Here is a piece I wrote for Traditional Catholic Reflections in 2006. Some of the contents may be somewhat dated but on the whole it is still relevant. It reflects what I believe about the current Iraq conflict. Some of the writing needs editing and I cringe at it. But I don't have a rough draft so I can't edit it. I hope the reader will bear with me.

Reflecting on the Iraq War and Christian Principles

By Frank J. Capone

"However rooted in history she [the Church] may be, she is not the slave of any epoch or indeed of anything whatsoever which is temporal. The message she is bound to pass on and the life which she is bound to propagate are never integral parts of either a political regime or a social polity or a particular form of civilization, and she must forcefully remind people of the fact, in opposition to the illusive evidence to the contrary which derives simply from the bonds of habit."---Henri de Lubac (1)

It has been over three years since the United States invaded and occupied Iraq. The initial reasons given for going to war, the presence of weapons of mass destruction and the connection to Al Qaeda, have since been shown to be false or worse. This, combined with the violence occuring daily in Iraq have combined to seriously erode support for the war domestically and have caused President Bush's approval rating to plummet dramatically. Many who initially supported the war have since changed their minds and are speaking and writing against it. Yet in spite of these facts there are many who still support this war. Granted, there are some who may admit that the invasion was wrong but feel that to just up and pull out now would unleash terrible consequences on Iraq. They believe that we have to at least stay and clean up the mess we made. One can understand that viewpoint but there are others who believe that this was a just cause even if it was undertaken under false pretenses. Why? One wonders how anybody can still hold this military adventure to be a Just War after the sham has been exposed!

Perhaps there are a combination of reasons for this, such as an antipathy towards Left wing ideology, fear of a resurgent Islam, and a desire to stay loyal to one's country, right or wrong. Also, let's not forget September 11 2001. It did happen and thousands of innocent people were murdered. Such a heinous act is bound to have a tremendous psychological impact on many. Whatever real or imagined grievances Al Qaeda and other Muslim extremists have against the U.S. in no way justifies such a malicious crime! Having said that, does it therefore follow that criticism of American policy is tantamount to a lack of patriotism or siding with leftist ideologues or downplaying the threat of terrorism from Islamic fundamentalists?

My Own Experience

Perhaps thinking back on my own experience could offer some perspective on this. When this war first started I was initially supportive of it. I believed Colin Powell when he went before the U. N. and presented his evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction waiting to be used against us. I believed also that Al Qaeda was in league with Saddam Hussein and that both intended to perpetuate more attacks on American soil. After all, I thought, why would they lie about such things when such lies would be exposed after the war? (I guess that is now the 200 billion dollar question). I supported this action not from any nationalistic sense of mission but merely because I felt that the U.S. needed to defend its citizens from possible terrorist attacks. I took leave of my critical faculties, unfortunately. However, once it became clear that there were no weapons of mass destruction, opposition to the war became for me a no-brainer. But I will not let myself of the hook that easily. Why didn't I see through the rhetoric? Why did I let fear distract me from sober analysis?

The Reflexive Left

Part of the reason was that my judgment was clouded both by my anger towards terrorism and by my ideological opposition to the Left wing world view that I believed was the foundation of much of the opposition to the war. It appeared to me that they criticised the invasion simply because they were leftists and that criticizing anything the U. S. does is their raison d'etre. Therefore it was easy for me to dismiss their arguments. To be sure, much of what many on the Left says makes it easy to disregard them, like the college professor who wished for "1000 Mogadishus," or those who believe that the U.S. started this war simply to get the oil. Many on the Left do appear to have moral blinders in that they will denounce any wrongs committed by the U.S. but appear to downplay the wrongs committed by other countries or organizations as if the wrongs commited by America are always worse. It seems they do not hold others to the same moral standards they would hold the U.S to. They probably don't intend this, but that is sometimes the impression nonetheless. Therefore it was a small step from dismissing the Left to dismissing the antiwar movement that in the minds of many is associated with it.

