www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News U.S. Romanian Catholic Eprach Forbids the Participation of his Flock

�Also I find his reasoning very persuasive.�

What reasoning? As I noted in a different post:

�...the most disappointing aspect of Bishop John Michael�s lenten message � aside form its slavish reliance on the CCC � is the fact that he never actually discusses WHY and HOW the impending war against Iraq fails to meet the ius ad bellum requirements of the just war tradition.

�Does he assume that his flock is too dull to understand the complex moral calculus involved? It seems to me that if one is going to call something an �unequivocal evil,� he ought to be prepared to explain the reasons.

�This has nothing to do with his judgment that the war is wrong. I fully understand that good men can and do disagree (in stark contrast to the issue of abortion) in working through the complex issues involved. The just war criteria, after all, do not constitute some simple mathematical formula into which one plugs the numbers and gets the answer.

�That said, I find the letter sanctimonious, condescending, and lacking in the kind of thoughtful leadership I think we ought to demand of Orthodox and Catholic bishops. I appreciate his courage in speaking out, but wish that what he had said had been a bit more, well, humble.�

But, then again, I suppose that if you�re a summa cum laude graduate of Catholic U., you must know all the answers.

One last point: "Among true worshipers of God those wars are looked on as peacemaking which are waged neither from aggrandizement nor cruelty but with the object of securing peace, of repressing the evil and supporting the good." (Thomas Aquinas, ST, II.II.40.1).

I have come more and more to think that, whatever the invisible motives of some with ties to the energy industry (and they are largely invisible, which means they may not exist), President Bush truly wishes only to secure peace, repress the evil, and support the good.

In peace,
Theophilos

I have great respect for Bishop John of Canton and for his courage to speak out on this issue. I also respect that his views are honestly held. Nevertheless, I strongly disagree with his stance and believe that his reasoning is highly flawed and irresponsible. Many of the facts he has built his condemnation on are simply untrue. He speaks as if a war mongering United States is about to go to war with the Iraqi people rather then forcing their leader to comply with the many resolutions of the international community. He states that participation in the military effort is the equivalent of assisting at an abortion. Clearly it is not. Abortion is only about the killing of innocent, helpless human life and the selfishness of the mother who kills. This action against Hussein is about liberating an entire country from a madman, one who is responsible for the killing of 1.5 million of his own people. The two are simply not comparable.

We�ve already discussed the Just War Theory at length in another thread so I will not repeat myself here, save to state that I believe that all the conditions of the Just War Theory have indeed been met and clearly met. Americans are liberators, not occupiers. We are giving the teeth to the United Nations resolutions that the international community did not have the moral fortitude to back. We are not only ending 12 years of stalemate during which Hussein has acquired more weapons, we are freeing the people of Iraq. I pray that there are no civilian deaths but there mostly likely will be civilian deaths. I do not equate these deaths � horrible as they certainly will be � as the equivalent of murder. To put them on the same moral plane as the 1.5 million people who have died under Hussein (hundreds of thousands of them though the use of chemical weapons, many others through the use of torture) is, in my opinion, irresponsible. Furthermore, to suggest that our military action against Hussein is a war about the purposeful mass infliction of death and suffering on children of God is entirely incorrect. Finally, where is his acknowledgement that Hussein is the one responsible for this situation and his call to Hussein to obey the resolutions of the international community? Where is the development of why he believes that the Just War Theory is not met?

I am glad that the United States has the moral fortitude to stand up against the evil of Hussein when many in the international community couldn�t stomach backing their own resolutions. We are only ridding the world of a terrorist we are defending for the right to life of the Iraqi people.

Dear Administrator,

That being said (and so well, if I may say so), what about the fact that the bishop is doing more here than expressing his own point of view - he is affirming that those who support this war, not to mention participate in it, are committing mortal sin.

What do those people who are under him and disagree with him do?

What kind of a practical impact does this bishop's statement have in terms of "binding and loosing" on Catholics?

Am I committing a mortal sin for supporting the USA here?

Alex

Dear Theophilus:

I agree that Bishop John's letter did not include any exposition of just-war criteria, or analysis of the manner in which this war fails to fulfill them. And that that this omission detracts from the power of his message. You point, however, might resonate more if you avoided directing invective and sarcasm towards the Bishop.

I agree. But the passage from Aquinas gives a necessary, not a sufficient criterion. A just war requires more than a "wish" to secure peace.
Apart from problems of legitimate authority and imminent threat, the launching of this war, on the hope that an imposed change of regime will have a chance, in the long term, of diminishing rather than heightening terrorism is a problem with the administration's pre-emptive, post-??? policy.

