Sursum Corda
"an insightful Catholic Blog that eschews extremism in any direction."
--Commonweal Magazine
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Topical musings from a Catholic perspective

Friday, February 28, 2003
FUBAR: Josh Marshall (who, just to remind you, believes that at some point we will have to confront Hussein) has some really good thoughts today on how badly the Bush Administration has approached that neccessary task:

Some necessary actions can be done so disastrously and foolishly that it becomes a serious question whether or not to do them at all.

We're in one of those situations.

If we could turn back the clock a year and we had the choice of a) doing exactly what we've done or b) waiting a year or two for a more favorable moment or until a new team was in place who knew what they were doing, I think option 'b' would unquestionably be the better choice.

Unfortunately, we don't have that choice. The administration has already done massive damage to our standing in the world. And they've managed to create facts on the ground -- intentionally and unintentionally -- which make pulling back arguably more dangerous than pushing ahead. The question is no longer what the ideal thing to do is. It's more aptly described as which of the really bad alternatives is best to choose given the jam the administration has backed us into.


posted by Peter Nixon 9:55 AM
. . .
OUR PERSONAL SAVIOR: Fr. Ron Rolheiser suggests today that communal worship alone, even when done with "the greatest attention to proper ritual and good aesthetics, can lack something -- namely, an accompanying personal spirituality. Jesus needs a personal face and those conducting liturgy must help the community to know that face; otherwise, liturgy alone leaves the community wanting for something." He notes that personal prayer and a personal relationship with Jesus are absolutely critical if ministers are to have the internal dynamism to lead people to Christ. He concludes:

For those of us who are "High Church," either by temperament or denomination, it's too easy to look at the devotional stream within Roman Catholicism or the "Low Church" tradition within Protestantism and see it simply as "Jesus and I" spirituality, as excessively privatized, as seeking the wrong kind of security, as spiritually immature, as theological and liturgical backwater, and as deflecting people from the real center, worship in liturgy. In making such an assessment, partially, we are dangerously wrong, at least according to one New Testament writer.

In John's Gospel, ecclesiology and liturgy are subservient to the person of Jesus and a personal relationship to him. To teach this, John presents the image of "the beloved disciple," one who has a special intimacy with Jesus. For John, this intimacy outweighs everything else, including special service in the church. Thus, at the Last Supper, Peter, the head of the apostles, may not even talk directly to Jesus, but has to channel his question through the one who has this special intimacy with Jesus. In John, everything is second to this particular relationship.

If this is true, and it is, then we who are "high church" have something to learn from our "low church" and more devotionally-oriented siblings: Jesus is our personal savior!


posted by Peter Nixon 9:43 AM
. . .
THE WORD FROM ROME John Allen ranges over a wide field of topics in this week's column. One of the most interesting is his (anonymous) interview with a high-ranking Cardinal who tried to give Allen a window into the Vatican's thinking about the United States. What I liked about Allen's exchange is that Allen was both willing to give ground when his interlocutor raised serious issues about the conduct of American foreign policy, but also willing to press the official about the extent to which some of the recent rhetoric of the Holy See has flirted with anti-Americanism. Allen continues to impress.

posted by Peter Nixon 9:33 AM
. . .
VIRTUE OF HATE REDUX: A while back, I blogged about a really thought-provoking article I had found in First Things entitled The Virtue of Hate. Eve Tushnet has posted her own thoughts on the article, which are worth reading.

posted by Peter Nixon 9:18 AM
. . .
AFTER ABORTION: Emily, who blogs After Abortion, has a very thoughtful post about another post-abortion website for women who do not regret their abortions called I'm Not Sorry. Many of the women who posted to the INS website have a lot of anger, both at the circumstances that led to their abortions, but also at the pro-life movement. To her credit, Emily is able to listen to that anger without returning it.

posted by Peter Nixon 9:12 AM
. . .
Thursday, February 27, 2003
WOULD CONTAINMENT WORK? Nick Kristoff asks us to consider how Eisenhower approached Nasser in Egypt during the Suez Crisis. Of course, it's reasonable to ask what Eisenhower would have done if Nasser was actively pursuing nuclear weapons. Still worth thinking about though.

posted by Peter Nixon 7:21 PM
. . .
STILL ON THE FENCE: Amy Welborn’s comments yesterday (see post below) prompted me to post some of my own thoughts on the war that is almost certainly coming at this point.

I don't deny that I've been a little tough on some of the statements coming out of the Vatican. Part of the reason is that some of these officials (and I don't really put the Pope in this category) seem to want—to use Amy’s terminology—to take both the Long View and the Short View simultaneously. If you are going to engage in the debates over the prudential issues at stake, then I think you need to do so seriously. Many times this has been the case, but other times (e.g. the Stafford statement, a couple of Sodano's comments, and the Civilita Cattolica editorial) the statements seemed unreflective and insufficiently informed by the facts on the ground.