But in so doing one can be acting like the proverbial drunken man on a horse! In trying to keep from leaning too far on one side of the horse the rider will wind up leaning too far on the other side. An aversion to the leftist weltanschauung can in its turn lead to support of anything America does simply to oppose critics of the U.S. The war in Iraq has been presented in terms of giving the Iraqi people a better way of life and defeating terrorism. Supporters speak of the war in terms of "defeating Islamic terrorism by draining the swamps of dictatorship and fanaticism in which it breeds..."(2) But does it therefore follow that anything the U.S. does should be supported simply because of any real or imagined political and moral superiority? This was the thinking of Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar. They believed they represented the superior civilization, therefore they were justified in using military force to promote it. We in the 21st century are supposed to be beyond that sort of thinking.

Western cultures in general and ours in particular, though now secular, still retain much of their Christian foundations. But Our Lord was the very opposite of an Alexander or Caesar. He left the world His Church, and through the Church, the Divine principles of love and brotherhood and nonviolence. The earliest Church grew through reflecting divine love and forbearence, not through force of arms (that disastrous turn came later with Constantine's conversion). We should never regress to the mindset of the pagan Romans. If America is to be the champion of democracy and human rights it must do so through the power of example, not Smart Bombs.

The Rise of Radical Islam

Another factor could be the fear of a rising Islamic civilization and the perception that terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda and Hamas are representative of most of Islamic culture. It is believed by many that there is a movement to "Islamify" the West and that terrorism is a part of that. It is not the scope of this essay to analyse this fear but even assuming that there is some truth to it among the radicals does not therefore justify naked aggression. St Paul writes; "Be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good" (Romans 12;21).

Pope Benedict XVI said last Palm Sunday at Mass:

"Whenever we think of Jesus we must remember injustice must not be solved with more injustice, niether violence with more violence. We must remember that bad can only be overcome by good...This cross must be an instrument of Peace and reconciliation between men and nations." (3)

As Catholics we must hold to higher priorities than a commitment to a nation or a particular ideology. We are to be instruments through which the light of Christ shines to all the world and not be so provincial as to presumptuously identify that Light with our national policy. While loyalty to country is fine so long as such loyalty is in harmony with God's will, there are times when we must take a stand against it. We as Catholics have a Just War paradigm based on 2000 years of Christian contemplation. We cannot put the policies of a given nation above this. Raymond G. Helmick of Boston College writes:

"When the war begins, every government appeals at once to the church to get up the cheering section and proclaim that 'God is on our side.' We never belong there. Our role as proclaimers of shalom demands that we be searching actively for alternatives to violence. But we have all seen churches fall right into the trap and preach national exclusivism and God's wrath, as if they were qualified to declare it, upon the enemy."(4)

This does not mean we are being unpatriotic. In Western democracies in general and American democracy in particular it is believed that dissent is very healthy for society. W.E.B. Duboise writes:

" ...the hushing of the criticism of honest opponents is a dangerous thing. It leads to some of the best of the critics to unfortunate silence and paralysis of effort, and others to burst into speech so passionately and intemperately as to lose listeners. Honest and earnest criticism from those whose interests are most nearly touched -criticism of writers by readers, of government by those who are governed, of leaders by those who are lead, this is the soul of democracy and the safeguard of modern society.'(5)

Critical Judgement of Both Left and Right

I made the mistake of letting my opposition against certain world views cloud my critical judgement somewhat. It was a humbling lesson to learn. More sober reflection has brought home the fact that opposition to a policy of my country does not mean that I am sympathizing with the radical Left or downplaying the crimes of Saddam Hussein and it certainly does not mean I am soft towards terrorism.

Diplomacy

But it does not follow that the moral bankruptcy of the terrorists, or that of Saddam Hussien for that matter, means that any pre-emptive war of aggression taken against them is therefore to be considered right simply because it is taken against those percieved as enemies. The real or imagined moral superiority of the U.S. does not mean that any means it employs are justified by any good ends it may wish to bring about. The Gospel invites diplomacy not war.

