Well, our symposium at HCC last night certainly created some energy. The main focus of disagreement could have been many things, but the focus clearly became the military oath. Even in the article done by the South Bend Tribune, this matter was at the center of the debate over Catholics and war. By the way, the TRIB did have an error: Joshua was honorably discharged.
So, to really use this event which we were privileged to host, the assignment for my classes is to take some time to reflect on some of the issues I raise here below, to post a comment discussing a particular point or responding--in full respect always--to another's point. After you have posted a comment, then write a 2 page essay that simply makes one or two points you think are essential to the ethics of war and peace. It might involve the high-profile case of Lt. Ehren Watada, who is now facing six years in prison as the first high ranking officer to refuse to deploy to Iraq. Here is a news article on Lt. Watada and the Wikipedia entry on him.
To get a specific sense of the issues at stake for Catholics, you could look at the article, just released today, about our peace efforts in Rome. It lays out the issues well.
You might also check out this other link about Joshua's story and write about whether you agree with him that Catholics should take the military oath.
Or, as you do this, look up the section of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Section 2310 that Lt. Col. Jordan says justifies military service. Joshua pointed out that this section has 3 footnotes that cross-reference other sections which place some important contexts for military service. What do you think?
Okay, letting the blogging and in-depth writing begin...
38 comments:
I am having difficulty feeling sympathy for Mr. Watada. His opinion is that the American actions in Iraq are unlawful, further stating he views it as morally wrong. Mr. Watada states that he is not a conscientious objector, he simply does not agree with the US’s policy towards Iraq. I will agree with him that America’s place in Iraq is questionable, but it was a place that America was forced into taking, by virtue of weak action from such organizations as the United Nations. My opinion is Mr. Watada is deserving of his Court Martial because he violated regulations to which he freely subjected himself.
I can see the point of Mr. Casteel’s objections, although I do not agree. I was unable to determine what purpose Mr. Watada hoped to accomplish by refusing his military orders, other than making a political statement. Perhaps I missed the point of what he is trying to accomplish; other than, as he says, “It is my job to serve and protect American soldiers and innocent Iraqis who have no voice.”
I too disagree completely with both Lt. Watada and Mr. Casteel. It is hard to say what he is trying to do by refusing to go to serve his country. Running away from something that he freely signed up for is wrong. He should have known what he was getting himself into, and if he disagreed with it so much, he should not have joined. Mr. Casteel is a whole nother case. Him comparing our preisdent's actions to some of the most brutal tyrants is plainly sick. I do not know where he gets that sending troops to iraq is even close to what those tyrants have done. I think he should have thought hard about war and what it comes with before he joined the military.
All points of view on whether the war in Iraqi is just aside, it just seems strange for someone to inlist in the armed forces, knowing well that America may become involved in international conflicts that would result in deaths, then deside to pull out not because of a belief that this particular war is morally wrong, but that war as a whole is wrong. It all just dose not make a whole load of sense to me.
It seemed to me, from both his talk and speaking with him at lunch, Josh felt any Catholic who took the oath was in grave moral danger. By taking such an oath one is saying they will do whatever their commanders tell them, this could mean they would have to follow an order to somthing unjust or unethical. He, as I understand it, would like a provision in the oath which would allow a person to disobey such orders. What I wonder, and what Lt Col Jordan brought up, is if the current oath DOES have this. The millitary does have, as law, a mandating saying a person cannot and must not follow an order which is unethical; in fact, you must make every effor to stop the order from being carried out. So, it would seem to me, one oculd take this oath and not worry about having to follow an immoral order. Josh did have a good point about this, however. He says taking this oath, despite possible legal loopholes, still puts a person in an unnecessary risk of having to violate their conscience. A person should not put them self in a possition where they may have to violate their conscience; this is true.
I respect the views of both Lt. Watada and Mr. Casteel and I applaud them for having the courage to do what they believe is right. I am not entirely convinced that they are correct but I am slightly inclined to agree with them. However, as far as Catholics taking the military oath, I do not feel that I can pass judgement on that since I am unfamiliar with it.
About 1/3rd of our army is catholic and follows the just war theories. I feel that if any soldier can say "no, this order is unethical" and disobey a direct order then why cannot the same soldier take it to the whole picture and say "no, this war is unethical" and not be deployed. Why can there be an expection for actions but not for the whole situation that the actions occur?
