US has ‘abetted’ Israel to extraordinary degrees, and in the end to Israel’s detriment. Now, this phony, badly grounded “support” has fractured. Many many Americans have now ‘seen’ what it is really about, and they do not like what they see.
Christian Zionists not only lie, but their views are highly superficial. They have dis-served Jews, Israelis and Israel. And now, pretty tragically, “the chickens are coming home to roost”.
Therefore, lies and false narratives never serve noble purposes.
Oh, pshaw. Yes, the creation of Israel was an intrusion in the region, but the nation was never supposed to be temporary, the Jews had sovereignty, it was tough luck for the displaced Arabs, and it happened in 1948. The Palestinians were given many opportunities to make the best of an unfair situation, chose to throw an 80 year tantrum that has cost many thousands of lives and created generations of Jew-haters, and their sympathy bank account is over-drawn. Simple as that.
Yes, it is ‘simple’, I admit that. But the story you tell is (in truth) a narrative based in a propaganda. It is part of the truth.
That view is common, but it is not necessarily “true”. The fact of the matter (a truer truth) is that Israel has been, and continues to be, a severe problem. And this was predicted before the establishment of the State in 1948.
So your observations and your perspective does not have great utility, it seems to me.
That’s a non-factual, non-substantive reply, Aliza. Do better.
No, Jack, what I said is accurate, fair and reasonable.
You said literally nothing. Characterizations are not facts, data or information. You can’t be obstinate when you have just made imaginary assertions.
It is not possible here on your blog to go into all the reasonings as to why it was a bad decision for world Jewry to assent to the Zionist movement and to forcibly establish a state. The facts exist, I can refer to the sources that have influenced me, and I can refer generally to the DISASTROUS results which are now afflicting Israel, and of course the consequences that are tolling down the hill towards it.
You can remain in a condition of ignorance of these facts, this perspective, if you desire to and I will not be able to move you. I am not interested in moving you. What I do is present a general picture (of alternative perspectives to the standard Zionist doctrines) and encourage those reading to do their own research.
If the Zionists would cease their wars of expansion and conquest, Iran wouldn’t care about Israel. And pray don’t accuse me of antisemitism. Being anti-Zionist does not make me anti-Semitic.
Why is anyone listening to guys who have the luxury of dealing with the abstract and never having the responsibility of keeping a nation and a population safe and secure as they pontificate about the right way to do it?
Oh Good Lord. Now I have to defend and explain all of this alone?! When the Catholic-Christian contingent has scurried out of the room in mortal terrors?
OK, OK, I will rise to the occasion!
Don’t feel you have to do us any favors….
Technically, it would be motivated by “service to a high ideal”. It is not really personal.
Hey. Not fair. I went to see Rush in Fort Worth this weekend. That takes precedence over just about anything.
jvb
Since when did the left have any interest whatsoever in what a pope had to say about anything? Organized religion is anathema to the left. The Catholic church is an outfit that thinks life begins at conception, abortion is a mortal sin, divorce is unacceptable, only men can be priests and people shouldn’t use any form of birth control other than restraint. And now the head of this outfit is being held up by the left as being admirable and all knowing about statecraft?
“Since when did the left have any interest whatsoever in what a pope had to say about anything?”
Stop expecting it to make sense, and will make perfect sense.
PWS
Since when did the left have any interest whatsoever in what a pope had to say about anything?
When Pope Francisco came onto the stage of history, is the answer there. I realize you are “post-Catholic” (I have not forgotten conversations years ago) but in order to understand Catholic “modernism”, you have to understand the revolution of Vatican ll (a process associated with Sixties radicalism). Francisco fails a great deal of post-Christian secular hopes (though he was relatively rigid in some important areas) but he is radical enough for many modernist, progressive Liberals who (like Jack and some others here, and certainly among Progressives generally) have absolutely no grounding in any metaphysics.
So, they latch to certain things he has said (he spoke confusedly) and they “admire” that the Church is growing, changing — evolving: into a non-metaphysical and (relatively) non-demanding structure supporting “Christian niceness”.
You have to understand Francisco in the context of Latin American radicalism. The most vocal advocates for “radical changes in the Catholic liturgy” came from Latin American priests and bishops. This is a difficult area because, for different reasons, Latin America has remained mired in “backwardness” so the desire to progress is an important issue. (American Protestantism allows for more aggressive modernization, speaking broadly).
I understood Pope Francis. He was a Commie of the South American, Che Guevara variety. And, like all the Catholic clergy, a pedophilic predator and beneath contempt. Do not lecture me about Vatican Two. I lived it.
Once again, the position at EA is that the Pope—it doesn’t matter which Pope—is unethically abusing his authority and serving as gum in the works while fostering confusion when he presumes dictate national policy based on idealism and utopianism
The Pope has 2 roles: spiritual leader and head of state. All of what he says and has said is based in the spiritual doctrines of the church, and rightly so. As head of state, he has the right, as much as any other head of state to criticize other heads of state for how they are behaving in the greater world view. Regardless, he MUST, by virtue of his charism and mandate, take a stand with regard to world affairs. Maybe in the past, “when the world was smaller,” this might not have been the case. But everything is on the world stage now.