Two millenia ago, the people of Israel were under the yoke of a brutal dictatorship. No doubt many desired liberation. They were disappointed. God sent a Messiah, who saw that they were troubled by many things, but told them them that only one thing was necessary: He delivered them not from bondage, but from Bondage; He gave His life not to set them free, but to set them Free.

Is our present crusade a faithful emulation of Christ or a distorted one?

djs

djs:

Glory to Jesus Christ!

My saracasm was mostly directed to those who disseminated the message (the Center for Christian Nonviolence) with the note that "Bishop Botean is a Summa Cum Laude graduate in Philosophy of The Catholic University of America. Any suggestion, that he cannot appreciate the complexities, niceties and nuances of the concepts presented to justify a war as being in conformity with Catholic teaching, is patently without merit."

As for my other comments? I stand by my judgment, based exclusively on what I read.

I did not participate in the discussion on just war, but certainly understand that "right intention" is not sufficient to make a war just. I've begun to think, however, that the other conditions have been met, including just cause, legitimate authority, last resort, etc.

As for the issue of whther Iraq constitutes an imminent threat, I am in agreement with Jean Bethke Elshtain: "...it bears notice that an imminent threat does not necessarily mean one that is just around the corner. It may refer, instead, to murderous capabilities an outlaw regime is in the process of developing. If one can make a strong case that the use of such capabilities is highly likely, then the just war caution against 'intervening' may be overridden."

Actually, I strongly recommend the entire essay from which the above quote is taken. It is avialable at www.americanvalues.org/html/1b___elshtain.html [americanvalues.org]

In Christ,
Theophilos

Alex,

Bishop John of Canton has spoken officially so his people need to give great weight to his words and pray over them. I am not a theologian so I cannot speak to whether his people would be guilty of a mortal sin for disobeying his clear and direct orders.

I think that those people under his spiritual jurisdiction who have questions about his statement have a responsibility to ask him to clarify his position and how he arrived at it. His pastoral letter for the Great Fast was surely not intended to provide comprehensive guidance in this situation. Such letters are generally summaries. His people do have the right to understand how he came to issue such a strong position, one much stronger then the Holy Father himself.

I do not think that you would be committing a mortal sin for supporting the United States and the collation. But this is a question best answered by your own bishop.

---

djs raises some very interesting points. True freedom is only found in Jesus Christ so, at best, the type of freedom we have here in America and which we seek to secure for Iraq is only a type of freedom. It is far inferior to the freedom we await in the next life. I think that to see the current action as a type of America-the-Messiah granting resurrection and freedom to Iraq would be highly distorted. I do not think it is distorted to consider it as the liberation of a people so that they could be free from tyranny and the protection of the world from a madman.

Admin

Dear friends,

Bishop John Michael's letter raises another moral quandry that I have been pondering. Which is the greater moral evil, abortion or war?

At my parish, and I suspect in many others, some parishioners have been very vocal in their opposition to the war. Moreover, some individuals have been using this as an opportunity to express their intense disdain for President Bush, and their belief that things would be far better if Al Gore was in power. These individuals, like most Catholics that I know, are very proud dyed in the wool Democrats.

But the moral dilemma is this: Al Gore is very vocal in his support for abortion on demand. He has even expressed support for keeping partial birth abortion legal. Isn't that a problematic position?

Should I, as a Catholic, vote for the Democratic presidential candidate, who most likely will be pro-abortion, in order to expel President Bush who is guilty of the sin of warmongering?

Anthony

Time has restrained me from participating in the discussions about the current international situation, but upon reading the pastoral letter being addressed, I must voice my agreement with our Administrator, with Silouan, Theophilus, Alex, Lemko and those others here who are taken aback by the Romanian bishop's reactionary and one-sided statements.

I did not gleam even once in the letter, any supporting evidence that might explain why this conflict "does not meet even the minimal standards of the Catholic just war theory." All that is offered are endless quotations from the Catechism, speaking about how Catholics should react to a war that is deemed to be unjust. In no line of the letter do I see any explanation of why it is that Christians should be so vehemently opposed to this current war.

Botean's statement that, "any killing associated with it is unjustified and, in consequence, unequivocally murder. Direct participation in this war is the moral equivalent of direct participation in an abortion" is an over-simplified conclusion about his own personal and in my opinion, unenlightened view of the conflict. To automatically and unilaterally equate any loss of life in "Operation Iraq Freedom" with that of an abortion or a deliberate murder of one person by another is absurd and a comparison that I believe not even the Pope would attempt to make.