Every person has a motive for their actions. People who enlist are fully knowledgeable about the risk they are taking when they enlist. I am not accusing anyone of anything, but a pay check every month and free college is a great motive to join the military. It may be inconvinent if the US goes to war after you enlist, but that is why people enlist. One cannot always take a freeride, they have to earn it sometimes.
I respect and for the most part agree with what Mr. Casteel said and I applaud him for his courage and conviction in properly formulating, understanding, and acting upon his beliefs. Lt Col Jordan also presents fundamentally legitimate argument. I object to what Mr. Casteel said: "taking the Oath is like signing your conscience away." He contradicted himself when I asked him if being a doctor in the military, specifically in Iraq, was immoral because doctor's are aiding the cause. He said no. Military doctor's also take the Oath, so therefore his statement is generalized. I don't think either point of view regarding war and Catholicism is completely right or wrong. The situations can be interpreted in countless ways and a person always has the ability to object to something they believe is illegal, immoral, or unethical, fully understanding that there are consequences. If I had to pick a 'winner', or better said, what I would do, I would go to war knowing that have a duty to my country and a higher duty to God.
Even though I see pro and cons on each side, I have to agree with the comment Andrew Phillips has left. It is amazing to think that if all Catholics left the military, how many people we would lose.
I think if you enter into the war, you should know what you are getting yourself into. I agree with Andrew to the fact that before people join the war, they should know what they are up against.
I really agree that soldiers or military personnel should be aware of what they are getting into when they join up, and that to back out of a commitment isn't wise or responsible, but isn't is possible that sometimes once they get in they find that what they thought they were getting into is very different from the reality of the situation? I remember Mr. Casteel talking about torture. I can't imagine that most soldiers think far enough ahead and foresee themselves having to torturing or killing another human being with a face, a family, and a soul. The real problem for the Catholic Church and for all enlisted men and women is the preservation of the dignity of human life. All people have the right to defend themselves, but ideally in a way that respects the dignity of human life. This isn't easy, but Lt. Col. Jordan proved it can be done with his story about showing the enemies what would happen to them. I very much respect Mr. Casteel as well, but I much prefer to think that it is better for good, strong Catholics to be in there and changing things.
I totally respect Mr. Casteel for standing in front of the room and listening to the views of others. When other people shared their views, I believe he handled himself in an honorable way. However, I can't stop from feeling that most of Mr. Casteel's talk on Thursday night and his talk in class on Friday was just a personal attack on George Bush. Several times, he mentioned the President's name in direct reference to being responsible for the war. Personally, I am a Conservative Republican. However, I don't necessarily agree with everything that President Bush does. I definitely supported going into Iraq, but I'm not sure it is being handled correctly NOW. BUT, he is still the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. In my view, there is a certain deal of respect that comes with that office. I am sick and tired of the news media and everyone else blaming only President Bush for the troubles of this nation. No matter how much you want to believe it, he still doesn't make all of the decisions of this country. There is a little thing called the Senate and the House of Representatives. I can't believe some of the things people say about our APPOINTED leader. Get over your personal grudge against PRESIDENT Bush. He is definitely not the greatest President by a long shot, but he is NOT the ANTICHRIST!
I very much agree with harrison, every person in this country played some roll in putting Bush in office and because he is president we should respect him as such, the Rupublicans put him in office and the Democrats didnt work hard enough to get thier candidate in office, twice(what does that tell you). And for those who took no stance at election time or did not vote, u had nothing to say then and you should have nothing to say now. I did not like president clinton becasue of my bias towards liberal presidents, but i can admit he did do some good while in office. But we live with at liberal closed minded media and we only get to hear one side of the story on every issue, i think democrats in congress and the media perfer to bad mouth the president, rather than find away to create a more harmonious society.
B. McDonald
Chambers brings up a good point. If a soldier is protected by the mandate that states that he can disobey an immoral or unjust order, than that same soldier should have the right to disobey an order that would send him to fight in an immoral or unjust war. The real issue here is whether or not a soldier truly has the freedom to listen to and follow their conscience once they have taken the oath of enlistment.
