Neuhaus on 'Internationalisms' and 'Americanism'

In December's issue of First Things, Fr. Neuhaus has an excellent piece on Internationalisms, on "conflicting internationalisms" in public debate today -- from the old-fashioned isolationism perpetuated by Pat Buchanan and, to some degree, George Will; to the "Bush Doctrine"'s advancement of human freedom and end to totalitarian ideologies, as endorsed by the Weekly Standard and more importantly Norman Podhoretz's exemplary article "World War IV: How It Started, What It Means, and Why We Have to Win"; to the "liberal internationalism of diminished sovereignty" popularized by Senator Kerry and those who percieve "the war on terror . . . as a defensive police action against criminal activities." Neuhaus concludes:

With few exceptions, we are all internationalists now. We have little choice in the matter. Jefferson worried whether our form of government could survive expansion on a continental scale. Now, by force of both intention and happenstance, our sphere of power and responsibility has expanded far beyond that. The liberal internationalism of diminished sovereignty is an abdication of responsibility and would be neither in our interest nor in the interest of world peace. The internationalism of global crusading for democracy is a delusion fraught with temptations to the hubris that has been the tragic undoing of men and nations throughout history. We should, rather, think of ours as an internationalism of circumstance, whose obligations we will not shirk. Our first obligation is to repair and keep in good repair our constitutional order and the cultural and moral order on which it depends. That we cannot do unless we are prepared to defend ourselves, not going abroad to seek monsters to destroy but also not fearing to resist and counter those who would destroy us.

An internationalism of circumstance, with its attendant duties, does not provide the thrilling drum rolls of the crusade or the glories of empire. Nor does it indulge dangerous dreams of escape into a new world order on the far side of national sovereignty. The world continues to be a world of politics among nations with, for better and worse, the United States as the preeminent nation for the foreseeable future. We cannot build nations, although we can at times provide encouragement and incentives for those determined to build their own. We cannot bestow democracy, but we can befriend those who aspire to democracy. We can build coalitions or act on our own for the relief of misery and the advancement of human rights, always having done the morally requisite calculation of our capacities and interests, and knowing that it is in our interest to be perceived as doing our duty. We can try to elicit, engage, and nurture constructive voices within Islam, recognizing that the Muslim future will be determined in largest part by those who seek to do what they believe to be God's will in relation to the infidel, which will always mean us. Above all, we can strive to be a people more worthy of moral emulation, which includes, by no means incidentally, our dependability in rewarding our friends and punishing those who insist upon being our enemies. Finally, given our circumstance of preeminence and the perduring force of envy and resentment in a sinful world, we need not flaunt our power. Whenever possible, we should act in concert with other sovereign nations, and especially other democracies. Often America will have to lead, and sometimes have to act alone. When we do, we should not expect to be thanked, never mind loved. We frequently will be, as in fact we frequently are, but that is to be deemed no more than a bonus for being and doing what we should.

See also "The Vatican vs. 'Americanism'", Neuhaus' review of John Allen's book All the Pope's Men: The Inside Story of How the Vatican Really Thinks, by John Allen, Jr., and further reflections on the subject.

Did the Pope condemn the war on Iraq?

Did Pope John Paul II condemn the war on Iraq? -- It depends on who you ask. If you happen to be "liberal Catholic" blogger Jcecil3, then the answer is decidedly affirmative, according to his interpretation of the Holy Father's statement "NO TO WAR!" and his plea that "international law, honest dialogue, solidarity between States, the noble exercise of diplomacy" prevail in resolving differences with Iraq (Address to the Diplomatic Corps January 13, 2003).

Jcecil marshalls as well the criticism of Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran, that unilateral war against Iraq, without the approval of the U.N. Security Council, would be a "crime against peace" (Zenit.org. Feb. 24, 2003), a charge reiterated by Archbishop Renato Martino, then President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, who denounced the war as "a crime against peace that cries out vengeance before God." (Zenit.org March 17, 2003).

