Needs at This Time

The proposed national plenary council for U.S. bishops (Signs of the Times, 8/26) sounds like a desperate exercise in self-validation. The time would be better spent in a critical self-examination of bishops’ needs at this time in church history.

For example, what should be the job description of a bishop/cardinal in the 21st century? What should be the job description for a priest? What are the educational needs that will bring bishops/cardinals up to speed to become competent managers? This is a serious issue. What programs need to be devised for the continuing education of bishops/cardinals?

The teaching office of the bishops is a relic of a church that no longer exists. We are no longer a congregation of ignorant peasants. Many faithful Catholics are better educated than their bishops. Additionally, it is time to re-examine the truths that the Catholic Church teaches in the light of history, scientific discoveries and biblical scholarship. Bishops need to learn to listen again to theologians who have pondered these revelations of God’s presence in our midst.

There are even more frightening issues to be faced. Do these men dare stand up to the Vatican and assert that they, English-speaking ecclesial authorities, have the competency to decide what should be the English-language translations of biblical and liturgical texts? Do they dare stand up to the Vatican and say that there is a crisis in the number of priests, and say that they will ordain whomever they please to assure that the faithful will have access to the sacraments? Probably not. But some time soon, dynamic leadership will have to emerge to save the church.

Jim Harvey

U.S. Bishops Oppose Pre-Emptive, Unilateral Force Against Iraq

Any pre-emptive, unilateral use of military force to overthrow the government of Iraq cannot be justified at this time, the U.S. bishops told President Bush. The bishops urged Bush to step back from the brink of war and help lead the world to act together to fashion an effective global response to Iraq’s threats. In a letter to Bush, the bishops used Catholic just-war criteria to argue that unilateral strikes against Iraq would differ from the use of force against Afghanistan, which was part of a broader war against terrorism in response to attacks on the United States on Sept. 11, 2001.

Given the precedents and risks involved, we find it difficult to justify extending the war on terrorism to Iraq, absent clear and adequate evidence of Iraqi involvement in the attacks of Sept. 11 or of an imminent attack of a grave nature, the bishops said. The letter, dated Sept. 13 of this year and released in Washington on Sept. 17, was signed by Bishop Wilton D. Gregory of Belleville, Ill., president of the U.S. bishops’ conference, on behalf of the bishops’ administrative committee.

In the bishops’ letter, Bishop Gregory said the Catechism of the Catholic Church limits the just-war criterion of just cause to cases in which the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations is lasting, grave and certain. He asked: Is there clear and adequate evidence of a direct connection between Iraq and the attacks of Sept. 11 or clear and adequate evidence of an imminent attack of a grave nature?... Is it wise to dramatically expand traditional moral and legal limits on just cause to include preventive or pre-emptive uses of military force to overthrow threatening regimes or to deal with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction? Should not a distinction be made between efforts to change unacceptable behavior of a government and efforts to end that government’s existence? He said the moral credibility of force depends on legitimate authority, and as such, decisions of such gravity require compliance with U.S. Constitutional imperatives, broad consensus within our own nation, and some form of international sanction, preferably by the U.N. Security Council.

He added that war against Iraq could result in dangerous and unpredictable effects upon Iraqi civilians and Middle East stability, in violation of the criteria of the probability of success and proportionality. Would...force succeed in thwarting serious threats or, instead, provoke the very kind of attacks that it is intended to prevent? he wrote. How would another war in Iraq impact the civilian population, in the short and long term? How many more innocent people would suffer and die, or be left without homes, without basic necessities, without work?

Would the United States and international community commit to the arduous, long-term task of ensuring a just peace or would a post-Saddam [Hussein] Iraq continue to be plagued by civil conflict and repression and continue to serve as a destabilizing force in the region? he asked. Would war against Iraq detract from our responsibility to help build a just and stable order in Afghanistan and undermine the broader coalition against terrorism?

Nearly Half of Americans Unchurched, Census Finds

Just over half of all Americans have organizational ties to a religious body, but nearly as many remain without a church home, according to the results of a religious census conducted every 10 years. The study, Religious Congregations and Membership in the United States: 2000, was released on Sept. 18 by the Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies and the Glenmary Research Center. The data showed that 141.4 million Americans50.2 percent of the total U.S. population of 281.4 millionwere associated in the year 2000 with one of the 149 religious bodies participating in the study, which for the first time included Muslims and some other non-Christian groups in its latest totals. Ten years ago, when the study was called Churches and Church Membership in the United States: 1990, about 55 percent of the U.S. population were affiliated with a religious congregation.

At 62 million, Catholics were the largest single denomination represented in the United States in 2000, although Protestants grouped together were more numerous at 66 million. Catholics also experienced one of the largest increases in membership, 16.2 percent. Only the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (19.3 percent), Christian Churches and Churches of Christ (18.6 percent) and Assemblies of God (18.5 percent) had larger increases since 1990. Most mainline Protestant denominations experienced declines.

The data for the study was gathered not by the U.S. Census Bureau, which dropped its question on religion in the 1950s over concerns about separation of church and state, but by the religious organizations themselves. Some groups, such as Jehovahs Witnesses, do not want to participate in the census and therefore are not counted. Some -- such as Buddhists, Hindus and certain Orthodox and black Baptist churches -- only provided information on the number of congregations, not the number of adherents.

The report found:

66 million Protestants in 222,000 congregations.

Just War

I want to thank you for the very insightful article by John Langan, S.J., about whether or not we should invade Iraq (9/9). But I wish to offer some points for you to consider. First, the use of the term vigilante justice seems to be an oxymoron, based on the question raised about the justice being done by the aggrieved and angry party, which implies that it is more likely to be vengeance than justice.

Second, Father Langan seems to imply that if one could prove that the consequences of an invasion of Iraq can be mitigated, then such action might be acceptable. This can never be the case, because the primary consequence of such a unilateral action would be to undermine the rule of law. What makes us different from Iraq? We claim that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons, but we have more weapons than any other nation on earth. Isn’t our willingness to restrain our power and abide by international law the very essence of the difference between us and Iraq? Wouldn’t a unilateral invasion of Iraq destroy that difference? Wouldn’t it make us the most dangerous rogue nation in the world? If we got away with such an invasion, what would convince other countries that we can be trusted to restrain our power in the future?

Even if we are able to gain support from other countries in the region, wouldn’t a pre-emptive strike undermine the just war principles? The author chose to defer consideration of the just war principles until after all can agree that the goals for the region would not be hampered by an invasion of Iraq. That is a mistake. While I have serious reservations about the just war principles (to some extent because I do not believe that the church ever applies them honestly or in a timely manner), I believe it is a mistake to wait until after everyone agrees that a war is necessary to bring up the moral principles that should instruct such decisions. Once everyone believes that war is necessary, there is great pressure to bend the just war principles to conform to that belief.

Many are looking at the issue of war with Iraq in simplistic terms. Evil must be resisted. Your article has done much to remove the blinders from people’s eyes so that they can see the complexity of what they contemplate. But it does not challenge them to see the ultimate truth. If evil is to be resisted, why aren’t we resisting war itself? The just war principles give us permission to use evil to attain justice and security. But what good is justice and security when we have embraced evil?

Stephen D. Stratoti