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

.

Dear Adminstrator:

Yes there is no doubt that we are called, to direct action in the love of neighbor. This is explicit in the teaching of Christ. I still have trouble equating war-making with searching for a lost child, apprehending an escaped criminal, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked ...

djs,

I appreciate your difference of opinion. If someone held up the local bank (taking hostages at gunpoint and randomly killing them) I would have no problem if the authorities used force to take him out should all attempts at negotiation fail. I would not expect the people being held hostage to formalize a request for help or the local authorities to look to the larger community for permission before acting to free the innocent. Hussein is the bank robber. He has held his people hostage for over a generation. He is responsible for the deaths of over 1.5 million of his own people and has robbed his country of billions of dollars. Negotiations over 12 years have failed. How moral is it not to act decisively? How moral is the United Nations for allowing the situation to go on for 12 years? How moral is it for us to go on doing nothing? How can we stand before the Lord and justify our inaction? I can see it as a form of tough love.

Admin

1) The deafening silence of his brother bishops regarding Bishop John Michael's pronouncements -- whether concurring or differing! -- most especially those of the Pittsburgh Metropolia under whose authority I am (and 195,000 more Catholics than in Bishop John Michael's jurisdiction are) -- so what else is new?;

2) The complete absence on the part of Bishop John Michael ascribing any guilt to the ostensibly victim leaders of Iraq to respond not only to UN resolutions but to an ultimatum of the US-UK coalition -- which echoed completely the position of the American Chaldean Catholic bishop Ibrahim Ibrahim (is this a position of "courage", or of fear?);

3) Until today, the position of the Vatican in close conformity with Bishop John Michael's position which also seemed to lack any condemnation of the Hussein regime either for the last 12 years of defying the UN or over the regime's last 2 weeks of lethargic response to the threat of war.

If our shepherds, regardless of their position, are unable to even acknowledge the reason that this is a real political and security dilemma, and chalk it up entirely to the alleged US government failures, then to my logic-oriented mind this considerably weakens their position, as I said, whatever it is.

Fortunately, the Holy See today likewise condemned the Iraqi regime for its (considerable!) culpability in the present unfortunate -- but I believe now unavoidable & necessary -- situation. So perhaps there is hope.

Shlomo Lkhoolkhoon,
These are news excerpts from the Lebanon Daily Star.

Poosh BaShlomo Lkhoolkhoon,
Yuhannon

*************************************************
Catholic Information Center:
�Lebanon, with all its residents and groups, is better equipped than others to understand the brotherly Iraqi people�s plight, resulting from foreign ambition, interference and unjustified aggression �
�The center views the recent statements made by Pope John Paul II and other Eastern Church leaders as �rejecting the concept of conflict of civilizations and showing that modern Christianity has superseded the concept of �Crusade,� as prominent Islamic personalities have superseded the concept of �Islamic Jihad� �
�This brilliant coming together (by Christianity and Islam) on the Lebanese scene prevents radical groups from exploiting religion as a camouflage for their crimes.�

Melchite deputy Patriarch, Salim Ghazal:
�We condemn the US-led aggression against Iraq, under the pretext of destroying weapons of mass destruction. If the US was serious about destroying weapons of mass destruction, it would have started with Israel�s.�

.

Dear Administrator,

What is interesting is how the pronouncement of one bishop is used as a general guide on this issue by those who are opposed to the U.S. policy.

When "Humanae Vitae" came out, many, many Catholics chose to ignore - moreover, a number of Catholic Bishops' conferences around the world attempted to "reinterpret" it in accordance with their own wisdom.

Everyone seemed to have their own interpretation of that document with very few, in my recollection, actually affirming what Pope Paul VI taught.

We are surely to follow the teaching of our Bishops. But if we want a "black and white" approach to faith, we can't have it under the best of circumstances.

We Byzantine Catholics have found ourselves opposing not only Rome but even our bishops over issues of Latinization - and we've become fairly adept at it .

But even then the lines of demarcation were clear and we can invoke Vatican II in our struggle against Latinization and for Particular autonomy.

The bishop has every right to express his own conscience on this and other matters.

I have no quarrel with that.

That he chose to impose his conscience on others using his episcopal authority is another matter.