Furthermore, in agreement with the comments of our Administrator above, I firmly attest that the Romanian eparch's definition of the present situation as a "war against the people of Iraq" is simply and categorically untrue. Our president has consistently made this known, lest people jump to that unsupportable conclusion, as the bishop obviously did. It amazes me that he would have made such a comparison. His supporting organization's observation that, "Bishop Botean is a Summa Cum Laude graduate in Philosophy of The Catholic University of America" and the subsequent qualifications listed would make one think that he of all people, with such lofty academic credentials, would at least be able to ascertain that our nation's efforts would not possibly be against a particular civilian population. Regardless of one's opinion of the United States, I could not fathom how it can be thought that we would wage a war against people in and of themselves. That is absurdity at its most obvious expression. Our main objective in taking the action in the first place - is to rid the Iraqi people of someone who himself has waged war against his own citizens.

Even more disturbing, is the bishop's imposition of the "pain of mortal sin" should any of his subjects be supporters of our nation, in any manner whatsoever, in its quest for the liberation of the Iraqi people. While exercising his "teaching office" (magisterium) he certainly has the prerogative to define, within his own eparchy, what might constitute "grave moral offenses" I am not convinced that he has the power or authority to define participation in the "war effort" whether indirect (through support of our nation, troops and president) or direct (through actual active military service), as a mortal sin, much less, to impose this state of implied Eucharistic excommunication (which automatically follows upon the commitment of a "mortal sin") upon his faithful. If not even the Pope has spoken so harshly nor devised ecclesiastical consequences for those who support the war, it is hard for me to accept that any eparchial bishop would have the authority to do so on his own. Where in any teaching of the church does it state something to this effect or make such broad jumps from ideological positions to actual, concrete ecclesial penalties?

In light of this, what does Bishop Botean mean when he states that, "our Church is wholeheartedly committed to the support of any of our members in the military or government service who may be confronted with situations of legal jeopardy due to their need to be conscientious objectors to this war." I don't understand what he could possibly do for a service man or woman who would refuse to obey the orders of their commanding officer. What could the bishop do for government workers who may have to directly work in the planning or implementation of "Operation Iraq Freedom?" Or, am I missing something here?

On a more pickiune note, besides borrowing heavily from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is not a bad compilation in and of itself, the bishop also emphasizes a particularly Latin, scholastic term in making any type of support for "Operation Iraq Freedom" a "mortal sin." While there is certainly a distinction between "serious and less serious" sins in Eastern thought, the use of the definitions of "mortal and venial" are foreign to it. I believe that Bishop Botean would be one who considers himself an "easternizer" and has made attempts to restore legitimate Byzantine tradition in his eparchy, so why, when it "comes down to the wire" does he revert to the use of terms characteristically expressive of Roman Catholic dogmatic theology?

Finally, many of you know that I am not one for the use of pompous anachronisms which are representative of a different era in church and society. In fact, it appalls me when bishops and priests resort to lofty language, titles and forms of speech that would seem to preserve an imperial flavor in the office of hierarch. I also realize that some fine people have an attachment to these forms, which I do not object to in and of themselves. But, it only nauseates me more, when those who makes use of such speech-forms, also employ what appears to me to be a "false piety and forced humility" by the addition of such terms as "a sinner" after their names and long titles. I don't mean to say that one should not, in sincerity, put "a sinner" after their names, if they really mean it and if the rest of their actions support this concept. But, I do not see the how pomposity and humility simultaneously reflect well on the one who is communicating. The form of address that I am referring to is the following excerpt:

Therefore I, by the grace of God and the favor of the Apostolic See Bishop of the Eparchy of St. George in Canton, must declare to you . . . that any direct participation and support of this war against the people of Iraq is objectively grave evil, a matter of mortal sin.

I simply did not see the need for the bishop to use this style when speaking of an issue which in and of itself, is quite humbling and awe-invoking, when all of the particular circumstances are evaluated (no matter what one's take on it is).