This means that any opposition to American policies is not anti-American and certainly not anti-Christian. After all, what can be more American than to exercise the right of citizens to criticise the actions of our government, especially when it gets to the heart of what this country should be? What can be more Christian than to try to reflect the Light of Christ and to hold our nation to the high Christian principles on which Western civilization was built?
_____________

End Notes

1. De Lubac, Henri. The Slendor of Church, Canterbury Books, Sheed and Ward. N.Y 1956. p. 54 2. Jacoby, Jeff. Boston Globe, August 25, 2005 3. Pope Benedict XVI. Quoted from Dominican Today, http://www.domincantoday.com/app/article.aspx?=12256 4.Helmick, Raymond J. Forgiveness and Reconciliation Religion, Public Policy, and Conflict Transformation. Templeton Foundation Press, Philedelphia 7 London-Copywrite 2001. p. 87 5. Duboise, W.E.B. The Soul of Black Folk. Barnes & Noble Classics, New York 2003 First Edition 1903 p. 38

Thanksgiving Reflection

I have been thinking about the Thanksgiving holiday lately. It is remarkable that this holiday does not involve buying and receiving presents or going out one night and getting free candy of having barbeques and watching fireworks or hunting for colored eggs. Until recent years there was not much decorating either. Other than the buying food there is not much of a commercial aspect to the day.

Instead it is a day when families get together and share arguably the biggest meal of the year and reflect on what they are thankful for. It is an indication that the best aspects of people in this country have not been smothered by the hyper consumerism of American culture.

We may do well to reflect on the roots of Thanksgiving observance in this country. When the Pilgrims had their feast in 1621 they were following an ancient Anglo -Saxon custom of having a feast after a successful harvest. This was called the Harvest Home festival. This involved days of feasting and games. This was in thanks giving to the gods (or God after converting to Christianity) for insuring their survival for another year.

So when the Pilgrims went through a terrible winter and had a successful crop they followed this custom. So many of the aspects of this American holiday harken back to old European customs. It is hard for us to appreciate what they felt in those days and the gratitude they felt for a bountiful harvest. The Pilgrims could have easily starved if the crops did not grow and even in Europe famine was not uncommon if harvests failed! Then there was the threat of plague and the possibility of death even from a cold. It seemed that death could take them at any time and in many ways.

They lived with these threats constantly. It seems that we in Western civilization can’t fully appreciate how precarious life was then. We run out of food we just go to the local supermarket and complain about having to haul too many bags up the stairs. We catch a cold and take some Nyquil and call in sick the next morning. It seems we have lost a bit of that appreciation for life because it doesn’t seem that precarious now.

Or is that an illusion?

I think so. Maybe we don’t have the threat of starvation these days nor will we die from a cold but we do have plenty of other diseases such as cancer to kill us. Tornados, earthquakes, or hurricanes can strike at any time. We have car accidents and heart attacks and even the threat of terrorist threats that shatter any illusion we have that we have complete control over our life situation. Death or other calamities can still take us at any time, they just take different forms.
There are many who are firmly anchored to Truth who are fully aware that this vision Western society has of prosperity and power over nature is an illusion. Perhaps Thanksgiving celebration is an indication that many more sense it deep down. They give thanks because they intuit that they are contingent beings who don’t have power over either over nature nor the circumstances of there lives. This may be the only time of the year that many would openly thank God for their blessings but still, it would seem that they sense something of the dependence we as creatures have on the Creator. When we thank Him we acknowledge that we are not gods that can bend reality to our will but are beings that have a need to connect to Him who is the source of our existence.