Had he also said that to support Hussein in any way was also a mortal sin . . .

Alex

Well, I read it again and it's pretty soft as condemnations go:
I take that word back. It's more of a "tsk, tsk".

.

Yuhannon:

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Regarding Melkite patriarchal vicar Salim El-Ghazal�s quote � �We condemn the US-led aggression against Iraq, under the pretext of destroying weapons of mass destruction. If the US was serious about destroying weapons of mass destruction, it would have started with Israel�s� � let me say this:

You probably won�t find another on this board who so fervently wishes for the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state (governed, of course, by someone other than Arafat) that stretches from the Mediterranean into present-day Jordan. I am of the opinion that the Brits and later the Americans have treated (and continue to treat) the Palestinians unjustly. The support we give to modern Israel, though perhaps understandable from a Realpolitik foreign policy point of view, nonetheless belies a kind of collective historical amnesia as to what has actually happened in the region since the Ottoman Empire fell.

That said, I ask you: do two wrongs make a right? Just because we choose, however unwisely or immorally, not to insist that Israel disarm � or at least be subject to punishment for blowing up Palestinian villages � should we also choose to ignore the atrocities Sadaam Hussein has carried out and will likely continue to carry out against his own people and, possibly, against all mankind?

The following analogy is far from perfect, but I hope it makes my point a little clearer: Standing before Christ, I hope and pray that, when presented with my many sins, I won�t say, �Yeah, but what about that guy? He did lots of really bad stuff, too � certainly worse than anything I did. Don�t punish me if you�re not going to punish him.� That�s a supremely unacceptable cop-out. It's downright Pharisaical.

One's failure to do justice in one situation does not mean one isn't required to pursue justice in another. The patriarchal vicar's call should have been for the U.S. to be consistent.

�What I find funny is that here we are asking that our Eparchs lead us, and when they do, then we curse them...�

My point � and I can�t speak for others on this board � is that Bishop John Michael, in an attempt to lead, has nevertheless failed to do so. NOT because of the conclusion he reached, but because his letter fails to offer even a partial explanation for this conclusion. That�s not leadership, it�s pious pontificating. I would be equally upset if another bishop offered his support for the war in similar terms, i.e. �the war is just, you must support it.�

The gravity of the situation (and of Bishop John Michael�s pronouncements) requires something more than bald assertions.

In Christ,
Theophilos

.

Dear Cantor Joseph,

Actually, Servant of Christ, they believed Cyrus to have been inspired by God, but not yet the Messiah . . .

The Israelites believed the same of Alexander the Great when he obeyed Jewish law in not having a statue of himself placed on the Temple Mount.

As a way of showing gratitude, the Pharisees coded a law allowing Jewish children to receive the names "Cyrus" and "Alexander" for then on.

But I go the whole route and have a statue of Alexander at home . . .

Alex

I suppose that you have a point.

Dear Theophilus:

This is a well-taken point - and I can't speak for others either.

I get this sense also when I read certain criticisms here of Bishop John. He was giving moral counsel, for better or worse, to his own flock. Some folks seem to thing he should have said: But that Hussein guy, he did really lots of bad stuff too - certainly worse than anything yadayadayada.

No doubt true, but not exactly apropos of anything.

Dear djs,

Number one - no one ever thought Cyrus to have been a Messiah .

Number two - it would have been much better all around for the good bishop to have kept to calling for prayer for peace, for assistance to the suffering people of Iraq, for humanitarian aid etc.

He could have followed the words and example of his other fellow Catholic bishops and of the Pope - and there would have been no problem and he would not have stuck out like a sore thumb.

A time of war, as you and your nation are in now, is always difficult to reflect on insofar as there are concerns about patriotism, being supportive of one's country etc.

And love of country is a true Christian virtue as well.

Christians have gone to war before and they will continue to do so.

In an ideal world, there would be no war.

I recall that in the Scriptures, Roman soldiers asked John the Baptist what they should do with respect to Godly living.

The Baptist did not tell them, I believe, that they should leave the army, but only to be "content with their wages."

But all this talk is simply that, talk. The war is on, CNN is rolling the film with the tanks, and we must pray and do what we can to assist in the cause of peace and rebuilding.

Alex