I think what Joshua di was an honorable and diffucult thing to do in the military, who in their right mind would consider torturing prisoners a just act? Especially the young man he got involved with. To me, it should be up to the individual if they want to do what he did, and not be ridaculed for it. This is the time of our lives where we find ourselves and our calling, Joshua just found himself at the wrong time doing the wrong thing
Neumann Jones,
Where some have addressed the legalities of war and others its ethical dimensions, or lack thereof, I will attempt to focus on a particular mandate of Christ's, which seems to encompass them both. "Turn your swords into plowshares," our Saviour cries out to his people. Jesus knew the very heart of His generation, which was stricken with many diseases, the urge to kill another being among the most grevious. War...a global flaw of humanity's. It makes absolutely no sense to kill another person, so I commend the conscientious objectors(c.o.'s) and urge the selective c.o.'s to take their beliefs one step further. Sure, noteworthy reasons have been created to kill--self-defense, protecting another from harm, ect.--but my point is that no man should even have to be placed in a situation like this, let alone take a solemn oath that may just place him there one day. It's ungodly. A person's safety shouldn't depend on him having to kill another. Yes, I am speaking in general terms, and yes, we don't live in a utopia; but Christ would not have come to us if He did not think that what was set forth by Him couldn't be achieved, or at least closely approached. The Church should become a more active and involved protestor of ALL war and forms of violence, rather than standing on the sidelines pointing to her scrolls of dogmatic parchment while thousands fall dead at the hands of thousands.--swords into plowshares.
Great comments, keep them coming. We will have a great discussion in class tomorrow.
Griff
What Neumann said was true, "we don't live in a utopia." Which is exactly why I think the Church leaves room for cirtain violence in the imperfect world where we live. Since the Church teaches that there is such a thing as a just war, and you are allowed to go to war for the common good, then there is a time when the sword should be used to kill. The said reality is that there is a time to kill. What needs to be made clear by the Church is when that time is.
I Belived that Mr. Watada should have took a longer time looking at what he might have to do as a result of him joining the milarty. He joined by his own free choice and becuase of this i believe he cant pick and choose when he does and does not want to do something. He has a duty to the United States to do what he has proismed to, and by not deploying to Iraq i think he is setting a even worse of an example to fellow solider that might be thinking the same thing.
I feel that the idea that soldiers should not be able to freely leave the military without consequence was a common point made from some of the posts. I disagree with that because of culpability. In some cases soldiers should be able to back out of a war and I think that the prime piece of evidence lies with what the young man said about how he decided to enlist at the age of 17 without much knowledge of the future plans of the military. He wanted to support his country with ambitions of rising in a military career. The young man was not culpable for his decision at such a young age without being fully knowledgeable of future military plans.
Of course it is wrong to back out on a contract. To avoid this from happening there are consequences. The young man and Joshua were honorably discharged because our court system decided that consequence was fair, and I assume the judge did not blame them because they were not culpable for breaking their contract based on their beliefs. However, they had to go against ALL wars, not only the unjust wars. The main question is should our soldiers pick and choose the wars they fight in with support from the military. This could cause a decline in the power of the military. I think that the evidence presented by Lt. Col. Jordan was key. He stated that the teaching of the catechism supported soldiers that follow orders for the greater good of their country. There are many circumstances, and I trust that political leaders that I vote for and are in place in Washington will make the right choice. If I feel that there is something compromised I will vote against the current administration. Therefore, if the court feels Lt. Watada deserves to be court martialed, I respect their decision and their conclusions.
I agree with Kevin in that if you freely sign up for the military you are saying that you are going to do what the military wants you to do. If you dont agree with what the government wants to do then dont sign up for the military.
I agree and disagree with Kevin and Zach, soldiers did sign up for the military on their free will but sometimes kids dont have a choice and the military will pay for school and alot of other things, but if you have strong feelings against war then they shouldn't sign up because its not worth going to jail for.
I agree with Grace for the most part. I do not think that most people know what it is like to be in a war until they are called up and sent out. Most men would act brave and feel that they could defeat anyone. Once they get where they are supposed to be, everything changes.
there is no easy answer for deciding whether a war is just or not. Lt. Jordan said "that when principles collide, there is a cost." this is very true because there will never be a war in which everyone has the same opinion. the iraq war is a perfect example. now whether the war in iraq is just or not is a whole different story, but i do believe that a catholic can serve in the military honorably.