At the end of the day that is what it really comes down to, thanking God for the love He bestows upon us by granting us our very existence. After that everything else is just gravy. We will do well to think on this at Thanksgiving. Despite our increased technology life is still precarious and thus we still have a sense of how precious the Pilgrims and other people in history regarded the life they lived and how they believed that it depended on something greater then themselves. . Also, when we enjoy the food ,family and fun these things also point to that which is greater than ourselves.

It isn’t that God needs our thanks. He doesn’t. It is we who need to thank Him, in order to order our thoughts and our being to the Divine and thus bring human nature to where it should be. It is in this that we find the true purpose of Thanksgiving.

Musings of a Skeptic

By Frank J. Capone

It is only by abandoning all idea of considering itself as its own end that mankind can be gathered together.(1)

Now that I have your attention let me say that I have not rejected the Faith in any way , shape or form. I am still committed to the Gospel, however impure a vessel I may be. My imperfection is one reason I embrace the Good News because I know the kind of person I will become if I stray from way revealed by revelation! Another reason is my conviction that the appreciation most of humanity has for beauty, the desire for the good and the urge to relieve suffering, and the tendency to morality, imperfect though it may be , makes no sense without the conviction that the existence of humanity indicates the higher purpose of a transcendent Intelligence. So why is this essay titled the Musings of a Skeptic? It is precisely because I am a believer that I am skeptical. What is the meaning of this paradox, you ask? That’s the million dollar question!

A few months back I received in the mail an advertisement to subscribe to what is basically an atheistic magazine, complete with a form letter from the executive director and an offer for a free book with the subscription.( Ahh, they know the way to my heart) This magazine (called The Skeptical Inquirer) claims to be merely a magazine that will "subject the claims of the supernatural, the paranormal, and the occult to the scientific method (emphasis mine) and let the facts speak for themselves".

In the form letter the director writes:

"To one extent or another, all of us- you ,me, and even the most prestigious members of the scientific community, including Einstein himself-can all to easily fall under the near hypnotic spell of what’s been called the ‘transcendental temptation’...

...the longing for powers over and above the physical universe that we call upon in time of need to suspend the granite -hard, unyielding, often unsympathetic natural laws upon which this amazing universe of ours is founded.

And all of us have to constantly safeguard ourselves against letting this apparently innate, high-order wishful thinking take over and deal a knockout punch to our better judgement-to say nothing of our common sense."

Heavy stuff this. In other words we must suppress something that is innate in us! While it is true that these quotes do refer to belief in UFOs and ghost sightings and occult phenomena on the fringes that we ourselves don’t believe, these things are lumped in with faith in transcendence in general, not appreciating there are distinctions. But Here is another quote

"Skepticism ultimately leads to knowledge...which leads to effective action...which leads to success... which leads to optimism concerning one’s ability to deal with the world. It is faith, not skepticism, that leads to a childish reliance upon unproven notions... which leads to ineffective action...which leads to failure... and ultimately, to pessimism, cynicism, and bitterness."

Leaving aside the gaping holes in this statement (John Paul II, Martin Luther King, Ghandi, the abolitionist movement proponents of ineffective action? failures leading to pessimism and bitterness?!) It seemed to me rather ironic that I received an ad like this when in my feeble attempts at writing for TCR I did not give any indication of skeptical tendencies. Not according to atheistic definitions anyway. But then I thought, "Isn’t skepticism a matter of perspective? After all, if one believes in one concept then one is skeptical of the opposite!

I am skeptical of the notion that the supernatural yearnings of humanity can be lightly thrown aside and that doing so would lead to "optimism concerning one’s ability to deal with the world. I am skeptical that science has debunked the "transcendental temptation" I am skeptical that humanity is nothing more than an accidental conglomeration of carbon and other chemicals with no more significance than bacteria! I am skeptical of evolution and evolutionism! I am skeptical that the human tendency for love, beauty, goodness, morality, etc. ultimately means nothing..
To illustrate this last point I will take another example from another atheistic ad I saw in a magazine recently. This was for www.atheists .org . On page 15 of the June 2007 issue of The Nation. The ad was to call attention to the persecution that atheists sometimes go through and to offer help. Nothing wrong with that. Persecution is wrong and must be stopped. But what struck me was the picture of a beautiful family on it. Presumably this was the family that experienced some form of oppression that the ad referred to. This photo appeals to the best aspects of our humanity, calculated to evoke the dignity of people and their right to determine for themselves what they believe.