Bravo …
Anti-Semitism apparently makes strange bedfellows. Good to know!
You use that term — labeling — similar to the way the Progressive Left uses their hot words. Once you have assigned the label you stick with it and don’t relent! (Chris did the same, do did that abomination known as Still Spartan).
But here is where the complication arises: What I have been saying is also said by diaspora Jews (myself of course included) and Israelis of intellectual standing.
So is it your view that when an Israeli and a diaspora Jew has alike views, that they are “anti-Semites”? That’s odd, isn’t it? That you have a special right to make these definitions.
As usual, defaulting to authority. I really don’t care who says factual nonsense. It’s still factual nonsense.
Another lawyerly use of sophistic trickery. It is dishonest. You avoided dealing with what I actually said. Diaspora Jews and Israelis are examining Zionism and describing errors in it that require addressing. I am not defaulting to authority, I am referring to Jews who are counter-Zionist. You can only assume (I gather) that Jews and Israelis who share my views, are “anti-Semites” too. An absurd claim!
I suggest that you and your readership gain familiarity with their views and the changing views that are part of this crisis.
Once again, the position at EA is that the Pope—it doesn’t matter which Pope—is unethically abusing his authority and serving as gum in the works while fostering confusion when he presumes dictate national policy based on idealism and utopianism.
I will now discourse upon what I think must be understood as the essence of this issue. And I must start by declaring that Jack is an example of a man deeply influenced if not by Nietzsche through direct reading, yet certainly by the revolution in ideas of the late 19th century that produced Nietzsche and his “philosophical hammer”. In brief, Nietzsche recognized that modern outlook and understanding (of material science, of biology) destroyed the “metaphysical picture” that created Europe. “We killed God” is terribly ironic because it plays on the traditional Christian notion of having murdered the Savior by asserting that, once again, even the very IDEA of a world ruled by the Christian God is, in the light of the modern mind, an absurd, regressive idea. There is no way, when you have a grounding in strict materialism, to “believe in” such a God.
Therefore, you see, Nietzsche recognized that, in fact, Occidental man by way of research and truthfulness, collapsed all metaphysics. What is metaphysics then? This is really the question. I am commenting on a recent statement of warning by Jack that Jonathan Bowden must be avoided because his Satanic doctrines are anti-Christian, anti-democratic (insert here any number of ‘evils’ as you feel inclined).
No señores! In this sense we are all in the same boat here. We all have come under the influence of those doctrines of absolute materialism that do away with all higher idealism, all determining and authoritarian metaphysical pictures or if you will ‘maps’ based in teleological models.
What is then “the world”? It is a ball of material forces in mindless interaction. There is no ‘reason’ why it exists, there is no guiding Principle in it, there is only entities that exist and strive to attain POWER and to dominate and control ‘reality’.
Now, within that “world” the stress upon “ethics” though certainly noble, though perhaps our “last and only hope”, results in a world (to use Nietzsche’s phrase) without “horizon”.
Once again, the position at EA is that the Pope—it doesn’t matter which Pope—is unethically abusing his authority and serving as gum in the works while fostering confusion when he presumes dictate national policy based on idealism and utopianism.
Spoken like a genuine and sincere Nietzschean! Let me back up a bit. Christianity is a religious model of the world based in a metaphysical picture. The World is chaos, is unruly, is poisoned and deadly (I refer to the ideas in The Great Chain of Being). The Advent of the Savior is in absolutely fundamental sense the advent of “ideas” and “ideals” that are completely absent from the world when seen materially and biologically. These are concepts of a high order. But they are immaterial! Because they are ideas and if they exist, they do not exist like rocks or hedgehogs exist, they are part-and-parcel of metaphysical notions. Real, indeed they determine EVERYTHING in our world! but intangible, non-tangible.
So, the Pope, when the Pope speaks (or if you wish when Jesus spoke) speaks by way of an Authority that “exists” in a non-physical non-material — indeed supernatural — domain outside of the world (as it is). It is an Archimedean fulcrum (even Jut can grasp this!) that moves the world without in fact originating inn the world.
Whew! That was a lot! Give it some time to sink in. Put your atom bombs and your fAnTaStIc AI controlled weaponry in ifle mode just for a while! Let this sink in.
I will be open to questions later. Meanwhile, my daughters are clamoring for Water World!
Infamously, the Vatican refused to take sides in World War II, or take any substantive steps to try to end the extermination of Jews in Europe.
This is one of those statements that I feel needs to be countered whenever it is raised. The Catholic Church’s stance against Nazism was established well before the official war broke out in 1939. The 1937 encyclical, Mit brennender Sorge, denounced the ideology of Nazism and was published in German specifically to address Germans, and it was smuggled into Germany and read from every pulpit on Palm Sunday, 1937. In it was a call to the German people to resist Nazi ideology, to use reason to discern just how polluted Nazi ideology really was.