Sean Gleeson begs to differ, however, and has recently joined Peter Robinson at The Corner in his challenge to anybody to email him an actual quote from the actual pope confirming his "outspoken opposition to the war in Iraq.":

The first one to send me any qualifying quote will win the coveted Gleeson Researcher of the Century Award, an honor so exclusive no one's ever earned it. Not only will I mention the winner on my site, I will spend an entire day doing nothing but mention the winner on my site. . . . Just one ground rule: the winning entry must be a quote from Pope John Paul II condemning the U.S. liberation of Iraq. That means,

• Paraphrases don't coun't.
• Quotes from persons other than John Paul II don't count.
• Quotes by John Paul II that do not condemn the U.S. invasion of Iraq don't count.
• Quotes expressing only a general regret of the existence of violence don't count.
• Quotes expressing only a general hope, prayer, or wish for peace don't count.
• Quotes simply urging "everyone" to please "outlaw war forever" don't count.

Mr. Geeson has recieved a few submissions, but none apparently have met his (perfectly reasonable criteria).

As Archbishop John Meyers has said in an op-ed to the Wall Street Journal ("Pro-choice candidates and church teaching" Sept. 17, 2004):

Consider, for example, the war in Iraq. Although Pope John Paul II pleaded for an alternative to the use of military force to meet the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, he did not bind the conscience of Catholics to agree with his judgment on the matter, nor did he say that it would be morally wrong for Catholic soldiers to participate in the war. In line with the teaching of the catechism on "just war," he recognized that a final judgment of prudence as to the necessity of military force rests with statesmen, not with ecclesiastical leaders. Catholics may, in good conscience, support the use of force in Iraq or oppose it.

If those who propose that the Pope's "outspoken opposition to the war" was tantamount to an authoritative coondemnation, we're still waiting on the Vatican to correct the misleading remarks of the Archbishop.

Related links:

• War in the Gulf. What the Pope Really Said, by Sandro Magister
• War no more? - How How much of a pacifist is the pope?, by William MacGurn. OpinionJournal March 28, 2003.
• Has the Holy Father condemned U.S. action in Iraq?, by Carl Olson. Envoy Encore March 26, 2003.
• Iraq, Weigel and the Pope, by Russell Shaw (a Catholic who opposed the war recognizes the right of Michael Novak, George Weigel, Deal Hudson to support it).
• "The Sounds of Religion in Time of War", Fr. Richard J. Neuhaus. First Things 133 (May 2003).
• Different Levels of Catholic Teaching, by Michael P. Orsi. Homiletic & Pastoral Review December 2003.

Commonweal vs. First Things - Round One(?)

The War in Iraq: How Catholic conservatives got it wrong, by Peter Dula. Commmonweal December 3, 2004 / Volume CXXXI, Number 21.

A Mennonite Central Commmittee worker in Amman and Baghdad challenges what he allegest to be the post-war "virtual silence" of First Things on Iraq between Summer 2003 and October 2004:

. . . . I remain an admirer of their work. Yet it is precisely as a theologian and a reader-and more broadly as a citizen-that I want answers to questions raised by the arguments Weigel and Neuhaus made in support of the preemptive war in Iraq. Those arguments were made in the public square that First Things, especially in light of last month’s presidential election, has done so much to open up to religious language. What I am most concerned with can be reduced to four points. First, Neuhaus and Weigel, like the administration they support, failed in the summer of 2003 to see that the war was far from over. Second, their faith in the competency of the Bush administration, and their contempt for religious leaders who disagreed with them, can now more easily be recognized for what it was: an attachment to a particular brand of neoconservatism overwhelming their attachment to the just-war tradition. Third, their scant attention to how the war was actually conducted (jus in bello), and their disdain for those who pushed questions about noncombatant deaths and proportionality, suggest the need for a reappraisal of the value they placed on the just causes (ad bellum) of the war. Finally, I would argue that their silence since the fall of Baghdad is more disturbing than their mistakes before and during "major combat operations." The issue is not only, or not simply, that they were wrong. Perhaps they think they were right. The issue, especially in light of President George W. Bush’s re-election, is their current "moral muteness in a time of war."

I'm expect that a response George Weigel and Fr. Neuhaus will be forthcoming and that Mr. Dula won't be waiting long. Meanwhile, the "commentariat" at Amy Welborn's blog Open Book is abuzz with responses from the left and right.

Radek Sikorski interviews Paul Wolfowitz

Interview with Paul Wolfowitz, by Radek Sikorski, former deputy minister of defence for Poland and director of the New Atlantic Initiative at the American Enterprise Institute. Prospect Magazine | November 23, 2004. A good discussion of U.S.-Iraqi affairs and the broader context of the war on terrorism.

