I don't know why I do it to myself. Perhaps I hope that it won't be as infuriating as it always is. Anyway, I did it again. I saw an article penned by Mark Shea, and read it.
I guess what infuriates me about Mark Shea's writing style is the words he chooses to not only make his point but also get to it. In the article referrenced above, Mr. Shea's supposed argument was that its asinine for Conservative Catholics to think that someone's pro-life stance absolves them from their ideological errors, while its asinine for Liberal Catholics to assume that someone's opposition to the Iraq War absolve them from their ideological errors. At least that what he says in the comments. The article, however, is not about that.
Its quite clear that Mr. Shea is against the war in Iraq. In fact, his writings have been laced with invective and insinuations that now, whatever happens in Iraq is murder (you see, because Mr. Shea says its unjust, then not only is it objectively unjust, but therefore, now it is murderous). Thus, he can equate support for abortion with support for an unjust war. Moreso, however, is his harping about those on the Catholic Right disregarding the "voice of the Church" on the war (and this is, I think the main point he is trying to make). He equates statements made by John Paul II, then-Cardinal Ratzinger, and the USCCB with the "voice of the Church". There are several problems with these things.
First, his article cites three pieces as the "voice of the Church": an address the Holy Father (John Paul II) gave to the Diplomatic Corps, Cardinal Ratzinger's speech after receiving the Trieste Liberal Award, and the US Council of Catholic Bishops (at least their website). On the surface, those sound like pretty formidable forces to reckon with. So I checked them out.
The Holy Father, it turns out, is against war. Of course, the Holy Father says nothing concerning the Iraq War, but simply says that war is bad, and we should avoid it all costs. His speech is directed at giving his diplomats marching orders: what policies and attitudes they are to press for as diplomats for the sovereign state (the Vatican) they represent. The mere venue means that this speech is an issue of state, not an issue of Church (you see, even the Vatican can separate Church and state...although its hard). To use this speech as evidence of the "voice of the Church" is riduculous.
The article on then-Cardinal Ratzinger's address was actually counter-productive to Mr. Shea's point(s). Mr. Shea cites the statement by the Cardinal that "preemptive war is not in the Catechism" and links us to the article from which he got the statement. It is as if he didn't even read the article. The very next line is "One cannot simply say the Catechism does not legitimize the war." So while the Catechism doens't mention preemptive war, it also doesn't rule it out either. This is not was Mr. Shea wants us to hear, though. He wants us to hear that the Cardinal thinks that because preemptive war isn't in the Catechism it is immoral, but that is not what the Cardinal said. In addition, the Cardinal did say that it was hard to justify unilateral war under the present circumstances...and then goes on to say that it should be the UN's decision. According to the article, the Cardinal wasn't concerned about the invasion of Iraq in and of itself, but the unilateral invasion of Iraq. The article's lede even makes this abundantly clear...Mr. Shea just failed to notify his readers. Likewise, the Cardinal said that policy issues weren't his specialty, inferring that he leaves matters like war up to the states. This is not what Mr. Shea wants us to hear, though. , as it is antithetical to his point.
Finally he cites the USCCB's Iraq statements. These statements firstly include the "unilateral" myth again (26 nations does not "unilateral" make). Then the bishops go on to say that "Based on the facts that are known...it is difficult to justify resort to war against Iraq." They have a point: based on the facts that the public knew from the Mainstream Media, one could conceivably have a hard time justifying invading Iraq. This opens the door for the possibility that the public didn't really know the whole story, perhaps the media wasn't giving us all the information (like the fact that Saddam had actually asked bin Laden to station himself in Iraq, but bin Laden refused the offer). This, of the three, is the most useful for his purposes...but it still isn't a tight match.
That however, is not my only beef with Mr. Shea. Another one is his clain that Conservative Catholics will hold moral proclamations of the Magesterium to be true (when according to him, the Magesterium hasn't defined any moral teachings as infallible), but call issues like torture and war "prudential decisions". Firstly, Mr. Shea, who supposedly knows Catholic doctrine well, misses the distinction between the ordinary and extraordinary Magesterium. Those moral teachings that he talks about have been constantly proclaimed by popes, bishops, and councils, thus making them part of the ordinary Magesterium, and thus infallible (according to Lumen gentium and the Catechism). This makes those teachings binding on the faithful (at least in terms of obedience, if not assent). The two popes' opposition to the Iraq War is not on the same plane as these moral teachings (indeed, one could argue that their statements are not part of the Magesterium). Indeed, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in a letter to the US bishops in 2004 that support for abortion is not the same as support for a war that could be unjust. One could support a war that is unjust (despite what Church leaders have said about the war), while one could never support abortion.
Maybe one day, I'll stop reading Mark Shea. It'll save us all agony.
No comments:
Post a Comment