When Pius XII became pope, he did indeed try to keep the Vatican neutral, and he (wisely or imprudently) did not want to call out Hitler’s regime directly in fear of reprisals against German Catholics. These reprisals were not a pusillanimous fear; it had already been demonstrated elsewhere that Hitler would take action against clergy who defied him. And in further justification, it should be recalled that while the Jews were uniquely targeted under the Final Solution, there were millions of others that Hitler found objectionable (include Poles and various clergy from Christian denominations) and had liquidated.
In the meantime, Pius XII ran underground networks that passed information of Nazi activities to the Allies, smuggled Jews into the Vatican to preserve their lives, and engineered and supported several assassination attempts against Hitler. (Ironically, that Hitler almost miraculous evaded all these assassination attempts made him seem all the more God-sent by his supporters.) Pius XII also fought to keep Italy out of the war, or from joining the war on the Axis side. He also was greatly concerned with Communism and what dangers the Soviet Union posed to the rest of the world. Remember, Our Lady of Fatima revealed that unless Russia was consecrated to her Immaculate Heart, it would spread its errors through the world, and Pius XII was very keen on trying to prevent the Soviet Union from accomplishing what it ultimately did: spreading its influence throughout Eastern Europe, and posing a global threat for the duration of the Cold War. In was in light of the Soviet threat that Pius XII wanted the Vatican to remain neutral in the European conflict and be poised to broker peace.
The Catholic Church absolutely took steps to oppose the war and to oppose the extermination of the Jews. That they did not have much impact is not a matter of the Church’s willingness to engage, but the very real facts on the ground. Catholics are spread across every nation. The political power of the Vatican had been reduced to the city itself; long gone were the Papal States and the armies that the Pope could muster as a temporal leader.
It also very frustrating to have the world at large say in one breath, “Stay in your lane, Pope, only deal with matters of faith and morals, and leave the politics to us,” only to say in the next breath, “Why didn’t you do anything in the light of these grave evils?” And then when the Pope dares to breathe a statement denouncing the evils of war, it is back to, “Stay in your lane, Pope.”
Now the Pope doesn’t think a war that has among its goals making as certain as possible that Iran doesn’t have the ability to do what it has been promising to do for decades—destroy Israel— is a “just war,” or to be more precise, that we should redefine “just war” to eliminate Israel’s and the U.S.’s justification for neutralizing Iran. There’s a damning consistency there, no?
The question of the validity of the Just War Doctrine has been rehashed since seeing the devastation of the Great War, and the need to address revision of the Just War Doctrine became even more present with the devastation of World War II. The Catholic Church has never been pacifist, and has always maintained a right to self-defense. One can always legitimately respond defensively to aggression. The real concern is when the Just War Doctrine is invoked in justification of preemptive or preventative wars.
The problem, as some in the Church have explained, is that if the Just War Doctrine can be cited in justification for any preemptive military action, then it is no longer a useful doctrine. It should at the very least be updated in consideration of the sheer devastation that modern warfare can wreak. Even leaving aside nuclear weapons, the devastation of bombing runs has been well-demonstrated. Civilians have largely been drawn into the modern conflicts, with their homes and livelihoods destroyed, many of them slain not simply as collateral damage, but as targets to demoralize their government.
One of the key tenets of the Just War Doctrine is that a just war cannot cause greater evils than it is fighting against. When war can devastate a populace as a whole, rather than just the armies in the field, its justification becomes tenuous. When the war is engaged preemptively, it becomes even more tenuous, because the damage inflicted by the preempting party is real, while the damage that had been preempted never actually came about. So preemptive war in the modern era appears to fail to be just on two fronts. One, it punishes a party based on actions not yet taken. Two, the damage of war is extreme and disproportionately impacts civilians, and that seems to be greater harm than if the preemptive actions had not been taken. All justifications to counter these two problems lie entirely in the realm of what might have been. This begs the ethical question: is it right to punish someone for what they might do, but have not yet done?
The ethical scenarios have been debated for years, but the classic question is whether it is permissible to torture someone when there is imminent danger of a nuclear bomb being detonated in some unknown city, and this someone has the information of which city the bomb is in. There is also the classic question of whether killing one innocent person to save any number of other innocents is defensible. The ethical answer to both scenarios is no. But when it comes to waging preemptive wars, the answer is suddenly flipped on around. When it comes to international politics, the narrative suddenly becomes, “ethics is a luxury we can’t afford!”
The justifications put forward for striking Iran preemptively is due to the damage Iran could cause were it finally able to detonate a nuclear ordinance in Israel (or elsewhere in the world within reach of Iranian efforts). But again, this is based on what Iran might do, not what Iran has already done. The potential targeting of Iranian civilian structures is defended by claiming that in modern war, even civilians are part of the war effort for even tenuous connections to the war, such as merely growing crops or working at a power plant. There is also an argument put forward that a populace is responsible for its government, so if the government calls down warfare upon it, the people themselves are just as culpable and ripe for targeting.
