Justice Is Done

MAY GOD HAVE MERCY ON HIS SOUL.

Comments

[Michael Joseph]

You throw "justice" around quite lightly as if it were self-evident.

I join you in your hope for mercy.

[Jared]

With regard to this matter, Jimmy has thrown nothing around lightly.

This is plainly evident in this post: http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/11/a_disheartening.html

Please don't throw such accusations around so lightly.

[DGS]

I don't know 'bout justice, but the only mourning I am doing is that I didn't have him on my dead pool list for 2006. Coulda won outright instead of a 3 way tie. Oh well.

[bill912]

Sic semper tyrannis.

(Is my spelling correct?)

[Leo]

From BBC News, 'Reaction in quotes'
THE VATICAN

"A capital punishment is always tragic news, a reason for sadness, even if it deals with a person who was guilty of grave crimes...

"The killing of the guilty party is not the way to reconstruct justice and reconcile society. On the contrary, there is a risk that it will feed a spirit of vendetta and sow new violence.

"In these dark times for the Iraqi people, one can only hope that all responsible parties truly make every effort so that glimmers of reconciliation and peace can be found in such a dramatic situation."

[Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6218597.stm

To paraphrase St Thomas Aquinas: even if it is necessary to restrain an injustice by using lethal force [and majority Catholic thinking does not think lethal force was necessary in this case], we may not wish ultimate harm on our neighbour. We should pray that Saddam be saved. Jesus died for all, if Jesus can love, forgive and die for someone whose crimes are considered so grave, then Jesus can love, forgive and die for me ...

[bill912]

"We should pray that Saddam be saved." Did you really think we don't?

[patrick]

We'll have to leave his eternal fate to God. If he repented, good; but if not, too bad.

On a lighter note, When I saw Saddam's pic, I first thought that was Col. Sanders.

[Thomistic]

Now he's in Gods hands.

"And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear Him who can destroy both soul and body in hell." (Matthew 10:28)

[Matt Kennel]

While I'll say nothing of what majority Catholic thinking says in this case, even according to the strict standards set forth in the latest CCC, I would say that this merited the death sentance. Saddam clearly posed a danger to Iraqi society even while having been locked up.

"A capital punishment is always tragic news"??
It certainly wasn't tragic news when the various Germans were executed after WWII, why should this be any more tragic?

Yes, I certainly pray for mercy for his soul. I should be inhuman if I did not do so. I hope that he was converted (although his last words, words of mockery, don't give me much hope), and I pray for his soul.

[Jordan Potter]

Matt, although I am satisfied justice has been done, it remains true that any unnatural death is tragic, especially when a state must put to death one of its members or one of its previous rulers. Death and sin are not what God intended for any of us. Saddam Hussein's life has ended in failure and woe. Although for his millions of victims' sake we can be happy now, for him we cannot be happy that his life was given over to evil. God have mercy on him, because he really needs it.

[Sailorette]

I hope he regreted what he did.

On the odd side, the first place I found out 'bout this was my husband-to-be, while playing World of Warcraft; ten seconds later, I land in Orgrimar (orc Capital City) and the news is being yelled from the roof tops. Out of hundreds of folks who are usually idiots because they find it funny, only one person had the bad taste to try to make a joke of this.

[John]

You spelled the Latin correctly, bill912.

Leo, you were wrong to write these words:
"... and majority Catholic thinking does not think lethal force was necessary in this case."

When I said that you were "wrong," I mean that you were wrong in at least one, and possibly two ways.

First, it could be that the "majority" of "Catholics" in the world approve of this execution. You have certainly taken no poll of the world's Catholics, so you spoke rashly.

Second, even if more than half of Catholics (or more than half of Catholic priests, or more than half of Catholic bishops, or more than half of Vatican prelates, or more than half of Catholic theologians) DISapprove of this execution, that in itself would not make it wrong.

Why? Because it is not the role of Catholics to rule on the subject. Instead, Catholic teaching is that the decision lies in the hands of "the state" -- in this case, the Iraqi government. They, and ONLY they -- not you or I -- have the ability to judge whether or not the execution was necessary for societal self-defense (the key factor in Pope John Paul's development of Capitol Punishment doctrine). It is for us now to respect the jugment of the Iraqi government.

[John Michael]

I am certain that Saddam Hussein is a bad man.
I am certain he did many evil things.

I am not against the death penalty.

What I am not so certain about is that we should of invaded Iraq, whether the invasion was right, whether it brought any good, whether it was necessary to fight terrorism or was counterproductive, whether or not Iraqis are better off now than they were under Saddam.

[Michael]

Jared,

Either Jimmy threw the word "justice" around lightly or the Vatican did...I stick with the Vatican on this one. Expand your horizons.

[Kevin Jones]

If the justice of the invasion was doubtful to begin with, isn't the legitimacy of the invader-established court which made the decision also in doubt?

Political legitimacy is a horribly tricky subject, but it's a question that needs an answer.

[God]

"For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same. For he is God's minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God's minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil."

Romans 13:3-4

Or perhaps you think you know better than Me?

[bill912]

"Self-evident" was a good way to describe it.

[Michael]

Bill,

I suppose that "self-evident" justice escaped even the Vatican:

Vatican responds to the execution of Saddam

[Jared]

Michael: No, dude, you made a false accusation. I'm not saying we can't disagree on the justice of it but your statement about the word "justice" being thrown about lightly was plainly false as he's done no such thing. Why can't you just admit you were wrong and back off? Maybe you could engage in a debate without accusing the other side of shallow thinking.

And again the accusations fly with your statement to me. You have no idea how "expanded" my horizons are. I never even stated an opinion under this post. For all you know I might be against the death penalty, as the only thing I said was in defense of how lightly Jimmy used the word "justice." You need to stop attacking the individual and start debating the ideas. Otherwise, everyone here is going to see you a just another troll.

[Matt Kennel]

Jordan,
I quite agree with you that Saddam's corruption is a cause for sadness, and that death and hell were not God's plan for all of us. We don't know what happened to Saddam after death, but even if he went to hell, I DO NOT rejoice in anyone going to hell. Such would be most unchristian.

