The worst thing about Archbishop Martino’s comments on the current impossibility of just war is the secular utopianism they suggest. They imply that the most fundamental issues of social life are now securely under man’s control. To the contrary, though, the reason we need God is that basic things are not under our control.
Secular utopianism is everywhere today. Support for the European Union is another instance of cooperation with the belief that a human world can be built to man’s desire and under man’s sole control. The EU has no need of God and in fact wants to get rid of Him because He is not part of their system and is therefore disruptive. So why think it’s a good thing that will turn out well?
There is also of course the problem of tyranny and indeed totalitarianism implicit in the attempt to create a fully human world. If the social world is made by man it is determined in all its details not by man in general but by particular men who as worldmakers acquire a sort of divine status. It is only insistence on the transcendental aspects of religion that can liberate us from the gods of this world. We need it now more than ever.
i fail to see why suggestion
i fail to see why suggestion of more simple and effective use of resources to help the real chance of peace in our time is worrisome.
reminds me of the guy who is in a flash flood and retreats to his roof. he refuses help from a raft, a boat and a helicopter saying that he has faith that god will save him. … when he drowns and approaches god in heaven he asks why he was not saved. god replies “i sent you a raft, boat and helicopter, what more do you want?”
god gave us “his peace”. it is for us to decide how much of it we take. with the increasing power of humankind, it becomes incumbent on us to create a better world. i applaud martino for pointing out things that are, sadly, not obvious to catholics everywhere
Mr. Cory speaks as if
Mr. Cory speaks as if Archbishop Martino were only saying that promotion of peace is a good goal that we should all strive for patiently and diligently. From the report though that’s not at all what he said. Instead, he seems to have said that in the modern world attempts to deal with conflicts peacefully will almost surely be successful, so that it is all but inconceivable that use of military force could ever be justified. That is very, very different.
dude, chill. military force
dude, chill. military force ‘could be justified’? trying to get a square bullet through a round barrel.
the vatican’s just war theory is difficult, thank god, for good reason. the bush league just couldnt handle living up to the standards. cardinal laghi: ‘this is an illegal war’.
hmmmmm prince of the church, blip on my screen that is probably a sede vacantist or something… which opinion do i take?
incidentally, my name is spelled with one r, cory, and martino will become a cardinal from oct. 21-23rd.
i will assume that mr. kalb made the two errors out of a looseness with facts that feeds fodder to his sede vacantist ruminations; instead of bespeaking an underlying passive agressive character flaw that makes it impossible to acknowledge people who disagree with him
I have corrected Martino’s
I have corrected Martino’s premature promotion to cardinal and the misspelling of Mr. Cory’s name.
Mr. Cory wrote:
“i will
Mr. Cory wrote:
“i will assume that mr. kalb made the two errors out of a looseness with facts that feeds fodder to his sede vacantist ruminations;”
Since we’re quibbling about minor facts, perhaps Mr. Cory can point out where Mr. Kalb called into question the validity of John Paul II as Pope? I assume he made the error out of a looseness with the facts that feeds fodder to whatever his own views may be, instead of bespeaking an underlying passive aggressive character flaw that makes it impossible not to commit material calumny against people who disagree with him.
la calunnia e’un
la calunnia e’un venticello…….not the mack truck that i so obviously aspire to be.
the sede vacantist remark was an observation taken from what i see as myopic and one track mindedness on the part of some of the discussion here.
it had nothing to do with calumny, but keep at it guys, your bound to find some grand conspiracy somewhere.
Mr. Cory wrote:
“the sede
Mr. Cory wrote:
“the sede vacantist remark was an observation taken from what i see as myopic and one track mindedness on the part of some of the discussion here.”
So sedevacantism wasn’t asserted, and in fact its polar opposite has been affirmed explicitly, but Mr. Cory has read it in the local tea leaves anyway? And now he’s uncovered between-the-lines conspiracy theorizing alongside the carefully closeted sedevacantism?
How kind of Mr. Cory to share his charism of slander-from-the-subtext.