If we are in such a place where war can be rationalized by citing possible future events, and the devastation of war can be applied broadly to civilians because they are part of the war machine, does the Just War Doctrine even have any meaning anymore? In light of all this, isn’t it reasonable to examine the doctrine and update it in light of modern warfare?
As an aside, I personally think the war in Iran is better justified on the grounds that it is necessary that the United States, once it draws a line in the sand, must take action, or it will risk more wars erupting across the globe, due to the US’s role as a deterrent on the international stage.
Who is advocating machines making decisions about war?
I am not knowledgeable about the extent and scale that computer models are utilized in the Pentagon or other nation’s war rooms, but I would hazard a guess that the Pentagon has extensive computer simulations crunching numbers for all manner of war scenarios. I would also wager that AI tools will be utilized to assist in future war scenarios and analysis. And if Germany marched on France in August, 1914 because the Schlieffen Plan dictated the massive enveloping maneuver against France before Germany could then turn to deal with Russia, how much more likely will it be for war theorists today to rely on the predictions of AI models and demand we follow the scenario or else everything will be lost?
In addition, I have read reports that Ukraine is employing AI-powered drones for more precise targeting of Russian assets and better evasion of Russian defenses. AI is already being utilized in war efforts, with the effect of making war both more devastating and, ironically, cheaper to wage. (A swam of drones that cost a few hundred thousands dollars can stave off a fleet of warships that cost billions of dollars…)
I think discounting the impact of AI on war decisions is imprudent. Being an AI skeptic, I’m still concerned that people will turn decisions over to whatever slop AI generates, because of our human tendency toward laziness. And there is the very real desire to cut human decisions out of the warmaking process for the exact reason Joshua was placed in charge of missile launches in Wargames. Those dastardly humans might actually conclude that the devastation of war is far worse than the alternatives.
Three notes, with lots to digest here: “The justifications put forward for striking Iran preemptively is due to the damage Iran could cause were it finally able to detonate a nuclear ordinance in Israel (or elsewhere in the world within reach of Iranian efforts). But again, this is based on what Iran might do, not what Iran has already done.”
It is legitimate to state that Iran declared war on the US in 1979, with an act of war, and that Iran and its proxy groups have killed well over 1,000 Americans in a series of direct attacks, covert operations, and proxy engagements since. The fact that no previous administration had the guts and integrity to respond forcefully doesn’t change the reality. I couldn’t care less whether an specific set of unique facts meshes with the Vatican’s definition of a just war. It’s not the Vatican’s citizens who have been killed, or its own safety at risk.
The second is that the hoary “but it wasn’t just the Jews” excuse for the Vatican’s refusal to speak out directly against the Holocaust should be retired forever.
The third is that when a clear, moral statement denouncing the evil of the Third Reich was most needed (for Hitler was very concerned with public opinion) the Pope whiffed. “Well, there were efforts behind the scenes,” and “he was afraid” and “they were worried about Russia” are all rationalizations,” and, frankly, not ennobling ones. This was a test of integrity and courage, and a time to take sides publicly and unequivocally. The Pope is ready to bash the US for dealing with a rogue state intent upon wiping out Israel, but wouldn’t directly condemn Hitler? Ethics estoppel. With that record, why should anyone care what Rome says?
Jack,
To you first point, I agree that Iran has committed acts of war against the US since 1979. However, that’s the not justification being discussed in public circles. The main justification has been keeping Iran from getting nuclear weapons. But to broaden the discussion, if nuclear weapons weren’t a concern, would Iran’s acts over the past 47 years constitute justification for the United States going to war? This is where consideration of whether going to war would create greater evils than tolerating Iran’s actions comes into play. And I’m not wholly convinced that such and analysis would favor going to war. It really seems that the one factor pushing the analysis towards war is the threat of nuclear weapons.
To your second and third point, I am more than willing to accept that the tactics Pius XII chose were not the bravest or most effective. But the problem I would like to emphasize here is again the double standard being put in place. The Catholic Church is a world-wide entity, and the Pope is responsible first and foremost for tending to the Church. When you write, “Why is anyone listening to guys who have the luxury of dealing with the abstract and never having the responsibility of keeping a nation and a population safe and secure as they pontificate about the right way to do it?”, you don’t take into account that Pius XII was exactly in that situation of having the responsibility of his keeping his people safe and secure in the midst of the war. And when he prioritized his flock over superficial proclamations that would have either been ineffective at best or counterproductive at worst, he’s excoriated for not doing more for the Jews.