Personally, to conclude, I wonder if Bishop Botean would have such strong words, if the "velvet revolution" did not take place the way it did in Eastern Europe and if our nation was presently leading a campaign to free the Romanian people from the oppressive yoke of former dictator Cherchescu (spelling?). I don't remember the exact details of the ousting of that evil man, and perhaps there was some bloodshed involved, but certainly he should be remembered in history as one on the same level of evil-doing as Hussein, Hitler, Stalin and all the other atrocious leaders that the world has been plagued with. If he did not leave power when he did (I think in fact, he might have been executed, which would be a mortal sin, no?), would the good bishop have the same sentiments for the US, should they have led a campaign to liberate Romania from his oppression? Again, this is only a personal question that comes to my mind.

I agree with Lemko that the pastoral letter only confirms all the more for me, that our country and its allies are acting with justice, in their attempts to rid the Iraqi people and the world of one of history's most cruel and violent dictators. I do compare him with other horrible leaders who committed grave offenses against humanity. What makes me wonder is why all those so vehemently opposed to action against him do not see at least the possibility that, turning a deaf ear towards the present situation "could" certainly result in much more horrendous acts in the future, and the loss of countless innocent lives, should he be allowed to continue to build his arsenal of mass destruction. I ask again, in hindsight of course, how many millions of lives may have been spared, should action have been taken against the Nazi regime sooner that it was, or if Stalin had been stopped from invading Ukraine, Slovakia and the many other nations where his victory led to the persecution, cruel torture and deaths of so many of our people. Perhaps if we should lament anything, it should be our lack or delay of action at those times. It could be true that we were not as equipped to overcome these past dictators in the same way that we will hopefully be able to deal with Hussein.

While I despise all unnecessary violence and morn the loss of any life at all, be it physical or psychological, like it or not, I'm grateful that our nation does now have the capacity to be a serious threat to those who violate the lives of others. I firmly believe in the Gospel teachings of Our Lord about peace and justice for all people and because I do, I am all the more adamant to support action that will suppress anyone who would violate or bring harm to one of the "people of God." There can be no excuse whatsoever, for a dictator who oppresses his people with torture, fear and death and I believe it our duty, as Christians to do all within our power, first peacefully and if that should fail, reluctantly, through other means, to put a stop to such evil people. If we take no action, what can be said of our commitment to God's reign of justice? We cannot be so naive as to think that if we try only diplomatic means, and they unfortunately do not work, then we must sit by idly and hope that the evil will go away. Scripture does not always preclude confrontation and what happened to the idea of "St. Michael the Archangel, St. George, St. Demetrius and others being patrons of warriors?

To this "humble priest" it appears that the Romanian eparch has lost credibility as a "moral compass" for his people and I sympathize with the clergy and faithful of the Eparchy of Canton, who must now make the difficult choice of blindly obeying their Ordinary or participating in a form of conscientious objection and dissent from his latest teaching.

May God protect both our troops involved in "Operation Iraq Freedom" and all those civilians who may be in harm's way. That should be our foremost concern and prayer at this time, not the imposition of a war of "ecclesiastical sanctions" on those who may view the conflict differently from the Romanian-American eparchial bishop.

Thank you all for your time in reading my thoughts. God bless you all.

Fr. Joe

Dear Administrator:

You give an interesting response to my question.
But it was not the question that I meant to ask.
When facing a moral dilemma, we might ask how to emulate Christ, or more simply ask: What would Jesus do? The answer: Be conceived of the Holy Spirit, be born of the Virgin Mary, suffer under Pontius Pilate, etc. is a valid answer to the question, but not an informative one.

So my question is not about confusing the Messianc role of Christ with that of the US. Rather it is this: Given the fact that Christ showed no interest whatsoever in liberating God's people from the tyrannical Romans, in what sense do we attach a dimension of morality to our warfare? Is this faithful to a genuine moral sense, or is it a secularized distortion?

To Lemko and Father Joe:

How do the weaknesses in Bishop John's exposition of his moral sense heighten your support of our warfare?

Shlomo Lkhoolkhoon,
What I find funny is that here we are asking that our Eparchs lead us, and when they do, then we curse them with:

Is this the way we should address our hierachs? I have sent this post to a number of priests and eparchs and most that have written back have backed him. Further, from what I understand the Chaldean Eparch is also coming out with something similar. Therefore, if our spiritual leaders do line up behind Eparch John Michael, we will have to choose between our souls and our nation.

Poosh BaShlomo Lkhoolkhoon,
Yuhannon

Shlomo Lkhoolkhoon,
This is from today's Lebanon Daily Star. For us American Maronites this places a great burden on us to follow our "Father's" words. Should we also curse our Patriarch because he is against this war?