I just don't know if I could call his death tragic. I believe that justice was done in his case, even within the strict parameters of CCC 2267. I do not rejoice over his death, as do those who are now dancing and shooting guns in the street. And I absolutely do not rejoice in his corruption. I sincerely hope he was converted. But in that justice was done, I rejoice in justice.

Death was not God's intent in having created us, but the reality of free will allows for us to say that there may be some way in which death is God's will, even a death which is caused by the legitimate arm of the state. This is evident from reading Sacred Scripture in both the Old and New Testaments (see 1 Chron 13:10, 1 Kings 18:40, Acts 5:1-11, Rom 13:4).

[Michael]

Jared,

One of Socrates' greatest contributions to Western thought was his insistance on the need for proper definition of terms. Now, when we have Jimmy Akin declaring "Justice is Done" amid a number of statements from the Holy See that "justice"" is not done, then we clearly have a conflict over the concept of "justice" either through definition or through judgment. When such situations arise, Socrates would demand that we find out what "justice" is before we continue using it without knowing precisely what "justice" truly is. Otherwise, one or more parties will continue to use the term lightly without regard or respect for honest discourse. Now, has Jimmy Akin provided us with any definition or guidance for his term "justice"? No. Has the Vatican defined its concept of "justice"? Yes. So, is Jimmy denying the Vatican's understanding of "justice" or is he using the term without really possessing an understanding of what "justice" is? Giving him the Catolic benefit of the doubt, I do not believe him to be denying the Vatican's concept of "justice". Thus, by induction I am forced to conclude that Jimmy Akin is tossing around the term lightly. At this point, only he can clarify the matter.

Now, if this is not attacking the ideas, then I do not know what would be, dude.

[Kasper]

If the justice of the invasion was doubtful to begin with, isn't the legitimacy of the invader-established court which made the decision also in doubt?

YES
THE LEGITIMACY OF THE COURT IS IN DOUBT
REGARDLESS OF THE NATURE OF SADDAM AND HIS ACTIONS
UNDER THAT STANDARD WE COULD TAKE ANY LEADER
INCLUDING PAST POPES AND BUSH HIMSELF AND TRY THEM FOR KILLING 150 PEOPLE

[Ryan D.]

It is certainly surprising that while European social thought is evolving to the point that it excludes just about every traditional Church teaching, in the area of capital punishment the two lines of thought, at least as popularly understood, are apparently in complete agreement. This alone gives me pause about what contemporary Catholic teaching really should be. It's especially troubling when high Vatican officials contradict the plain teaching of the Catechism they published only a few years earlier. Further, it's hard to read Romans 13 any other way than granting the State the power to put evildoers to death. Cardinal Martino's latest statement seems categorically opposed to St. Paul's.

[Matt Kennel]

I can only point out that the "Vatican" has not actually pronounced on what happend to Sadaam. This statement Cardinal Martino's opinion, not magisterial teaching. Jimmy's statement is his opinion, not magisterial teaching. They have two different opinions on how magisterial teaching should be applied. Why should we be surprised that two Catholic theologians should have differing opinions on how to apply Catholic teaching in concrete situations? Until and unless the Vatican itself condemns one of the two opinions, we must be free to draw our own conclusions from an informed application of the Church's teaching.

[Michael]

Matt,

I do not know if you have seen this, but the Vatican came out with a statement today on the Saddam execution, declaring it to have not served justice:

Vatican responds to Saddam's execution

[Ryan D.]

The problem is that Cardinal Martino's statement is in explicit disagreement with what the Catechism says about capital punishment. The Cardinal says the State does not have the right to inflict the death penalty, period. The Catechism says the State has this right. This is not a mere difference of opinion. It is also a problem when a Cardinal in the Vatican itself doesn't seem to acknowledge that Catholics may legitimately disagree on the subject. Jimmy does.

[Michael]

"The Cardinal says the State does not have the right to inflict the death penalty, period."

This is your error interpreting the Cardinal's remarks. See the links in my earlier comments for a discussion of the Cardinal's intent.

[Ryan D.]

Michael -

As the AP reported (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SADDAM_QUOTE_BOX?SITE=TXBEA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT): Saddam's execution punishes "a crime with another crime. ... The death penalty is not a natural death. And no one can give death, not even the state." - Cardinal Renato Martino, Pope Benedict XVI's top prelate for justice issues.

Forgive me for not looking back over your previous comments - that's really helpful - but unless this is a blatant misquote of the Cardinal, how is that statement not in direct conflict with the Catechism, not to mention Romans 13?

[John]

Once again the Vatican is playing up to the Moslem world for the most part and being populist instead of adhering to the teachings of the church which has always taught under certain circumstances capital punishment was just. If it was not for Capital punishment our Lord would not have been crucified and opened the gates of heaven. When will the church once again stand up for justice even when it is not popular?

If it was not for Capital punishment our Lord would not have been crucified and opened the gates of heaven.

That has to be the most demented argument for capital punishment ever forwarded. One could just as easily say: "If it was not for executing the innocent our Lord would not have been crucified and opened the gates of heaven."

[John]

The Council of Trent decreed: "[well founded is] the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty."

While we have JPII in Evangelium Vitae and now the Vatican calling this as "tragic".

Another clear contradiction against a doctor of the church in St Thomas and a dogmatic council that JPII and the Vatican once again disguard and go upon their merry way and decide to reinvent the church day by day as it suits their needs and why the church today does not get the respect for upholding faith, morals and justice that it used to be the standard bearer around the world, but instead would rather compare the life of a brutal dictator somehow along the same lines as the unborn

[Sr Lorraine]

Aside from the question about the morality of capital punishment, there is one other really big problem with the statement from the Vatican press office. Unless I somehow missed it, I don't see any serious expression of condemnation of the awful crimes that Saddam committed. Not only killing people, but doing it in exceedingly brutal ways like throwing them into meat grinders, beheading them and depositing the heads on the doorstep of their family homes, and other horrific things.

It leaves the impression that the "Vatican"--or whomever is claiming to represent it--is not coming to terms with the evil that was so much a part of Saddam's reign of terror. The net effect is to give the impression of excusing it.