Hitler was very concerned about public opinion? He may have been, but do you really think for one moment he would have been swayed by the Pope declaring, “Adolf Hitler, what you are doing is evil!”? Hitler’s reaction to the encyclical I mentioned was violent retaliation to the Catholic Church throughout Germany, and he embarked on a campaign to impugn the Church at every opportunity and eliminate the Church’s authority, even presence, throughout Germany. So, no, it may not have been very brave to choose a public stance of neutrality, but it was certainly a measure intended to protect vulnerable Catholics throughout Germany.
In addition, keep in mind what Hitler choose to do when the Allies were advancing on all fronts. Instead of diverting all resources to the front lines and forgetting about the Final Solution, he kept critical resources at the concentration camps and accelerated the murder of the Jews. So today, Pius XII is excoriated for not speaking out against the Holocaust. In an alternate history, maybe Pius XII is excoriated as the most imprudent pope in history by making inflammatory statements that drove Hitler to even greater atrocities against the Jews. Maybe if he’d toned down the rhetoric, hundreds of thousands of Jews would have survived. (Though, in an alternate history, Pope Pius XII might have spoken out, and it galvanized the world against Hitler. Or Pope Piux XII might have spoken out, and the Vatican was immediately invaded by Mussolini, Pius XII executed, and all of the Church’s property razed to the ground.)
To your second point directly, I never want to downplay the atrocities the Nazis committed against the Jews. The Jews were singularly targeted because they were Jews, and they were made the scapegoat for all of Germany’s problems. But there are two points that are a reality. First, persecution of the Jews has erupted just about everywhere they have gone. Rome, Spain, England, Russia… Nazi Germany took the persecution to a level not imagined in the civilized world for thousands of years. But the initial phases were not unlike previous persecution of the Jews: take their property, make them second-class citizens, drive them out. Reports of what the Nazis were doing to the Jews did leak out to the rest of the world, but the full extent of the Final Solution only truly became known once the Allies started liberating concentration camps. We do a lot of judging of the world’s indifference to the Holocaust from the vantage of hindsight; the people of the time tended to dismiss the Holocaust as propaganda meant to make Nazis seem more evil than they really were.
Second, just because Hitler had a special hatred for the Jews did not make the millions of other deaths he caused insignificant or unmentionable. He starved to death Soviet POWs until his advisors cautioned him that they need the slave labor to work the factories. His preference for the Aryan race meant he wanted to purge Germany of anyone without blonde hair and blue eyes. And let’s not forget that he also targeted homosexuals and had them thrown into concentration camps, where they were subjected to torture, slavery, and death.
Ethics question: if you know a homicidal maniac in charge of the most powerful military on the continent will murder people even faster, and you have no means at your disposal to stop him, do you call him a homicidal maniac?
To your third point directly, “efforts behind the scenes,” “concerns about provoking Hitler to greater butchery”, and “Russia” are not rationalizations, but very real, life-and-death considerations with ramifications of immense proportions. As I said, I am willing to concede that Pius XII opted for a more pusillanimous option than he could have. But his actual efforts put the lie to the Catholic Church failing to act. Pius XII made prudential calls, and the “efforts behind the scenes” aided the Allied effort, saved hundreds of thousands of Jewish lives, and had the potential to stop Hitler dead in his tracks. However, I would be willing to guess that had the assassination attempt succeeded, the world would be excoriating the Church today for engaging in murder.
As for Pope Leo XIV being critical of the United States’ war with Iran, to phrase it as the Pope “bash[ing] the US for dealing with a rogue state intent upon wiping out Israel,” is a deliberate framing of the issue to make the Pope sound more unreasonable than reality warrants. The Pope has an issue with specifically taking military action at this junction, especially since warfare dramatically impacts civilian life. He does not have an issue (that I’m aware of) with dealing with Iran to prevent Iran from further actions in the area, especially by using economic leverage to cripple Iran’s efforts.
I know various people have commented on President Trump perhaps having more information about Iran and its imminent acquisition of nuclear arms than the general public, and that is what ultimately prompted the military strike against Iran. I would hazard that Pope Leo also has private information from his own intelligence network regarding the state of Iran. Maybe he actually knows more about what is going on than we give him credit for.
To you first point, I agree that Iran has committed acts of war against the US since 1979. However, that’s the not justification being discussed in public circles… It really seems that the one factor pushing the analysis towards war is the threat of nuclear weapons.
But so what? A third reason was the brutalization of the Iranian people, with the war giving them a chance to revolt. They didn’t take it: too bad, but it is. They had a chance. Two justificatiosn for war, each valid, are better than one.
To your second and third point, I am more than willing to accept that the tactics Pius XII chose were not the bravest or most effective.
“Hillary’s rationalization.” To be plain, they were cowardly and inadequate
The Catholic Church is a world-wide entity, and the Pope is responsible first and foremost for tending to the Church…you don’t take into account that Pius XII was exactly in that situation of having the responsibility of his keeping his people safe and secure in the midst of the war. And when he prioritized his flock over superficial proclamations that would have either been ineffective at best or counterproductive at worst, he’s excoriated for not doing more for the Jews.