"Iraq The Model" celebrates one year anniversary.

Belated congratulations to Mohammed, Ali and Omar, of "Iraq The Model", celebrating their one year blogiversary this past Sunday.

Steven Moore's "The Truth About Iraq"

The Truth About Iraq. A new website to counter the negativity of the mainstream media:

After working in Iraq for nine months doing focus groups and polling and advising Ambassador Bremer on Iraqi public opinion, Steven Moore returned to the United States in May 2003. Upon returning, he was astounded to find how sharply his experience in Iraq differed from that being communicated on television. Even more staggering, were some of the questions being asked by average Americans who genuinely consider themselves, well-informed:

• Aren't we just shoving democracy down the throats of the Iraqis?
• Are all the Iraqis rallying around the "freedom fighters" fighting the US forces?
• Wouldn't things be going much better if we had gotten United Nations support?
• Don't the Iraqis just want to be ruled by clerics?

These were questions asked by well-read, intelligent, middle of the road people. Having spent nine months living among Iraqis, working every single day to understand the Iraqi mindset, Moore believed he had unique insight into the Iraqi people.

In order to help Americans better understand the Iraqi people, Moore began speaking to groups around California and on a variety of radio programs throughout the United States. Though radio is an important medium, television still remains the most effective medium to reach the largest number of people in the shortest possible time.

A team comprised of experts with specific and relevant experience has now been created. Their expertise will ensure the successful achivement of the following goals:

1. raise money to produce and air a 30 second television spot that reminds Americans that they can be proud of the good work being done in Iraq by the US and Coalition Forces, and
2. spread the message via the Internet about this project.

With your help, America can be proud.

Norman Podhoretz's plea to "stay the course."

In "World War IV: How It Started, What It Means, and Why We Have to Win", Commentary magazine editor Norman Podhoretz presents his reasons for why America must "stay the course" in its current war on terror, or what he prefers to label as "World War IV."

Surveying terrorist attacks on Americans from the 1970's to the present and the varying responses by the Carter, Reagan, Bush and Clinton administrations, Podhoretz concludes:

In the end the commission agreed that no American President and no American policy could be held responsible in any degree for the aggression against the United States unleashed on 9/11.

Amen to that. For the plain truth is that the sole and entire responsibility rests with al Qaeda, along with the regimes that provided it with protection and support. Furthermore, to the extent that American passivity and inaction opened the door to 9/11, neither Democrats nor Republicans, and neither liberals nor conservatives, are in a position to derive any partisan or ideological advantage. The reason, quite simply, is that much the same methods for dealing with terrorism were employed by the administrations of both parties, stretching as far back as Richard Nixon in 1970 and proceeding through Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan (yes, Ronald Reagan), George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and right up to the pre-9/11 George W. Bush. . . .

The sheer audacity of what bin Laden went on to do on September 11 was unquestionably a product of his contempt for American power. Our persistent refusal for so long to use that power against him and his terrorist brethren -- or to do so effectively whenever we tried -- reinforced his conviction that we were a nation on the way down, destined to be defeated by the resurgence of the same Islamic militancy that had once conquered and converted large parts of the world by the sword.

Podhoretz drives home the point that, from 1970-present, an ineffectual policy on terrorism marked by the continued reluctance of the U.S. to use military force cultivated the impression that the U.S. was weak and impotent, and emboldened Osama Bin Ladin and other militant Islamic fundamentalists in their ongoing war against Western civilization.

Podhoretz then presents with great clarity the four pillars of "The Bush Doctrine," marking a distinct change in U.S. foreign policy initially launched with President Bush's speech to Congress on September 20, 2001:

1. A distinctly moral attitude, as opposed to the morally-neutral "realism" of times past. According to President Bush himself:
   Some worry that it is somehow undiplomatic or impolite to speak the language of right and wrong. I disagree. Different circumstances require different methods, but not different moralities. Moral truth is the same in every culture, in every time, and in every place. . . . We are in a conflict between good and evil, and America will call evil by its name.

2. A new understanding of terrorism as motivated by political oppression rather than the product of economic factors, perpetrated not by individual psychotics but agents of terrorist organizations that were dependant on government sponsorship for their survival.
   "No longer would we treat the members of these groups as criminals to be arrested by the police, read their Miranda rights, and brought to trial. From now on, they were to be regarded as the irregular troops of a military alliance at war with the United States, and indeed the civilized world as a whole."