Has Cardinal Martino expressed any outrage at these crimes, or any real sympathy for Saddam's victims? If so I would like to know about it. If not, his words rings pretty hollow to me.

[Tim Brandenburg]

Geeze, John. You can make a slam on Vatican II, JP2, and B16 out of anything, even an execution. I have to congratulate your persistence, if not your failure to submit to the lawful authority of the Church.

Tim

[Joseph D'Hippolito]

This is all very interesting. Earlier this month, I debated several of you concerning the Church's current revisionist stance concerning capital punishment. One of my assumptions has proven true: There's a lot of confusion in the Catholic world regarding what the Church really believes because the Church's current stance directly contradicts all previous teaching on the issue. That's because most Catholics are functionally illiterate when it comes to Scripture and Church history.

Furthermore, protecting society is not the ultimate criterion in determining whether a punishment is appopriate. The ulimate criterion is whether that punishment is proportional to the offense. That's a fundamental teaching stemming from Scripture, particularly the Mosaic Law, where "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" meant proportional punishment, not vengeance outside of due process (which is the only arbiter of proporitonality).

Unfortunately, the vast majority of Catholics -- especially the bishops -- have become so infatuated with their own revised definitions of "vengeance" and "justice" that they scarcely recognized the principles from a divinely inspired source, such as Scripture.

[Joseph D'Hippolito]

BTW, if it isn't apparent from my last post, I'm arguing that the only appropriate punishment for Saddam's crimes is execution. To argue otherwise is to side effectively with the perpetrators of evil rather than the victims of evil.

[Tim J.]

"I'm arguing that the only appropriate punishment for Saddam's crimes is execution."

Yeah, I'd guessed that.

[mto86]

Cardinal Ratzinger's words seem pertinent here:

"Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia". (Cardinal Ratzinger - Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion, General Principles)

[vitae]

Michael,
I'm sorry I haven't read your blog as much as I probably should, but I must admit, the comments you have made on this site and others (esp. Closed Cafeteria) make me NOT want to go there. You tend to come across as snarky and as knowing better than anyone else who dares to disagree with you. Of course, that's only my opinion (but at least I recognize that my opinion should in and of itself carry no more weight here than anyone else's).

[BillyHW]

Justice is done.

When did the Catholic Church turn so effeminate? Was it during the 1960s?

[john8791]

Michael says:
"YES
THE LEGITIMACY OF THE COURT IS IN DOUBT
REGARDLESS OF THE NATURE OF SADDAM AND HIS ACTIONS
UNDER THAT STANDARD WE COULD TAKE ANY LEADER
INCLUDING PAST POPES AND BUSH HIMSELF AND TRY THEM FOR KILLING 150 PEOPLE"

I would suggest you view this four part series on the crimes and atrocities that occurred under Hussein.
Here is part 1: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPLd_ghpL2I)

I find it amazing that some people hate George Bush SO much that they make excuses for Hussein's incredible atrocities and try to make Bush the criminal. Some Catholics have a very short sighted concept of Social Justice that is summarized by "vote Democrat". While you hate Bush (trust me I'm not a big fan), what have "catholics" like John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Tom Harkin, et al done to protect the unborn or even basic morality? Do you realize I can't even sit down with my children and watch a show on the Family Channel for fear of what trash is going to show up at the next commercial? I suggest you redirect your energy to saving this country from the atrocities of abortion and immorality.

[john8791]

Pardon me. I believe I incorrectly attributed a quote to Michael that should have been attributed to Kasper. I am new to Jimmy's blog and got confused as to whether the author is noted above or below the post.

[Josiah]

Out of curiousity, does anyone know anything about who writes these Vatican statements?

[AlanDownunder]

Thou shalt not.

[bill912]

If you mean murder, you're right.(Which is what the Hebrew of the 5th Commandment means).

Been throwing batting practice long?

[John]

Tim stated:

"Geeze, John. You can make a slam on Vatican II, JP2, and B16 out of anything, even an execution. I have to congratulate your persistence, if not your failure to submit to the lawful authority of the Church."

Tim, the lawful authority of the church are you refering to the Council of Trent (you do know what that is dont you?) which stated:

"[well founded is] the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty."

Or the revisionist of JPII who basically denied anything pre 1962-1965 and like you and many think that the church and her teachings started with John XXIII, Vatican II and the present hodgepodge of mixed up contradictory teachings that are being spewed all over by Priests, Cardinals, and Bishops alike?

If I am not mistaken it was Paul VI who created the Synod of Bishops which basically emasculated the power of the Papacy and put the decicison making in the hands of thousands of Bishops each with their own view hence you basically are no longer "One" as in church but many little fiefdoms all over the world so I question what your concern is.

[Jordan Potter]

"Out of curiousity, does anyone know anything about who writes these Vatican statements?"

When it comes to the Vatican Press Office, that's a question people have asked more than once.

Anyway, regarding the legitimacy of the current Iraqi government, until the Pope makes some kind of statement or gesture indication they do not recognise it, all we can do is treat it as the de facto government, which is thereby divinely endowed with the authority to execute justice.

[patrick]

I'm sorry about my joke above in bad taste. But putting that aside: Pardon my ignorance but at least according to the Laws of the Church, is Saddam's execution permissible?

[Maureen]

What the Church is doing is the same kind of thing it's always done. "Yeah, war is okay. But geez, people, why don't you have a truce of God on Sundays and holidays and stuff? Wouldn't that be classier and more Christian? And howsabout staying away from the crossbows for the sake of common decency, huh?"

So yeah, governments have a prudential right to execute people as part of their legal powers. But the popes have recently been taking the opportunity provided by the culture to try to get everybody to tone it down for good.

There are plenty of things which are legal under church laws (like certain marriages, or my spiritual life) which still could be done better. It's a priest's job to nag you to do better than just avoiding sin. We may disagree on the prudential value of the advice we're given or the manner in which it is done, but we can't say he doesn't have a right to say it at all.

[StubbleSpark]

I'd shoot him.