Can’t have it both ways. Is the Pope’s flock humanity, just Catholics, or just Vatican City? If just the latter two, then he has no more justification for criticizing US foreign policy than Trump would have telling him how to run the Church. This was the most terrible outbreak of evil on a world-wide stage and when the Pope’s moral authority would have been most felt. So the Vatican avoids confronting real evil because it’s evil and saves its fire for targets that won’t fire back? Nice.
Reports of what the Nazis were doing to the Jews did leak out to the rest of the world, but the full extent of the Final Solution only truly became known once the Allies started liberating concentration camps. We do a lot of judging of the world’s indifference to the Holocaust from the vantage of hindsight; the people of the time tended to dismiss the Holocaust as propaganda meant to make Nazis seem more evil than they really were.
That’s a cover story. The fact is that most of the world, including much of FDR’s administration, was (is?) anti-Semitic. This popular narrative is like saying nobody in Hollywood knew that Harvey Weinstein was raping actresses, Yes, actually seeing the concentration camps made the horror more vivid, but that the Holocaust was going on was known long before that, hence the arguments that the Allies should have bombed the camps.
Hitler was very concerned about public opinion? He may have been, but do you really think for one moment he would have been swayed by the Pope declaring, “Adolf Hitler, what you are doing is evil!”? Hitler’s reaction to the encyclical I mentioned was violent retaliation to the Catholic Church throughout Germany, and he embarked on a campaign to impugn the Church at every opportunity and eliminate the Church’s authority, even presence, throughout Germany. So, no, it may not have been very brave to choose a public stance of neutrality, but it was certainly a measure intended to protect vulnerable Catholics throughout Germany.
If you watch “Conspiracy” or read the documents it was adapted from, it is clear that Hitler cared about the world’s opinion and was concerned that the Jews did not attract sympathy. That was early in the war, and at a time when strong opposition by the Pope would have had the most impact. Hitler was also trying to keep the Us from entering the war. Again, if the Vatican’s main coioncern is the safety of Vatican City, why should we pay any more attention to protests about the war with Iran than we would to a declaration from Tierra del Fuego?
“Second, just because Hitler had a special hatred for the Jews did not make the millions of other deaths he caused insignificant or unmentionable. He starved to death Soviet POWs until his advisors cautioned him that they need the slave labor to work the factories. His preference for the Aryan race meant he wanted to purge Germany of anyone without blonde hair and blue eyes. And let’s not forget that he also targeted homosexuals and had them thrown into concentration camps, where they were subjected to torture, slavery, and death.
Ethics question: if you know a homicidal maniac in charge of the most powerful military on the continent will murder people even faster, and you have no means at your disposal to stop him, do you call him a homicidal maniac?”
I still don’t understand why defenders of Pius think this is an argument. The Jews were the primary targets and the objective was genocide. That part of Hitler’s plan was the low-hanging fruit, and the most easily condemned. What’s the theory, unless the Pope can condemn everything clearly, He can’t make a moral call against genocide? As for the ethics question, it’s not one. Don’t confront the bully, it will just make him angry. That was Chamberlain’s brilliant strategy. A perfect definition of appeasement. The Continental Congress was afraid to have the Declaration call King George a tyrant. Jefferson insisted that the word stay “because he is a tyrant.”
To your third point directly, “efforts behind the scenes,” “concerns about provoking Hitler to greater butchery”, and “Russia” are not rationalizations, but very real, life-and-death considerations with ramifications of immense proportions. As I said, I am willing to concede that Pius XII opted for a more pusillanimous option than he could have. But his actual efforts put the lie to the Catholic Church failing to act. Pius XII made prudential calls, and the “efforts behind the scenes” aided the Allied effort, saved hundreds of thousands of Jewish lives, and had the potential to stop Hitler dead in his tracks. However, I would be willing to guess that had the assassination attempt succeeded, the world would be excoriating the Church today for engaging in murder.
Again, are Catholic principles moral absolutes, as they are represented to be, or poses to be abandoned, stifled or denies when certitude and strength are needed? Since the main sources of the “hundreds of thousands” lives saved are from the Catholic Church, that estimate will have to have a giant asterisk by it.
Jack,
Since the main sources of the “hundreds of thousands” lives saved are from the Catholic Church, that estimate will have to have a giant asterisk by it.
I would point you to Pichas Lapide, who wrote “Three Popes and Jews,” published in the 1960’s, and was a defense of Pius XII’s actions through World War II. I’m attaching here a link to an old NYT article talking about him and his work. He was a Canadian Jew with relatives that were killed during the Holocaust, and later he served as an Israeli diplomat. So he’s not Catholic, and he claims that he received no money from the Catholic Church to conduct his research, and in fact he was surprised that Vatican did not do more to speak out about all that Pius XII did achieve for the Jews. His estimate was 860,000 Jews were saved by the Catholic Church. He also said that his research revealed a sad conclusion: in those places where the agitation against the Nazis was the loudest, the highest percentage of Jews were arrested and killed.