3. The assertion of the right to premption and to "pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism" -- as opposed to policies of deterrence, containment, or retaliation. (With respect to this website, it is on this particular point that the guidelines of Catholic Just War theory would be focused).

4. The repositioning of the Israel-Palestine issue (and the question of a Palestinian state) in the broader context of the war on terrorism. Citing President Bush:
   "Today, Palestinian authorities are encouraging, not opposing terrorism. This is unacceptable. And the United States will not support the establishment of a Palestinian state until its leaders engage in a sustained fight against the terrorists and dismantle their infrastructure."

   In so doing, calling Palestinians, and Muslims everywhere, to a position of moral responsibility by renouncing support of terrorist organizations like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hizbullah.

Podhoretz follows this with a critical examination of the many varieties of anti-Americanism at home and abroad, citing numerous examples from the press, academia and publishing worlds engaging in what he dubs the "anti-American olympics". Here he makes the observation that "the hatred of Israel was in large part a surrogate for anti-Americanism, rather than the reverse. Israel was seen as the spearhead of the American drive for domination over the Middle East").

Finally, he reviews and rebuts some of the arguments against the establishment of democracy in the Middle East (by Fareed Zakaria, for instance), the charges that the Bush administration "misled" Congress on the war in Iraq (as made by Senator Kerry' Democratic campaign and Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911). He issues a plea to the Democrats specifically not to abandon the policies of our current president in the event that Kerry should win the election in November:

If John Kerry should become our next President, and he may, it would be a great calamity if he were to abandon the Bush Doctrine in favor of the law-enforcement approach through which we dealt so ineffectually with terrorism before 9/11, while leaving the rest to those weakest of reeds, the UN and the Europeans. No matter how he might dress up such a shift, it would -- rightly -- be interpreted by our enemies as a craven retreat, and dire consequences would ensue. Once again the despotisms of the Middle East would feel free to offer sanctuary and launching pads to Islamic terrorists; once again these terrorists would have the confidence to attack us—and this time on an infinitely greater scale than before.

If, however, the victorious Democrats were quietly to recognize that our salvation will come neither from the Europeans nor from the UN, and if they were to accept that the Bush Doctrine represents the only adequate response to the great threat that was literally brought home to us on 9/11, then our enemies would no longer be emboldened -- certainly not to the extent they have recently been -- by "our national discord over the war."

A very good and highly educational article, and worth taking the time to read.

Archbishop John Meyers on Catholic disagreement w/ the war

In an editorial for the Wall Street Journal ("A Voter's Guide: Pro-choice candidates and church teaching", Sept. 17, 2004), Archbishop John Myers of Newark, NJ addressed issues of proportionality and voting for pro-abortion candidates. He also briefly addressed -- and challenged -- the arguments put forth by those who contend that the Catholic Church had authoritavely condemned the war in Iraq as immoral and saw opposition to the war as sufficient grounds for voting for a candidate who stood clearly at odds with Church teaching on abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, same-sex marriage, and other "non-negotiable" issues:

. . . Certainly policies on welfare, national security, the war in Iraq, Social Security or taxes, taken singly or in any combination, do not provide a proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate.

Consider, for example, the war in Iraq. Although Pope John Paul II pleaded for an alternative to the use of military force to meet the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, he did not bind the conscience of Catholics to agree with his judgment on the matter, nor did he say that it would be morally wrong for Catholic soldiers to participate in the war. In line with the teaching of the catechism on "just war," he recognized that a final judgment of prudence as to the necessity of military force rests with statesmen, not with ecclesiastical leaders. Catholics may, in good conscience, support the use of force in Iraq or oppose it.

Abortion and embryo-destructive research are different. They are intrinsic and grave evils; no Catholic may legitimately support them. In the context of contemporary American social life, abortion and embryo-destructive research are disproportionate evils. They are the gravest human rights abuses of our domestic politics and what slavery was to the time of Lincoln. Catholics are called by the Gospel of Life to protect the victims of these human rights abuses. They may not legitimately abandon the victims by supporting those who would further their victimization.