Poosh BaShlomo Lkhoolkhoon,
Yuhannon

**************************************************
Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Butros Sfeir warned Wednesday against the dangerous consequences of the US �war machine moving in the Middle East� for Iraqis and international cooperation.

He was addressing students at Saint Joseph�s School in Aintoura during a visit marking the feast day of the school�s patron saint.

Sfeir called on the students to stand fast in the face of the �storm.�
The prelate said that US war plans had endangered the future role of the UN organization �after it was split between war and peace camps.�
The school�s principal, Father Jean Sfeir, earlier told the patriarch the Lebanese people had only to rally around him to say �yes to peace,� adding that the prelate�s �courage and wisdom,� had already strengthened Muslim-Christian dialogue.

I couldn't disagree more. Based on my personal experience, Bishop John Michael is one of the most outstanding shephards in the Catholic Church today. He's the kind of bishop that makes me proud to be an Eastern Catholic.

What we have to understand is that Bishop John Michael, when push comes to shove, is a firm believer in nonviolence. In this sense he is in the tradition of both Gandhi and Martin Luther King. This is a philosophy that he has adopted, and believes to be the position most consistent with the teachings of Jesus Christ. Even if you disagree with this conclusion, one must respect the sincerity behind his convictions. Personally, I have the most profound respect for his position.

God Bless,
Anthony

"Therefore, if our spiritual leaders do line up behind Eparch John Michael, we will have to choose between our souls and our nation."

I'm still not convinced that any eparch has the authority to bind the faithful under the "pain of mortal sin" merely for holding an opinion or conviction about a matter such as this. I don't think many will agree that support of the conflict in Iraq can be equivalent to active murder or abortion. If the bishop feels so, than I believe that conscientious but respectful theological dissent is permissible.

I can understand in a sense, the Maronite Patriarch or Chaldean eparch taking a strong stance against military action, but we will have to wait to see exactly what he says or if they attempts to impose "ecclesiastical sanctions" as did the Romanian bishop.

As for the bishop's letter confirming my own convictions, it has to do with the fact that some of his estimations of the war are so far off in my opinion, that it only causes me to place greater confidence in the fact that our nation is doing the just thing. If he can compare action against Hussein to active murder and abortion and declare that the US is waging a war against the "people of Iraq" which are statements that are so far from the truth, then it prompts me all the more, to be unable to understand arguments claiming that "Operation Iraq Freedom" does not meet any just war requirements. It makes it appear that those opposed to military action in any situation are already convinced that their judgment is correct, without even trying to consider how it might fall into the category of a just war, one which some Catholic theologians have pointed out that it indeed does.

Overall, everyone is entitled to their own opinion on this matter, at least I believe they are. I'm still wondering how an eparch can bind his people to a certain opinion or point of view, when the situation is not so cut and dry as in the case of abortion or active murder. I also still can't understand why some will not give consideration to the question of what might happen if Hussein is allowed to remain in power and build up his potential for future atrocities. There is historical proof of what happens if these circumstances are allowed to fester. Saddam is, in my opinion, right up in the same category as the other tyrants of history who were responsible for the deaths of millions and torture and mangling of countless others. This to me, is a scary thought. Someone must take a stand about this and I believe our nation has.

God preserve us all. May the overall outcome of this present situation be for the best possible good of everyone involved.

Fr. Joe

Jesus Christ called people to focus not on this life but on following Him into eternal life. At this level one can indeed say that absolutely nothing in this life matters.

We do, however, live in the here and now while we work out our salvation. In this life we have the New Commandment of Christ (that we love one another) and the Ten Commandments. I think it is genuinely and positively moral to alleviate another�s suffering and to free one�s neighbors from someone or something that could cause them great harm. How can one claim that he loves others unless he is willing to actually demonstrate that love by action? When the neighbor�s child wanders off into the woods do we not automatically join together to go and search for the child and bring him or her home, even on the Sabbath? When a killer escapes from prison do we not call out the National Guard to go and subdue him in order to protect the general welfare of the people? Is this not an application of the golden rule (Matthew 7:12)? We do have a general obligation to do good whenever and wherever we can (see also Matthew 12:12). It is correct to state that Jesus� mission was not to liberate people from their earthly civil oppressors. I think, however, it would be wrong for us not to good at every opportunity. I respect that there is a difference of opinion on the method being used in the current situation but I feel strongly that the intentions of our country are morally just. I would further add (which I have already stated) that the Just War theory has been completely fulfilled. I do not think that this is a distortion at all.