“Hillary’s rationalization.” To be plain, they were cowardly and inadequate.
This is not a rationalization in the slightest, but an assessment. Pius XII was certainly no Pius V, who “cast his arms abroad in agony and loss, and called the kings of Christendom for swords about the cross.” But then, the political power of the Papacy had been crushed by the end of the Napoleonic Wars, with the only land governed by the Pope being the Vatican. And the West was no longer Catholic, so the Pope’s call to a crusade would have, I suspect, fallen on deaf ears.
If you watch “Conspiracy” or read the documents it was adapted from, it is clear that Hitler cared about the world’s opinion and was concerned that the Jews did not attract sympathy.
Hitler may have craved legitimacy in the eyes of the world, but it was never to the detriment of his goals. Someone who cares what the world might think about Germans conducting genocide would stop conducting genocide, right? Not just do it quieter? And what was Hitler’s reaction to the encyclical written against Nazism? Was it to moderate his stance because the Catholic Church said the tenets of Nazism were evil? Or was it to smash Churches, arrest clergy, and have them executed on the flimsiest of charges?
That part of Hitler’s plan was the low-hanging fruit, and the most easily condemned.
Pius XII addressed the world numerous times, for example on Chirstmas Eve 1943, to decry the persecution of minorities. He did not name Hitler explicitly, but everyone knew he was talking about Hitler and the Nazis.
That was Chamberlain’s brilliant strategy.
There’s a difference between not wanting to start a fight when you can fight, and not starting a fight when you don’t have the ability to fight. Pius XII over the course of the war angered Hitler enough that Hitler sent a commando to kidnap the Pope (though that effort failed). The man you claim would have listened to world opinion and backed down if the Pope called him out directly, tried to kidnap the Pope for his more oblique references at the cost of rousing the ire of every Catholic in Europe.
Again, are Catholic principles moral absolutes, as they are represented to be, or poses to be abandoned, stifled or denies when certitude and strength are needed?
The morals are absolute. But ethics, from the Catholic standpoint, are the application of moral values to situations. One of the bedrock moral values is prudence (among faith, hope, love, justice, temperance, and fortitude). It is wrong to kill (moral value). It is acceptable to kill in self-defense if your life is reasonably perceived to be at risk (ethical analysis). That doesn’t make killing in self-defense right, it makes it the lesser of two evils. It is not prudent to start a fight you can’t win. That’s actually one of tenets of the Just War Doctrine — there has to be a reasonable chance of success. If you start a fight that you can’t win, your objective essentially boils down to either a bluff or a hope that martyrdom will galvanize others.
Hitler was also trying to keep the US from entering the war.
Yes, and boy was he pissed at Japan for forcing his hand there! Do you think, though, that the US would have entered the war against Germany if the Pope had issued bold denunciations against Hitler? Or would the anti-papist attitude of the US have made such and effort self-defeating?
Regarding the last: FDR was waiting for something, anything, to undo the US’s isolationist mentality. Again, much of this is a “world-wide moral authority nose on” / “world-wide moral authority nose off” game. FDR was nothing if not canny: he would have never directly have appealed to the Pope’s authority. The point is: we don’t know how a courageous and principled public stand against Hitler would have accomplished. We do know there wasn’t one.
Jack,
I agree we don’t know the counterfactuals. But, can you spell out exactly what you would have wanted the Pope to do? Just a public statement, “I, the undersigned Pope, hereby declare that Hitler is evil?” As for world-wide moral authority, was the encyclical denouncing Nazism published before the war even began not the Church taking a public stance against Nazism? Does the repeated addresses to the world about the evils of persecuting minorities and the war not count as instructing the world on moral values?
Regarding the next to last (I haven’t had coffee yet, so my mind is working in reverse): This–“It is wrong to kill (moral value). It is acceptable to kill in self-defense if your life is reasonably perceived to be at risk (ethical analysis). That doesn’t make killing in self-defense right, it makes it the lesser of two evils. It is not prudent to start a fight you can’t win.” is a masterpiece of moral gibberish. “It’s wrong to do it, but it’s still your only option.” Back again to EA’s assessment of pacifists! As for never starting a fight you can’t win, that is anathema to American ethos and values. Tell it to the Continental Congress (what a strange principle to articulate on Fourth of July week!), Sam Houston, and Lech Walesa….
Jack,
I’m sure you noticed my reply to your comment was jumping around all over the place!
But… Moral gibberish? This is textbook ethical analysis.
That said, I should have made a paragraph break before “It is not prudent to start a fight you can’t win,” because that was starting the next thought.
Regarding the Continental Congress, the ethical evaluation has to take in a host practical considerations, including the fact that one does not have to win a Revolution through head-to-head battles, but enduring long enough to make the Motherland decide fighting is no longer worth the effort. A reasonable chance of success does not mean a guarantee. I would have placed the Revolutionaries at facing long odds, not a fight they could not win. (But is that analysis colored by hindsight, since the Revolutionaries did win out?)