[Tim J.]

Well said, Maureen. I'm more of the opinion that the Vatican doesn't HAVE to feel the need to issue a response to everything that happens in the world. There are many times when diplomatic silence would best serve all parties.

The cardinal's remarks seem to only add to the confusion. To say that the death penalty is a damned shame is only fair, but to say "the Catholic Church is against the death penalty" is very confusing - especially if that is not, in fact, the case.

The Vatican may be personally opposed the the USE of the death penalty in every case, but the actual teaching of the Church just does not support such a sweeping statement as "the Catholic Church is against the death penalty".

[Mary Gold]

You could kill a lot of people by the Saddam standard.

Capitol Punishment is a debatable issue and prudential.

The invasion and thus probably the court was not legitimage despite the horrors that Saddam did.
But there are horrors committed by Assad family in Syria, the Saudi royal family, and many other countries far worse than Iraq.
The United States in claiming to liberate Iraq visited more death and destruction, perhaps unintentionally, than Saddam ever did.

[Tim Brandenburg]

Well John, I recognize the authority of the One, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and ALL the ecumenical councils. Also, Trent is not at odds with modern teaching on the death penalty. The Church teaches that the State has the RIGHT to execute, but that this right should be exercised sparingly.

If you want to get medievel, how about all those writings to the effect that failure to submit to the Pope is anathema?

You pull out this darned hobby horse on every conceivable thread. If you are so unhappy with the Church, why don't you just call it quits and join the sedevacantists or SSPX (unless you're already there, which I suspect might be the case). Last time I checked, both groups are excommunicated, but my diocese is still in communion with the successor to the throne of Peter. You know Peter? That nutty apostle upon which Christ founded His Church?

[Georges]

Saddam was a brutal dictator who definitely killed people.

Saddam also was better to the Christian community, especially to Chaldeans (in union with Rome) and less so to Assyrians (both Monosphytes and Eastern Rite Catholics and Orthodox), than the current anti-Christian chaotic qausi anarchist Shia actual and de-facto "government" now.

Saddam and the Baath party gave more rights and killed less people (sometimes proportionally if a small country like Kuwait) than Saudi Arabia (ask them what they do to villages who try to assasinate), Kuwait, Iran, Syria, Israel, Morocco, Algerian, Jordan and certainly Sudan.
Saudi Arabia took in Idi Amin and we did not invade.

The Baath party was a secular party founded by Christians based on non denominational principles and a pan-Arab modern philosophy. Iran has gained more power as of the current US action and terrorism worldwide (in London, Spain, Bali, Chechyna) has increased not decreased. The world is a more dangerous place for tourism and business with more death and destruction.

Women had more rights (for example the minimal right to drive) than in Saudi Arabia. Women did not have to were the full Burqa. Christians could have churches and rights in government and society. Other minorities like Jews and Zoarastians and/or Bahai existed better than in Iran, Saudi, or Kuwait.
So womens rights and religious freedom was better under Saddam than our allies.

Why not try Prince Bandar? or the Kuwaiti royal family? Or invade Israel? Or invade Iraq or Syria? Or invade and stop the violence in Sudan?
Or stop the violence that happened in Cambodia, the former Soviet Union or Cambodia?

What was the crime rate in Iraq pre-the current invasion to today?
or the health rates of disease, infant mortality, portable water?
What was the death rate since 1990? or since 2003?
What about the destruction of infrastructure in Iraq (or Lebanon with our blessing)?
How many Billions of dolllars?
How many people (Iraqis) are dead? because of the US? compare before and after Sadamm

the late Hafiz al Assad and father of current Bashir Assad killed 30,000 fundamentalist Islamicists (Assad is a qausi Muslim Alowite who honor Jesus more and have Babylonian and gnostic pre-Islamic roots with some Islamic superficial exteriors) in the city of Hama
Ariel Sharon in his autobiography Warrior talks about revenge killings on Bedouins
and there are plenty of killings on all sides

Saddam did many evil things
That does not justify an US invasion under false pretenses
and the things he did are done by many, many, many other leaders in the world

This does not mean the death penalty is never justified
nor does it means anyone, or at least this writer supports Ted Kennedy or Harkin
What it does mean is that the current state of Christians in the Middle East is farrrrrr worse now
It also means that Iraqis are worse off now with no light at the end of the tunnel

[Tim J.]

"The United States in claiming to liberate Iraq visited more death and destruction, perhaps unintentionally, than Saddam ever did."

Can you show me where you got this information?

Tim J.,
Go over official US DOD statistics. Just count up all the people that Saddam killed, than count up all the people the US killed (perhaps as you say without intent).

[StubbleSpark]

What a surprise. A post about justice, the death penalty, Saddam Hussein and Iraq and some people feel compelled to once again bring up the whole issue of whether or not the invasion was right.

The invasion was right or it was not right. What do you mean by right? Would rather he were back in power? Blah blah blah.

I love the audacity of people who think they deserve to be ruled by angels and not by fallible humans. The war on terror needs to be fought. More mistakes, setbacks, tragedies and travesties are to come. If this makes you want to quit, you don't know the half of it.

But I still choose to fight. Even if "there is no end in sight."

And that is all I will say about that.

[Joseph D'Hippolito]

Right on, StubbleSpark!

Or the revisionist of JPII who basically denied anything pre 1962-1965 and like you and many think that the church and her teachings started with John XXIII, Vatican II and the present hodgepodge of mixed up contradictory teachings that are being spewed all over by Priests, Cardinals, and Bishops alike?

Double, triple and quadruple right on, John!

Georges, you say that "the current state of Christians in the Middle East is farrrr worse than it was." Really? Well, considering that Muslims persecute Christians constantly (ask the Palestinian Christians or the Copts in Egypt) regardless of who is in power, this is a distinction without a difference.

Besides, Georges, does the idea that Saddam treated Christians in union with Rome better than other groups (which is a chimmera considering that Saddam routinely played groups against each other for his own Sunnis' benefit) have any moral meaning in a brutal, sadistic tyranny? Or have Catholics like you become so materialistic that they ignore such little things as freedom and liberty?