For what it’s worth—and given where we are, I’m not sure it’s worth much—I’m still on the fence. I believe that, in principle, it would be legitimate for the United Nations to use force to enforce the terms of the resolutions it has passed on Iraq. But I am not convinced we are truly in a “last resort” situation at this point.

What is our objective vis-à-vis Iraq? Is it merely to prevent Hussein from starting another regional war, a war in which nuclear, chemical and biological weapons may be used? Is it to remove a evil tyrant from power? Is it to remake the political culture of the Middle East? Is it to preserve the authority and credibility of the United Nations as a body that can actually make a serious contribution to global and regional security? To stop terrorist attacks against the United States? The Bush Administration has tried to blur all of these rationales together, but I think they need to be considered separately.

If all we are interested in doing is preventing Hussein from starting another regional war, then we probably have means short of war of doing that. We may not be able, through the current inspection process, to completely disarm Iraq, but through a combination of “smart sanctions,” inspections and deterrence we can probably degrade Hussein's military capabilities—including his WMD capabilities—to the point where he would be incapable of starting another regional war. Could we be 100 percent certain? Of course not. And whether this works depends heavily on the willingness of the international community—particularly Iraq’s neighbors—to continue to support a regime of containment. The containment regime of the 1990s fell apart through a combination of American inattention and declining support from our allies. Maintaining containment into the future would require vigorous American leadership.

Now there is a certain visceral appeal in the idea of using force to remove tyrants from power, and Hussein is certainly one of the nastier characters currently running a country. But such a commitment is terrifyingly open-ended? Where do we go next? Iran? Saudi Arabia? Zimbabwe? Burma? The list of tyrannies is not short. The idea that we can “make the world safe for democracy” through the use of armed force is possessed of a dangerous degree of hubris.

A similar hubris afflicts the idea that we can remake the political culture of the Mideast by force. This is one of those ideas people who spend their time working in Washington, D.C. think tanks like to come up with because it looks great on paper. But the risks of failure are great and the costs astronomical. Should we promote democracy in the Middle East? Absolutely. But we certainly have not exhausted the non-military means of doing so. What if our occupation of Iraq fails to produce a stable democracy (the jury is still out on Afghanistan)? What if it produces an anti-American backlash that hinders the efforts of modernizers in the Arab world to push their agenda? I am not saying these things would happen, but the possibility is definitely there.

The least credible argument put forward by the Bush Administration is the idea that Iraq and Al-Queda are in cahoots. Even a number of people who are quite sympathetic to a war with Iraq—Ken Pollack, Tom Friedman, Josh Marshall, etc.—think this argument is a stretch and they wish the Bush Administration would stop making it. The only reason that Hussein would even consider giving WMDs to Al-Queda is that the 101st Airborne is staring down his throat and he’s looking for options.

Then we come to the United Nations. There is no question that the credibility of the United Nations is on the line here. But it is on the line almost entirely because of the military and diplomatic maneuvering of the Bush Administration. They have manufactured this crisis because they want to force the United Nations to act. That is not entirely illegitimate, but there are other ways the United States could have approached engaging our allies over Iraq that are less likely to do long-term damage to the United Nations, NATO and our other security arrangements. The argument that the credibility of the United Nations is on the line would itself have more credibility if it wasn’t coming from people who clearly have contempt for the institution.

Now having said all this, I also want to say that this is a really close call. Because my argument depends heavily on whether you think that there are still other options for containing Iraq that are likely to be effective in the long-run. There are a lot of very smart people with no particularly brief for the Bush Administration who don’t think that’s the case. Ken Pollack, for example, has raised some very serious questions about the sustainability of containment. Given how uncooperative Hussein has been so far, imagine what is likely to happen once U.S. troops are withdrawn from the region in large numbers. Much as I admire George Lopez and the other folks at the Kroc Institute, I don't think that they have adquately refuted Pollack's arguments on this point

Which leaves me with a difficult question. If you think that the war is, on balance, unjust but that it's a close call, how do you live out your witness as a Christian? Are private actions like prayer and fasting enough? Is something more public required? I'd like to have an answer to this before the bombs start falling. Any ideas?

posted by Peter Nixon 9:47 AM
. . .
Wednesday, February 26, 2003
THE WAR, THE POPE, AND SUNDRY MATTERS Allegedly inactive blogger Amy Welborn takes a long look at the issue of the war in Iraq and the reactions of some American Catholics who seem to want the Pope's blessing for it. Many, many good thoughts here, and it's hard to post excerpts. But I particularly liked her response to those who seem to oppose the idea of fasting and praying for peace on Ash Wednesday:

There’s been a little flurry of controversy about the Pope’s call to prayer and fasting for peaceon Ash Wednesday.

