|
 n
Sunday's Chicago Sun-Times, Fr. Andrew Greeley writes that
"[t]he national cry for revenge is shameful." He concedes
that it is "an understandable human reaction." But he
complains that "no one — certainly not the president or
any of those around him — is promising that we will avoid action
that might lead to the death of more innocents." President
Bush, says the Rev. Greeley, "does not seem to grasp that the
religion to which he subscribes teaches that vengeance belongs to
the Lord, not to us."
Did I miss
the speech in which President Bush called for revenge? For the slaughter
of innocents? While I wasn't paying attention, did Trent Lott or
Tom Daschle suggest that we would find our enemies and then kill
their wives and children before turning to them? (In fact, Lott
issued a press release noting that a great country such as ours
demands justice rather than vengeance.)
"The too-easy
use of the term 'war' is scary," Fr. Greeley continues. "Those
who prate about 'war' seem eager to have one." Perhaps some
people have been eager for war. What most of us who have used the
word "war" over the last week mean, however, is that we
are already in a war — an enemy has declared war on us by evil
deed, and we ought to recognize that fact. We are eager only for
an American victory in this war.
It is true
that President Bush has not ruled out "action that might lead
to the death of more innocents" in the course of that war's
prosecution. It would be gross irresponsibility for him to do so.
Identifying the moral principles that ought to govern the treatment
of civilians in a war is not difficult (however much applying them
might be). The Catholic Church in which Fr. Greeley serves has long
reflected on these principles. As I understand its teaching, a leader
in a just war may licitly accept causing the deaths of innocents
so long as he does not will those deaths. Those deaths, that is,
cannot be his intended goal or the intended means to his goal; but
they can be a foreseeable and accepted side effect of the achievement
of his goal (i.e., the destruction of the enemy's military power).
We should try
to minimize civilian casualties and we should sincerely regret those
casualties our actions cause. But we cannot forswear accidentally
causing those casualties, especially when fighting an enemy that
is all too capable of using our qualms against us. Perhaps Fr. Greeley
merely means that President Bush should renounce any intention of
killing civilians deliberately. Then Fr. Greeley's demand would
not be irresponsible. It would instead be a grave insult to the
president and the nation he leads. Nobody has proposed such killing.
Fr. Greeley's
insults to our leaders get even graver, and stranger, than this.
He writes, "We hotly debate a dubious shield against missiles
and skimp on funding to intercept terrorists. Perhaps the cries
for vengeance we hear are a cover-up for that failure."
He asks, "Will
mass murder satisfy American bloodlust?" What bloodlust? What
Americans mainly want, as far as I can tell, is justice, honor,
freedom, and safety. But then, I'm inclined to read my fellow Americans'
motives charitably, especially at this time. Evidently Fr. Greeley
is not.
|