[Jared]

This is somewhat off-topic in this particular thread, but I believe it's mostly appropriate:

Thank you, Stubblespark. If ever you consider teaming up with another mastermind with a secret island lair, look me up.

My wife's hankerin' fer adventure!

[Charles]

Stubblespark,
The war on terror and the invasion of Iraq are not one in the same.

Do you want to indict Don Rumsfield, special envoy to Iraq under Reagan, when we were supporting Saddam? We wanted secular Saddam to fight Islamic fundamentalists like the Shia ones in Iraq who tried to assasinate him and more importantly Iran. We helped Iraq under Saddam in the Iran v Iraq war. Iran was a theocracy, and Iraq was secular.
Al Queda did not like the Baath run Iraq nor Saddam.
There were no Al Queda links to Iraq. None.
Let alone the WMD or any threat to the US.
There were other pre-Al Queda mostly pro-Palestinian terrorists like Abu Nidal who got safe harbor, but under that standard any nation in the Arab world would of been invaded.

Don Rumsfield went to Iraq AFTER the crimes for which Saddam was convicted and we gave him support. Tim J may want links. Or Hippolito may think all Arabs or Muslims are bad.

And Stubblespark YES,--I think that it would of been better to leave Saddam in power than to allow real terrorist Shia Islamic fasicts takeover Iraq and make Iran even more powerful as is happening. I would rather have a secular Saddam fighting Islamic extremists in Shia cities, not allowing Al-Queda groups in, and fighting Iran. Iraq was more modern, pro-Western, secular and helpful to US interests and anti-Iranian Shia, and Al Queda Sunni interests than any other leader in the region.

Saddam is certainly guilty of natural law crimes, but the trial was a pre-determined conclusion just as was the justified but also pre-determined conclusion of Nuremburg. The trial was a joke.

[Tim J.]

"Or the revisionist of JPII who basically denied anything pre 1962-1965..."

Except he didn't.

"... and like you and many think that the church and her teachings started with John XXIII"

Also baseless.

I mean, you're just raving now.

The fact that YOU don't understand how legitimate development of doctrine works does not oblige the Church to abandon the whole enterprise in defernce to your ignorance.

[John Thayer Jensen]

I don't really know much about Iraq or Saddam Hussein. Like Joni Mitchell, I've seen the Iraqi war "from both sides now."

I just know that this morning at Mass (it is Sunday evening in New Zealand now), I couldn't help praying for Saddam Hussein, for the poor Iraqi people (we have a lot of their refugees here), and somehow I was moved to pray for Saddam Hussein's mother, as well. Christ have mercy on us all!

jj

[John Thayer Jensen]

PS - and I was glad that a few days before his death he appealed to the whole of Iraq to stop fighting, to be at peace, to forgive one another. I have no doubt that he did many evil things. May God set this appeal against them, somehow.

jj

[Dean Soto]

Where do you find the official DoD statistics detailing the collateral damage and the killing of civilians? Usually when someone says "go look at the evidence yourself," and fail to give you a place to find it, it usually (not always) means that they have no idea where to find such evidence, or have no idea what they're talking about.

[Paolo Libertini]

Joseph Hippolito: The situation is worse off for Christians in the Middle East now than before. Israel was over 20% Christian in 1948 and now is 1%--this was a conscious policy by Israel and also Israel funding Hamas to pit Christians against Muslims.
No doubt I agree with you that Muslims are treating Christians bad in Egypt (somewhat secular) or Palestine (although that was not true previously you are right it is true today with a more religious and less urban and modern power structure)
I also agree with you Joseph that from a Human Rights, and Tolerance and Religious Freedom point of view (I agree with Vatican II on this) it does not matter if they are in union with Rome or not.
All should be respected. So non Chalcedon Copt or Assyrian does not mean less rights.
The point I think was made is that Chaldean rite Catholics had it better off than some other Christians like Assyrians. Although I could be wrong. Also, the point is that Iraq was the best or maybe second best to Syria, nation for Christians to live in terms of rights and prosperity better than Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran etc.
The Christians were protected by Saddam and Saddam allowed more religious freedom than practiced now or than most of the other countries in the region.
This is not a distinction without a difference this is thousands of human lives and hundreds of thousands of refugees.
I don't think anyone has argued that Saddam was not brutal. The point is that what is happening now in Iraq and the Middle East may be more brutal.
The US and Israeli policy(ies) have devestated Christians in the Middle East.
The Iraqi Christian population, the Israeli Christian population, the Palestinian Christian population--have all been killed or left because lack of freedoms of economic opportunity, education and travel.
The rise in Islamic fundamenstalism, which was not present in the more secular PLO under Arafat or under certain wings like Christian and communist influenced George Habasch, or the Baath and minority religious governments in Syria and Iraq. The anti-Syrian (which is justified at least vis a vis Lebanon) current policy (even though they helped against al Qauda and in the Iraqi invasion), and the Iraqi invasion which has increased Shia fundamentalist power, or the support of Israel which has alienated the whole region and destablized secular modern pro-Western regimes and leaders---ALL work against the goal of a peaceful Middle East (but Israel wants a destabilized Middle East), and against the War on Terror.
The War on Terror should be against Terrorists and not against all Arabs including Christians, or non Muslims governments with Muslim majorities.
Even our secular, non Arab, pro-Western, pro-Israeli ally Turkey (which even helped NATO and Croatia in getting terrorists in the former Yugoslavia) committed atrocities against Kurds (like Saddam did) and violates human rights and kills people. I don't want to invade Turkey or have show trials to bring anyone to justice.
That would increase religious radicals.

If the goal is to decrease Islamic terrorism and fundamentalist power--our actions are not accomplishing our goals and working against us.

I don't like nor care about Saddam. Joseph Hippolito is completely uncaring about Christians in the Middle East and is blinded by his radical Zionist agenda--just look at his hate filled website. The clash of cultures is real, but it doesn't mean we should do wrong or be stupid in actually protecting ourselves or our ultimate goal.
As an end not I certainly believe that military force is necessary and in certain cases that morally under Catholic teaching and the sublime logic of Aquinas a/the death penalty is justified.