It is legitimate to state that Iran declared war on the US in 1979, with an act of war, and that Iran and its proxy groups have killed well over 1,000 Americans in a series of direct attacks, covert operations, and proxy engagements since.
Since you will assert that set of facts with such (righteous) adamancy — in that blind, self-centered style so common among American jingoists (and NeoCons) — one only need to point out that there is a far longer list of “crimes” of a similar, and also more grave sort, that America has committed against Iran. This is a fact, and even if my desire, hope and longing is to see the régime in Iran destroyed, intelligent, informed people owe it to intellectual honesty to know the facts, and not to lie about the real facts that contributed to the rise of the Irani state in 1979.
My focus is on that annoying American hypocrisy. One can make a veritable study of it. America always sets things up so that its enemies have absolutely no justice of any sort on their side.
What value is there in taking the position I take? That we have to see the full picture, not just the picture, often partial and generally concocted by historical PR, that favors “our side”. This is not the US War Department and I have no obligation to accept and believe propaganda narratives.
Or do I? Is it a mark of “true patriotism” to believe the narratives that drive the conflicts in the world? Or is it more intellectually sound an ethical to question partial narratives that serve the ignoble machinations of global political power-games.
“one only need to point out that there is a far longer list of “crimes” of a similar, and also more grave sort, that America has committed against Iran.”
How many Iranians has the US killed since 1979, Alizia? Where, when, and how? Direct answers and not vapor, please.
That is not the right question. The real question and issue has to do with US meddling and operations in Iran in the Postwar. That general history is known and not debated.
My point is not to list Americans killed, that in a real sense is a diversion from the points I made. But that is a tactic of yours: find an element within someone’s argument that you can haggle over. I do not know how many Iranis have died or even suffered as a result of US projects in the region. And my purpose is not to righteously oppose those projects. It is simply to point out that the real history is far more complex then what is presented in propaganda and PR narratives.
My point is not complex. It is quite “common sense” really.
In other words, you can’t and won’t answer the question. Got it.Thank-you, the witness is excused….
Your “questions” are not the right ones, snd you use them to provide an excuse, in this case, not to consider the perspective I very clearly and coherently brought forward. You have not responded to that.
Your tactic is “lawyerly” and essentially dishonest. But what I brought out — to take a more honest view of this history — is honest.
So the witness (you) is disqualified from participation in an honest conversation because you cannot be relied on to be honest.
In this sense you are really & truly a NeoCon, and the ideology of Neoconism is based in lies, distortions, partial truths, and propagandistic manipulation of the minds of citizens.
I’m pressed for time so have skimmed much of this, and apologize if I missed a point or two.
I find this a bit amusing, since I am old enough to remember that at least some Americans were worried about electing JFK, fearing that the Pope would be unduly influencing our politics.
And …
To call Israel a nation of colonizers ignores their 4,000 year history in the Middle East. It would have been ridiculous to create a Jewish state on a Caribbean Island. Land that includes Jerusalem was a natural choice.
What expansionism? Post WWII Jewish people were allotted a land to call their own, and within a few short years were asked to give up about a fourth of that tiny plot to a population of terrorists who have repeatedly declared their goal of annihilation of Israel, who act on that pledge by lobbing missiles almost daily.
In 1948 the world handled this badly by not handing over a ‘clean’ country. But since then the world, even the US has allowed antisemitism to fester intolerably, looking the other way while Israel is attacked, and criticizing them for self-defense.. Think about how long we would tolerate missile attacks by a coalition of Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma and Arkansas. I’m guessing the ten surrounding states would demand that the Federal government put a quick end to that. For Israel it has been many decades.
People like to say this is complicated, but it isn’t, really. There are so many ethnic Arab Muslims who live, work and worship peacefully alongside Jews in Israel. It is long past time to tell all those who cannot to move out.
To call Israel a nation of colonizers ignores their 4,000 year history in the Middle East. It would have been ridiculous to create a Jewish state on a Caribbean Island. Land that includes Jerusalem was a natural choice.
The problem with the Jewish state now is that it cannot remain such a state — a state based solely on religious identity — unless it become and remain completely (and fascistically) militant. The State of Israel has all the characteristics of a Occidentally-oriented militarized state. And it “acts” as a colonial power and a settler nation.
There is no doubt that the region (in every-shifting boundaries) has a long history as a Hebrew region, but the realities of the return take on all the forms of settler colonization into the Middle East. And Israel in that sense is an American and Occidental military outpost in games of geo-political struggles.
Unfortunately, the alternative for Israel may only be the creation of a State that incorporates 7.2 million Jews and about the same number of non-Jews (Arabs and Palestinians) who live in the region.
Otherwise, Israel’s militant project — the expansionism of the Greater Israel project — can do nothing else but continue in the same direction and with the same results.
Your view is standard American Christian Zionism. So is Jack’s. It is a (largely) propaganda construct and is, in fact, a big part of the problem.