Karl Keating on Just War and Nagasaki

Marking the anniversary of the bombing of Nagasaki on August 9th, Catholic apologist Karl Keating discusses the bombing in light of Catholic just war principles in his latest e-letter, with a stern warning to "anything goes" conservatives:

. . . what concerns me is the attitude, so prevalent among political conservatives (most of whom are religious conservatives), that there are no limits in defensive warfare: If the other guys started the fight, they deserve whatever they get. In a defensive war it is not a matter of "My country right or wrong" but of "My country can do no wrong," which is an odd thing coming from conservatives who, on domestic matters, can be highly critical of their government's moral failings (as regards abortion or homosexuality, say).

Catholic moral principles are easy to apply to other people, difficult to apply to ourselves. This is as true in public life as in private life. During World War II our enemies did atrocious things on the battlefield, to conquered nations, and even to their own people. Many of these evils we knew about during the war; others came to light only after the cessation of hostilities.

Even those evils we knew about during the war were so prevalent and so gross that, to many, it seemed permissible, for the duration, to lay aside a principle that we insisted be followed by our enemies: The end does not justify the means.

Rephrase that in Catholic terms: To achieve a good, you may not perform a sin. To provide your family financial security, you may not rob a bank. To protect your wife's health, you may not abort the child she is carrying. And to defeat an enemy in war, you may not violate just war principles. But we did--and more than once, sad to say.

The atomic bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, like the fire bombings of Dresden and other German cities, cannot be squared with Catholic moral principles because the bombings deliberately targeted non-combatants. The evil done by our enemies did not exonerate us from the moral law. Their evils did not provide us justification for evils of our own. Being a Christian in peacetime is difficult; it is more difficult, but even more necessary, in wartime.

Tri-Coastal Commission

The blog Tri-Coastal Commission ("Three Guys. Three Coasts. A Conspiracy of Noise") discusses just war theory in light of a re-reading of George Weigel's many essays on the topic.

Iraqis say goodbye to CPA head Paul Bremer

Last week the U.S. Coalition Provisional Authority handed over power to the free nation of Iraq. From what is being reported by Iraqi blogs, Paul Bremer gave an incredible speech on the day the U.S. transferred sovereignty to Iraq, which stirred many a soul and moved many of those who heard it to tears. It went unreported by the mainstream press -- no doubt because it didn't involve Iraqi insurgents and the loss of American lives. Writing for "Iraq The Model", Mohammed expresses thanks to Bremer on behalf of the Iraqi people, and, later, discusses the negligent coverage of the U.S. press. Ali, another Iraqi blogger, posts his thoughts:

The speech was impressive and you could hear the sound of a needle if one had dropped it at that time. The most sensational moment was the end of the speech when Mr. Bremer used a famous Arab emotional poem. The poem was for a famous Arab poet who said it while leaving Baghdad. Al-Jazeera had put an interpreter who tried to translate even the Arabic poem which Mr. Bremer was telling in a fair Arabic! "Let this damned interpreter shut up. We want to hear what the man is saying" One of my colloquies shouted. The scene was very touching that the guy sitting next to me (who used to sympathize with Muqtada) said "He's going to make me cry!"

Then he finished his speech by saying in Arabic,"A'ash Al-Iraq, A'ash Al-Iraq, A'ash Al-Iraq"! (Long live Iraq, Long live Iraq, long live Iraq).

I was deeply moved by this great man's words but I couldn't prevent myself from watching the effect of his words on my friends who some of them were anti-Americans and some were skeptic, although some of them have always shared my optimism. I found that they were touched even more deeply than I was. I turned to one friend who was a committed She'at and who distrusted America all the way. He looked as if he was bewitched, and I asked him, "So, what do you think of this man? Do you still consider him an invader?" My friend smiled, still touched and said, "Absolutely not! He brought tears to my eyes. God bless him."

Another friend approached me. This one was not religious but he was one of the conspiracy theory believers. He put his hands on my shoulders and said smiling, "I must admit that I'm beginning to believe in what you've been telling us for months and I'm beginning to have faith in America. I never thought that they will hand us sovereignty in time. These people have shown that they keep their promises."