The question is: Is there something worse than Saddam?

[Some Day]

Well lets consider this:

The Americans role out wherever they please going into countries in the name of democracy and by force putting a "democratic"government.
How democratic is it to kick the government that people are KILLING on the streets because you took it away. I am not saying Saddam is good.
I am simply saying the US is not the best country to promote and do such things.
It needs to be a Catholic nation that its laws are in line with the Gospel.
In essence a legitamately established government loyal to the Church and Her laws.
None exist you say, then everyone is as bad as the other guy.

[Some Day]

And on the predetermined thing,
well the overwhelming amount of evidence kind of makes the trial a mere formality.
But you see what really worries me is,
when will the time come when the nations will point fingers at the Sons of the Light?
The danger of the death penalty these days is that at any momment, it will be used against the Church and Her sons and daughters.
That is why the Church has attacked the death penalty. Not because of that itself, but those who use it.

[Jordan Potter]

"The danger of the death penalty these days is that at any moment, it will be used against the Church and Her sons and daughters."

At any moment, it could be and is and always will be used against the Church. It is not possible that the Church could achieve heaven by any other road than the one Her Lord first walked, the road to Calvary. Even if the whole world abolished the death penalty, it would eventually be reintroduced if for no other reason than to martyr Christians.

[John]

Tim J stated:

"Or the revisionist of JPII who basically denied anything pre 1962-1965..."

Except he didn't.

Well what would you call during JPII's pontificate:

New Code of Canon Law

New Catechism

All new Sacraments some in both form AND matter

Ecumenism such as Kissing Korans and Participating in pagan worship which forget about prior church teachings is against the 1st commandment and countless others abuses where ecumenism was condemned by every pope Prior to 1958

Liturgical abuse gone wild and a new mass that is a free for all and cant even to this day get a translation correct

Pedophilia looked at and ignored (Cardinal Law where are you?)

Talk of "One World Religion"

Excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre while countless Bishops (China anyone?) are openly defiant and schismatic bishops and Cardinals are overlooked, and groups prayed with.

Oh Tim....Wake up and smell the coffee!!!

[Brother Cadfael]

Joseph,

BTW, if it isn't apparent from my last post, I'm arguing that the only appropriate punishment for Saddam's crimes is execution. To argue otherwise is to side effectively with the perpetrators of evil rather than the victims of evil.

Thank God we don't all get what's coming to us.

[Dr. Eric]

John,

Even before I got to your name, I knew it was you that posted.

What's wrong with a one world religion if it is Catholicism?

Why do you always assume the worst?

If you don't like the Catholic Church, I invite you to join the SSPX, Old Calendarist Orthodox (of various jurisdictions) or other church who has valid Sacraments but who despise the Catholic Church of today.

The question is: Is there something worse than Saddam? Sure, for Iraq it would be, George Bush!

[John (idm)]

Wow! What a bunch of losers are posting comments here! Poor James, to have to be aware of the ignorance of so many of his readers! I don't understand how such people are capable of using a computer, getting on the Internet, etc.. And to think that they have the right to vote! No wonder the world is in such a horrendous condition.

[Tim J.]

"Oh Tim....Wake up and smell the coffee!!!"

Well, who can argue with logic like that?

[vitae]

Re: John (idm)'s comments above:

Not to mention the ignorance of the fact that Jimmy Akin goes by Jimmy, not "James..."

"What's wrong with a one world religion if it is Catholicism?"

Depending on what era you select, a lot or a little!

[John]

Dr Eric posted:

"John,

Even before I got to your name, I knew it was you that posted. What's wrong with a one world religion if it is Catholicism?"

Dr Eric-Of course there is nothing wrong with Catholicism being the only religion-but you obviously do not know what a "One World Religion" means and what John Paul II was refering to!!

The One World Religion was the dream of John Paul II and many ecumenists. Ecumenism was the cornerstone of John Paul II's pontificate, which was denounced by all popes before John XXIII and which is clearly apostasy. Ecumenism is apostasy, because it reduces all of the dogmas of the Catholic Faith to relativity.

With ecumenism, all religions are seen to have a certain part of the truth, and all religions are seen to therefore have a certain value. For this reason, John Paul II has frequently repeated the heresy of Vatican II: that the Holy Ghost has not hesitated to use non-Catholic religions as means of salvation.

Ecumenism is directly contrary to the assent of faith, and therefore is a serious violation of the First Commandment of God: I am the Lord thy God: thou shalt not have strange gods before me. But that did not stop JPII and to this day even with B16 bringing all of the faiths together at Assisi and now at Fatima to worship, even the Hindus who are clearly pagan

Why does one need to go and seek out these faiths if the church itself holds all of the truths? It is because of the masonic principle which ecumenism and modernism was born and Pope St Pius X warned us against. The ecumenist is constructing the great ecumenical religion, a great ecumenical church or temple (Assissi and now Fatima)in which all religions will be able to co-exist, no matter what their internal beliefs, as long as none of them holds that its beliefs are absolutely true, and exclusive of beliefs which are opposed to it. What happened to go forth and teach the nations of our Lord and savior as scripture tells us to do and as martyrs died rather than give one inch to these false faiths

This is an apostasy as Pope Pius XI in his encyclical Mortalium Animos, referring to ecumenical congresses, said:

"Clearly Catholics cannot approve of these undertakings in any way, since they are based on that false opinion of those who think that all religions are more or less good and praiseworthy, all of which, although not in the same way, equally manifest and attest to that innate sense which is implanted in us, by which we are drawn to God and to the devout recognition of His sovereignty. Those who hold this opinion not only err and are deceived, but also, since they repudiate the true religion by distorting the notion of it, gradually turn towards naturalism and atheism. For this reason it clearly follows that whosoever adheres to such things, or takes part in their undertakings, utterly abandons the religion revealed by God."

[Mary]

Incidentially, the legitimacy of the government, and the invasion, are not quite that important to the question of whether justice has been done to Saddam.

If two murderers kill each other in a quarrel over the loot, they had no right to do justice, they did not even intend to do justice, but nevertheless justice has been done.