Again, nothing wrong with that but wait! Isn’t this is a contradiction of the atheistic creed? Think about it, the only way love of family and the dignity of people has any meaning beyond human emotionalism is if people are meant for something more than existing for a few decades , if there were a higher purpose to our existence. If you love family and morality, if you embrace the concept that people have infinite worth then this implies a sense that there is something beyond ourselves that gives meaning to these human aspirations! Reason and science aren’t sufficient foundations for this, only the "transcendental temptation"!

So in appealing to us in this way these atheists are really tapping into something that is (ahem) transcendent. While rejecting the concept of transcendence they appeal to the very part of human nature that intuits it! This would appear to validate what Thomas Merton wrote; " There is in every intellect a natural exigency for a true concept of God: we are born with the thirst to know and to see Him, and therefore it cannot be otherwise."(2)

Hence, I am skeptical that atheism is a sufficient basis for any concept of human existence and I wonder if many atheists are really atheists deep in their souls. What’s that atheists? You still don’t think I am a skeptic? Is it only skepticism if religious belief is being questioned? Or can the weapons of skepticism be wielded against any belief system? Make no mistake, your outlook is , in fact,a belief system . You , atheist, are no different from religious believers in this respect. You believe there is no supernatural being. You believe miracles don’t happen. You believe reason and science can bring about the perfect society. But you can’t prove any of this. Are we supposed to take it on faith that existence can be explained without reference to God?

I and many people of faith far more intelligent than I have critically examined these assumptions and have rejected them. As your Enlightenment forbears have done in the 18th century to the spiritual world view, so have we done to yours, wielding the skeptical weapons your Enlightenment ancestors themselves have forged .The Enlightenment is over. You who think that reason is enough to base society on are behind the times. Most of humanity is skeptical of that now. The spiritual aspect of humanity can’t be suppressed. We have not meekly submitted to the pronouncements of scientist and philosophers who have rejected spirituality out of hand as if they were the new priests and prophets of the atheistic secularism but have rejected the materialistic dogmatism that is prevalent in the academic world and have done it with objectivity and reason. In doing this it is we, people of faith, who are the "free thinkers" now!

Yes it can make one angry when atheists accuse believers being gullible and unintelligent. But Our Lord said to rejoice when we are reviled for His sake. After all, if they are trying to throw jabs at us this we must be doing something right! No need to be insecure. After all, this increased militancy of atheists may be a reaction to the fact that atheism has lost the war! Humanity, by and large, won’t give up belief in the transcendent even if many live as though God doesn’t care what we do. Notwithstanding secular propaganda much , if not all of the good done in human history has been inspired by belief in God and , by extension, belief in Humanity’s infinite worth. Contrary to their cherished beliefs theism can be and is defended by reason and logic, if not proven by the parameters of scientific philosophy.
It is our job as believing Catholics to do just that in a spirit of love and understanding. We cannot react with anger and rancor or we are just wasting our time. Keeping our cool may in the long run be more effective. In doing this, in doing the works of charity God wants of us, in living out the moral law we reflect the love of God and thus affirm His reality. Hopefully those who observe us will see this and, their spirits will open up to the proddings of the Holy Spirit deep in their souls.

End Notes

1. Henri Cardinal de Lubac, Catholicism, Christ and the Common Destiny of Man, Ignatious Press, San Francisco California, 1988, p. 367
2. Merton Thomas, A Thomas Merton Reader, Doubleday Dell Publishing
Group Inc. New York, 1989, p. 240