Dr. Foad Ajami (author of the excellent Dream Palaces of the Arabs), writes of the transfer of power, and responsibility:

America is not to stay long in Iraq. No scheme is being hatched for the subjugation of Iraq's people. No giant American air bases on their soil are in the offing. In their modern history, Iraqis witnessed direct British control over their country (from 1921 to 1932), followed by a quarter-century of a subtle British role in their politics, hidden behind a façade of national independence. Ours is a different world, and this new "imperium" is the imperium of a truly reluctant Western power.

What shall stick of America's truth on the soil of Iraq is an open, unknowable question. But the leaders who waged this war--those "architects" of it who have been thrown on the defensive by its difficulties and surprises--should be forgiven the sense that things broke their way during that five-minute surprise ceremony yesterday morning. They haven't created a "new" Iraq, and sure enough, they have not tackled the malignancies of the Arab world which lay at the roots, and the very origins, of this war. America isn't acquitted yet of its burdens in Mesopotamia. Our heartbreaking losses are a daily affair, and our soldiers there remain in harm's way.

But we now stay under new terms--a power that vacated sovereignty 48 hours ahead of schedule, and an Iraqi population that can glimpse, just a horizon away, the possibility of a society free from both native tyranny and foreign control. There is nervousness in Iraq: the nervousness of a people soon to be put to the test by the promise--and the hazards--of freedom.

["Iraq's New History" Wall Street Journal June 29, 2004]

Related Links & Updates:

• "Blogging the watchdogs", by John Leo. U.S. News and World Report July 19, 2004. Mr. Leo covers the lapses (and deliberate maliciousness) of the mainstream press:
  The Washington Post said Bremer left without giving a talk. The Los Angeles Times did worse. It missed the speech, then insulted Bremer for not giving it. A July 4 Times "news analysis" said: "L. Paul Bremer III, the civilian administrator for Iraq, left without even giving a final speech to the country--almost as if he were afraid to look in the eye the people he had ruled for more than a year." This is a good one-sentence example of what readers object to in much Iraq reporting--dubious or wrong information combined with a heavy load of attitude from the reporter.

George Weigel on "Abu Ghraib and Just War"

It's worth remembering, in this context, that the first reckoning with what went desperately wrong at Abu Ghraib prison came, not because of 60 Minutes or other organs of investigative journalism, but from within the U.S. Army itself, which launched a criminal investigation of the situation on January 14, the day after Spc. Joseph Darby reported the abuse to military investigators. This empirically confirms an impression that I've been forming for years: that the just war tradition is taken far more seriously in the U.S. armed forces than in other sectors of our society, including many of our religious institutions. . . .

Thus, today, no one knows the stain on military honor that Abu Ghraib represents better than the officers and enlisted personnel who believe they came to Iraq to liberate its people from a vicious dictatorship in which murder, rape, and torture were normal instruments of state policy, not aberrations.

Some have been using Abu Ghraib to turn the Iraq debate into another round in the increasingly ugly American culture war; others have been trying to turn this sordid business to partisan advantage. But Abu Ghraib cannot be addressed as if it were primarily a domestic political problem. The ius ad pacem — the right intention — that was a significant part of the just war case for deposing the Saddam Hussein regime demands that swift and sure justice be meted out to those who have disgraced the uniform of the United States. That, in turn, will help advance the cause of a free, stable, pluralistic, and self-governing Iraq.

George Weigel, Abu Ghraib and Just War July 3, 2004.

Iraqi Catholic perspectives on the war

Jimmy Akin is writing about Iraqi Catholics and the U.S.-Iraqi conflict. Says Mr. Akin: "I have an unusual amount of data on the Iraqi Catholic perspective . . . as I was one of two Americans in a class of thirty-something Iraqi Catholics during the run-up to and prosecution of the war."

Fr. Frank Pavone sounds off . . .

. . . on "Catholics, Abortion and the Iraq War: A Pro-Life Priest's View":

This column requires extra effort to explain what it is not. It is not an evaluation of the war in Iraq or of any national leaders. It is, however, an observation, on the level of moral principle, about the relationship between abortion, war, and being pro-life.

[READ MORE].

The debate over the morality of the Iraq war in light of the Catholic Just War tradition will continue; however, let us hope Fr. Pavone has by his column quelled those who would insist: "You are not pro-life because you support the war."

"Kindler, Gentler" Warfare

Catholic Apologist James Akin is blogging on the prospects of "Kindler, Gentler Warfare" made possible by the development of "nonlethal" weapons, over at his blog.