I agree completely with Harrison, i was a little bothered when he was making those refrences towards "the president"....also i agree to a great extent on the idea that the soldiers knew what they were signing up for before they even went over to Iraq. We are the United States of America...everyone hates us...you know that we are gonna be in scuffles that are questionable but...you still should fight because thats why you signed up.
I believe people should be able to leave the military if they have a change of heart and believe fighting is wrong and if they believe the war is unjust. This would of course not be good for those in power who want as many people in the military as possible. They believe the country overrides individuals in this case. This has been a big problem over the past 100 years. I also think people are being too harsh on Mr. Casteel. He was not saying Bush was Hitler or the Antichrist as someone said. He said he was displaying some tyrannical aspects when he tramples on the individuals for the sake of the country which most leaders do. As I heard at a Tool concert once: Think For Yourself. Question Authority. Words to live by.
The whole concept of war seems to lack common sense. Do Catholics really have a point? When it comes to war in the 21st century, it seems that two parties essentially agree to destroy each other’s region until one of them is left too bloody, hungry, and economically distraught to continue fighting. Beginning with the fact that young men who choose to represent their country are assigned to attempt to take the lives of their counterparts, the morality of war is clearly skewed. These men have no previous discord, but they are convinced that shooting their opponents is what is right for the country. No disrespect to the men who sacrifice their lives, but they have been trained to think that what they are doing is right. And with war becoming more and more of a “plan A” than a last resort, the threat of a draft may arise again. Forcing unwilling citizens into combat may be even more barbaric than the premise of war in the first place.
accidentally didn't take credit for the last post
Mr. Casteel directly compared Bush to Hitler and America's actions in Iraq to that of Nazi's in WWII. He explicitly quoted the Nuremberg Tribunal in citing the US's actions in Iraq as a war of aggression.
I find it interesting that not one person happened to mention any other religion other than christian and catholic. I wonder, do they not follow similar essential morals/ethics? Do they not feel the pains that battle can bring in forms of PTSD or physical? And what about the non-religious?
If this is going to be a debate, let it face all in the military, not just a group of it. I believe the phrase is, "all or none".
I didn't mention any particular religion. I said that anyone who has a change of heart and can show they feel what they are doing in the military is immoral they should be able to leave. Whether the reason is Pacifism, just war theory or any other legimate reason.
i honestly feel that it is there choice. And i have no right to judge them. They felt that they were doing something wrong and that they couldn't do that anymore. The government shouldn't tell us who our enemies are. its like when you grow up, your parents can not tell you who to like and who not to like. they let you figure that out on your own.
In response to Nuemann's and Pat's comments, I tend to agree that killing makes zero sense, but also i believe that we do not live in a perfect world. We live in a world of sin, a world of death, and unfortunately, a world of war. And so, what do we do with that? As Christians we are called to be counter-cultural. How does that apply to the area of war?
You need to do what you think is right, that takes president over everything else.
I think that class on Friday was definately intense, but the most enjoyful yet. It was nice to see a little arguing. I think that they did a good job explaining their reasoning for how they became conscientious objectors and I would agree that the war in Iraq is unjust and that enought innocent lives have been taken.
I feel torn on the entire topic of conscientious objection because like so many other questions regarding this war, there are definitely many different opinions on how to answer those questions. On one side, it was honorable for Casteel to leave the war for his faith. For me, faith definitely comes before country. However, defending our country is very important. On the other hand, he did make an oath to serve his country that he did break. I believe what he did was right to a certain extent.
Eric,
Josh was making reference to the Nuremberg Accords, which are now built into US military law.
As for the reference to Hitler, I don't recall it comparing Bush to Hitler, but was rather referencing the German War Machine in WW2-- because that is a war that most persons say was "Just" for the United States.
Ok....All talk about what Catholics and Christians should or should not do is moot. The war is going to be played out to the best of our government's capabilities no matter what anybody says. After all, the point of a war is to win it. Wars are won by making cold, realistic decisions. When the stakes are this high, the head honchos of both America and the military just do not care about what is moral, let alone what is Catholic. The United States of America is currently the most powerful organization in the universe as far as we know; it wants to stay that way. We need to accept that America is going to act like the tough guy of the world. So am I saying that morals and Catholicism are pointless? No way. America as a country may act like a selfish jerk, but every individual American has the ability to be the nicest, happiest, most moral person he can be. Spreading this idea is the difference we can make.
Post a Comment