U.S. bishops on war against terrorism. (United States).

Washington--In the Saskatchewan Prairie Messenger, October 17, Father Laurence DeMong ridiculed the kind of rhetoric used by Americans in their response to the horrors of September 11. "But if I must," he wrote, "I would give the prize for most pharisaical to President George W. Bush for his talk of 'their evil plans,' 'the barbaric criminals,' 'We're a peaceful nation...that sends sons and daughters into battle only after the greatest care and a lot of prayers."'

A week later, in a letter to the paper, Hank Zyp of Edmonton fumed, "I read with absolute dismay the pious platitudes of the U.S. cardinals, supporting the massive aerial attacks on Afghanistan. Who are these wishy-washy men of God who so readily (but cautiously of course) support the gods of men?"

On November 14, the U.S. Catholic bishops, by a vote of 167 to 4, approved of a statement acknowledging their country's right to use military force against international terrorism. Was this statement hastily put together? On the contrary, it was drawn up by a special subcommittee, under the chairmanship of Cardinal Bernard Law, and had been gone over very carefully: there were 119 amendments proposed by 33 bishops.

In speaking to the bishops, Cardinal Law made it clear that his committee had rejected amendments which would replace traditional Catholic teaching on the legitimacy and limits to the use of force with a commitment to pacifism. On the other hand, they had rejected amendments which would have minimized teaching that the use of force had to be limited by traditional moral norms. His central point was as follows:

"As a Conference, I do not believe we can say that any use of military force must be ruled out--no matter what the attack, what the loss, what the future threat. On the other hand, we cannot ever become comfortable with the use of military force supporting any action, at any cost, for any purpose. Our Catholic tradition with its presumption against the use of force, which can be overridden only as a last resort to protect the common good, is the way we find our way through these difficult days. It gives us a principled way to discern and decide what is right and what is wrong. This message as developed by our committee and refined by these amendments, reflects this complicated but consistent call to protect human life, seek justice, and pursue peace in a dangerous world. I hope the debate which follows will help keep this balance, focus, and fidelity to traditional Catholic teaching."

In a radio interview reported by Zenit on November 14, Cardinal Ratzinger said that an individual or government may have a right to armed defence in case of aggression. "According to the Christian tradition," he said, "one cannot exclude that in a world marked by sin, there might be an evil aggression that threatens to destroy not only values and people but also man's image as such. In this case to defend oneself in order to defend the other could be a duty."

There are precise conditions for such a defence, the Cardinal added; it must be "the only possibility to defend human lives, to defend human values," and "everything must be really pondered in conscience, also considering all alternatives."

Pick your side--the derisive sneers of the two Canadians or the reasoned response of two cardinals.