Jeff, Thanks for the kinds words. I try to do my best at work a s “christian” cop and here ,I was not posting to argue but to learn through some questions and comments. I hope this will continue in future posts.

I certainly don’t believe “we deserved the attacks.” There’s a difference between understanding why we–or at least our rulers–are hated and approving of the resulting terrorist attacks. That’s not Blame-America-First; it’s a rational understanding of the role played by U.S. foreign policy in needlessly stirring up a hornet’s nest. I love my country but I don’t love the leaders of my country. Most anti-war conservatives have supported the war in Afghanistan, I think.

By the way, Marty, thank you for your public service as a police officer. It may sound corny, but I can tell from your writing that you’re a conscientious cop and that’s an admirable thing.

In no way to defend McConnell’s endorsement of Kerry or to support Buchanan’s of Bush - to have supported the Constitutional Party candidate seemed to me something almost akin to an endorsement of John Rushdooney and I’m not quite prepared to stone the nearest homosexual. A Catholic, I abstained despite lots of very annoying pressure from the voter’s guide of Catholic Answers and the public statements of Archbishop Chaput to vote and in one particular way, of course. I was told that the Catechism Of The Catholic Church absolutely required me to vote, which it does not. It simply encourages excercizing the right to vote which is something much more broad and certainly contemplates abstention as a negative exercize. I came away with a clear conscience and a lot about which to righteously gripe post election. :-)

John Lowell

Once again thanks for the answer. I am a cop and not an academic or writer. So, I do learn a great deal from blogs like this and posts from people like your self. Maybe someday I will put my interest in conservative thought and Catholic apologetics to good use.

Pax
Marty Browne

Here’s one Catholic that didn’t oppose the Afganistan response. In that case the government of a foreign state was shielding persons whose connection with the events in New York was beyond question. Our objectives were limited and the defeat of the Taliban was secondary to their realization. The whole thing had the character of a police action, at least it did until it was clear that it had failed. Iraq presented an entirely different picture. There was absolutely no connection in that case to the 9/11 tragedy. Our invasion was an aggression purely and simply.

Respecting pacifism, I think a very strong argument can be made that in the present day no war can be conducted that might be considered just. The Pope has hinted as much and that should mean more to Catholics than their political loyalties. But there is a distinction to be made between that view of things and the out-and-out advocacy of non-violence. The Pope is not a pacifist and although I might be wrong in saying so, I believe JPII even offered-up this very self-description at one point.

The Pope has a Christological view of the world and appropriately so. His attitudes owe nothing to the kind of perspective offered by Neuhaus, Novak and Company which are themselves entirely dependent upon a long discredited two-tiered view of the relation of nature and grace taken over from John Courtney Murray. With Benedict XVI, one might expect to encounter a view of the world more consonant with that derived from the theologies of his friends, Henri du Lubac and Hans Urs von Balthasar. Here we have a profound perception of the form of Christ the Son in all things, not a sphere independent of Him seeking an end of its own.

And by the way, I’m sure no one here considers themselves as having stooped in any way to answer your excellent questions. Rather it is a privilege to have the opportunity to bring what little one might have in the way of answers to them.

Very best regards.

John Lowell

Yes it has been a pleasure to “meet” you as well. I apreciate you and the others taking the time to respond. The talent on this thread is way above my pay grade, so I thank you all for stooping down and letting me rant a bit and point me in the right direction.

Marty

I was thinking today about why I feel I need to defend some neo-cons and the war and I guess it is because many paleo-cons and paleo-libertarians are pacifists. Against the Iraq War and even against the War in Afghanistan. Hey we deserved the attacks suck it up and move on types.

What attack on Christendom prompted the Crusades? Indulgences were given for fighting in War. God commanded war! Yet, many of the anti war conservatives seem like they are pacifists.

So, while against this war I am not against all wars. Were any on the anti-war right fo rthe invasion of Afghanistan?