[Joseph D'Hippolito]

Paulo Libertini, before you engage in more empty rhetoric about my "radical Zionist agenda" and my "hate-filled Web site" (aka, Front Page Magazine, aka http: www.frontpagemag.com; thanks for the plug!), I suggest you read the following from Father Pierbattista Pizzaballa, who represents the Franciscan Custody of the Holy Land, which governs church property. Pizzaball bluntly described the difficulties Palestinian Christians face in a 2005 interview with the Milan newspaper Corriere della Sera:

What do you mean by difficulties between Israel and the Vatican? We Christians in the Holy Land have other problems. Almost every day – I repeat, almost every day – our communities are harassed by the Islamic extremists in these regions. And if it's not the members of Hamas or Islamic Jihad, there are clashes with the 'rubber wall' of the Palestinian Authority, which does little or nothing to punish those responsible. On occasion, we have even discovered among our attackers the police agents of Mahmoud Abbas or the militants of Fatah, his political party, who are supposed to be defending us.

I also suggest you read the following from Renzo Guozo, a sociology professor at the University of Trieste who specializes in Muslim fundamentalism. The excerpt is taken from Guozo's 2003 book, "Xenophobes and Xenophiles: Italians and Islam;" the pope in question is JPII:

...the pope´s approach, which some in the Catholic world define as "dialogue to the point of extremism," generates widespread criticism among the bishops and even in the Roman curia....By purifying the historical memory of the Church, asking forgiveness for the Crusades, and fawning upon the "persecutors" of Christians, the pope, according to his critics, is exposing the Church to deep humiliation. Moreover, it transforms ecumenism into a sort of syncretism in which every religion seems as good as the next. This is tough criticism, which out of respect for papal authority and the state of John Paul II´s health does not manifest itself as open dissent, but it nevertheless deeply marks the ecclesial body.

The pope´s approach was rejected by the majority of cardinals during the 1994 consistory at which John Paul II expressed his intention of asking forgiveness for the "wrongs" of his predecessors. But despite the contrary opinion of many ecclesial sectors, and not only the openly traditionalist ones, the pope decided to proceed with his plan. Many responded with hostile silence: some of them recalled how Wotyla, who ordinarily speaks about all topics, had spread a veil of silence over the persecution of Christians in Muslim countries.

Now tell me who shows no concern for Arab Christians, Paolo.

[Paolo Libertini]

Joseph Hippolito: Nobody is arguing that Islamic extremists are hurting Christians. Of course they are.
The point is that Islamic extremists are created by the US when they replace secular regimes with Islamic fundamentalist regimes or create a leverage on the balance of powers in favor of Islamic fasicsts. By taking out Saddam, more Islamic fundamentalists have become empowered and Iran is more powerful in the region.
Moreover, you can qoute one priest or an Italian academic, which may have some legitimacy, but the fact is that since the creation of Israel, they have had a policy of forcing Christians out of the Holy Land. At one time Bethlehem, Nazareth, Jericho, all had Christian majorities. The entire region was over 20% Christian--now it is less than 1% Christian. There has been a huge exodus in population. By not dealing with the secular and Christian influenced PLO (albeit corrupt with many problems) (Arafat's last wife is Christian, Hanna Ashrawi is Greek Orthodox Christian, and Catholic Archbishop was in the governing council, George Habasch was born a Christian although probably a communist aethiest by belief but certainly not a nihilistic fundamentalist) I do NOT agree with him but Edward Said was Christian and made some good points. The point here is that Israel through her policies created (by direct funding and spycraft) a more fundamentalist Muslim society and political support. I can link plenty of articles (mainstream) on this. Israel wanted to destablize the PLO and play divide and conquer and in doing so created a bigger problem.
Israel is not friendly to the Christian population in terms of educational opportunity, economic opportunity, and land rights. That is why there has been a huge exodus.
Now, Israel is not the worse, it is certainly better than US allies like Saudi Arabia or genocidal maniacs like in the Sudan.
The fact is that US and Israeli policy has been devestating for Arab Christians and other non Arabs in the Middle East (like Assyrians, Armenians outside of Armenia, and non Arab Lebanese in and out of Lebanon)

[Arinze]

Maybe some people think Bush should be hanged for all the people he killed.
The Usury he has increased.
Bush I and Barbara who are pro-abortion and all the unborn children.
All the women and children killed in Iraq.
Dresden was a war crime.
Hiroshima was a war crime.
Did we put Truman to trial?
Roe v. Wade predated all the European abortion laws.
Slavery present in the US after all of Europe and even Anglo Protestant England banned it and 300 years after papal encyclicals banning slavery.
The Enrons, and Cheneys in Haliburton and the profitting of war or the Iraqex/Lincolns, or Custar war groups LLC

The Skull and Cross bones, inside dealer business deals from anti-Catholic baby killing Chinese, to the oil wealth of those who fund terrorism
the Bushes have a case to be hanged

[Jeff]

Michael:

I think that one can say that justice was done in that Saddam Hussein was punished for his undoubted crimes.

Whether this punishment was the one that best fit the crimes and the circustances in Iraq and of the day is debatable. But Saddam was a brutal man who regularly committed crimes against humanity. It is normal for people to crave a sense of retributive justice and to feel a sense of satisfaction that justice was done.

Kevin:

I don't think that questions about the original invasion negate the legitimacy of the present government, which is no mere puppet of the US but rather the result of free elections.

[Joseph D'Hippolito]

The point is that Islamic extremists are created by the US when they replace secular regimes with Islamic fundamentalist regimes or create a leverage on the balance of powers in favor of Islamic fasicsts. By taking out Saddam, more Islamic fundamentalists have become empowered and Iran is more powerful in the region.

No, Paolo. Islam creates Islamic extremists. Islam itself is an extremist religion that advocates totalitarianism and encourages the genocide of non-Muslims who refuse to convert.

Besides, do you seriously think that Ahmadinejhad would *not* be seeking nuclear weapons if Saddam had remained in power? Remember that Ahmadinejad's primary target is Israel.

BTW, Paolo, you never mention Islamic support for anti-Jewish genocide (such as through suicide bombing, which also is genocide against the Palestinians who engage in it). Why is that?

[Some Day]

You know this reminds me of when the cubans started saying that St. Thomas defended tyranicide.
They just forgot that he said only when a safe and fully functional government will take over right away. Chaos is inferior to illegitamate government. So another question is this new "government"invented follows the requisites.

[Brother Cadfael]

John,

Ecumenism is directly contrary to the assent of faith, and therefore is a serious violation of the First Commandment of God: I am the Lord thy God: thou shalt not have strange gods before me.

It depends on what definition of ecuminism one is using. That used by V2, for example, would have no application to Islam, but only to other Christian faiths.

[SDG]

I want to point out that the Vatican statement -- which AFAIK has zero magisterial weight -- does not say that the execution of Saddam was itself unjust.

It says "The execution of the guilty party is not a path to reconstruct justice." This is a larger and more abstract consideration than whether "justice was done" regarding Saddam himself in his execution.

I don't think there's any question that "justice was done," in the sense that Saddam surely deserved to die. Whether this was the best way to bring about justice is a prudential call. The Vatican statement represents one (non-authoritative) opinion; others will have different opinions.

[J.R. Stoodley]

I agree that justice was done and that Saddam should in fact have been executed, since his very existence in prison was a danger to the world.

However, have you seen the clips of the video they have been showing on the news? A bunch of guys in black hoods yelling things like "Muqtada! Muqtada! Muqtada!" (the name of the worst Shiite militant) and "Go to Hell!" and Saddam being brave and saying as his last words "There is one God, Mohammed is his Prophet" which in Arabic apparently makes "Mohammed" his last word.

This makes it seem like a gang of Shiite terrorists captured and killed a Sunni leader out of hate and revenge, very similar to the famous beheadings of Americans we have been seeing.

[John]

JR

If this is true what you say then I have an issue with the way this was carried out as it should have been punishment for the mans crime and not a Sunni-Shite thing, but the Islamic world is so full of hate for everyone from Jew to Catholic to other Moslems that I cant fathom why the Pope would even try to reach out to them and do what he did

To be honest in my prior posts against ecumenism I really have no major issues with the reaching out to the other Christian faiths as I admire the Evangelicals and Orthodox somewhat-but ecumenism was somehow used by JPII to reach out to these pagan in the case of the Hindus and Budhists and hate filled in the case of the Moslems that I cant understand why B16 whom I admired 10x more than JPII would do what he did

[SDG]

It depends on what definition of ecuminism one is using. That used by V2, for example, would have no application to Islam, but only to other Christian faiths.

Correct. Ecumenism is dialogue with other Christians; dialogue with non-Christians is interreligious dialogue, not ecumenism.

WHat does Joe Hippolito want to do?
Kill all the Arabs?

[John Thayer Jensen]

My goodness, what an interesting discussion

I'm new to this blog - in fact, I have not been very much involved in any blogs. No time. But I must say I haven't seen such a flamefest since the old days in usenet.

I think that Saddam Hussein called his fellow Iraqis to peace a few days before his death. Maybe he had a thought there...

jj

[Brother Cadfael]

John,

but ecumenism was somehow used by JPII to reach out to these pagan in the case of the Hindus and Budhists and hate filled in the case of the Moslems that I cant understand why B16 whom I admired 10x more than JPII would do what he did

No, it wasn't. JPII never used ecuminism with non-Christian faiths.

I am going to suggest something radical -- in the true sense of the word -- John. Take a closer look at what Pope Benedict did. (Put aside Pope John Paul II for a moment, and stick to Benedict.) Compare it to what you have read before, the principles there have not changed. Pope Benedict has not re-written history. At most, he is challenging you (and the rest of hte world) to use your mind. The principles from before are still valid. When you compare what he has done, to what was said before and prayerfully reconcile the two, you will start to see that perhaps he is not so far off the mark. Perhaps when he uses a term he means something slightly different than St. Pope Pius X or Pope Pius XI did with the same term. Perhaps he is using a term here or there in a different context. Give him the benefit of the doubt, for a moment, and try to hear what he's saying.

I think you'll be surprised. I'm not asking you to start worshipping John Paul II. But if the man is declared a saint (I think even you can admit that he might be), you will have to adjust to the fact that perhaps God was trying to tell us something with this good and holy man. And when God speaks, we should listen.

Peace.

[Brother Cadfael]

John,

I cant fathom why the Pope would even try to reach out to them and do what he did

The Holy Father is the one man who literally has the weight of the world on his shoulders. Not just the weight of the Catholic world, not just the weight of the Christian world. He is responsible for the souls of the entire world, including the Muslims.

Forgive him, a moment, if he is evangelizing the world the best way that he knows how. And again, you are talking about a good and holy man who, to say the least, takes his Catholic and Christian faith seriously. He is well aware of what his predecessors have written, and he is making every attempt to be a good steward with what he has received. Perhaps, he has an insight or two that the rest of us do not have.

What is the St. Francis DeSales qoute about baking Truth with sweetness?

Is the movie the Deer Hunter about Russian Orthodox or "Rusyn" Ruthenian Eastern Rite Catholics?

[JW]

This man was a prisoner of war. We kill prisoners of war?

Of course, we already detain without due process and believe torture is a valid method of interrogation. We're all men of the world, aren't we?

And when we come to judgment?

[Cableguy]

JW,

We, as in the United States of America, didn't kill the poor evil former dictator. The Iraqi government did.

[Mary Kay]

Brother Cadfael, it's always good to see your posts. To the point, eminently reasonable and just plain make sense.

[Brother Cadfael]

Mary Kay,

Thanks. Have a blessed new year.

[SDG]

This man was a prisoner of war. We kill prisoners of war?

Ever heard of the Nuremberg trials? Prisoners of war who were found guilty of war crimes and/or crimes against humanity were put to death, yes.

[Brother Cadfael]

More on the popular reaction to Saddam's execution. One has to be concerned with the state of the souls of those who are gleefully jubilant at the thought of sending another person, no matter how evil, to hell.