The resistance to this is incomprehensible. I just don’t get it.

Why not pray for peace? Why not pray for a peaceful and just resolution? Why not pray for …I dunno…God’s will be done, maybe?

The only reason I can think of is pride. Pride in human power and a denigration of God’s power. Pride like Jonah’s, who did not want to see the Ninevites repent, who wanted God’s wrath to spark big old conflagration of Babylonians.

And this is what I mean when I say that we should look through the limitations of the Pope’s prudential judgment to what the Spirit is saying through him – and the way we do this is to see how what he’s saying links up with Scripture and Tradition – aka, the Long View.

When we look at that, seriously and humbly, we have no more excuses. We have no excuses not to pray, and not to pray for our enemies.


posted by Peter Nixon 1:33 PM
. . .
OPERATION UPLINK: Operation Uplink is a unique program of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and its Ladies Auxiliary. It keeps military personnel and hospitalized veterans in touch with their families and loved ones by providing them with free phone cards. Using contributions from supporters like you, Operation Uplink purchases phone cards and distributes them to servicemen and women who are separated from those they care about. Thanks to Kairos for the link.


posted by Peter Nixon 1:21 PM
. . .
SACRED HEART: Another essay in this week's America (see below for more info on their series on devotions--subscription required for access to articles) focuses on devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, which has, in the words of theologian Chris Cuddy, "suffered cardiac arrest in recent decades." Cuddy recounts his own rediscovery of this devotion and its meaning for him:

I did not grow up with any devotion to the Sacred Heart, and it is only in the last few years, as I have struggled with vocation and the demands of family life, that the practice has spoken to my own heart: the fearful heart that paralyzes me when I think of the future, rendering me unable to open myself in trust to God; the cramped heart that refuses to admit my wife and infant son, but clings to my own prerogatives, choosing to watch Peter out of the corner of my eye as I read the morning newspaper rather than get on the floor and play with him; the oblivious heart that holds forth at dinner on the recording history of The Beatles’s Abbey Road, but forgets to ask Deborah how her class went that afternoon. At times like these I wonder, have I really let into my life those I love so much? Have I gone out to them? Are they part of my flesh or merely fellow travelers?
To my shame, I know exactly how Cuddy feels.

posted by Peter Nixon 11:52 AM
. . .
THE ROSARY: During Lent, the magazine America will be running what looks to be an interesting series on Catholic devotions. Most of the authors will be people in their 30s and 40s who grew up (as I did) in a time when many of these devotions were falling out of use, but who have be able to recover this part of the Catholic tradition. This week, Sally Cunneen writes about the Rosary (Subscription required for access to the article). She talks a little about its history and the decision by John Paul II to add a new set of mysteries, the "mysteries of light." But she also talks about the practical challenges of saying the Rosary, such as the difficulty that some face in saying the prayers and meditating on the mystery simultaneously. Cuneen quotes Saint Thérèse of Lisieux:

When alone (I am ashamed to admit it) the recitation of the rosary is more difficult for me than the wearing of an instrument of penance.... I force myself in vain to meditate on the mysteries of the rosary; I don’t succeed in fixing my mind on them.... I think that the Queen of heaven, since she is my MOTHER, must see my good will and she is satisfied with it. (Story of a Soul, ICS Publ., pp. 242-3)
Nice to know I am not the only one with this difficulty...

posted by Peter Nixon 11:44 AM
. . .
BIND UP WOUNDS: I don't know what will happen in Iraq, but there is a good bet that Catholic Relief Services will be involved in addressing the humanitarian crisis that will no doubt emerge in the wake of war. Click here to learn more about CRS.

posted by Peter Nixon 9:53 AM
. . .
GOODWILL: "What profiteth a man if he gain regime change in Iraq and lose the whole world order in the process?" asks Josh Marshall today in a Hill column that is worth reading. While you are at it, check out this piece by Fouad Ajami in Foreign Affairs. If war is indeed coming, then Americans would do well to learn a little bit more about the country we are likely to be occupying for some years to come.

posted by Peter Nixon 9:42 AM
. . .
COLLATERAL DAMAGE? Writing in Slate, Fred Kaplan argues that most of the estimates of civilian and military casualities that are being floated around are classic examples of "garbage in, garbage out." They assume that the United States will seek to destroy the same parts of Iraq's infrastructure that were destroyed in the Gulf War, which Kaplan argues is unlikely to be the case. On the other hand, I might note that pitched battles in urban settings were not a feature of the first Gulf War, but they are likely to be part of this one.

posted by Peter Nixon 9:14 AM
. . .
MCNAMARA? In the Washington Post, David Ignatius compares Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to a past occupant of the office: Robert McNamara, who (for those of you who don't remember) was Secretary of Defense in the Lyndon Johnson administration. Here are a couple of interesting grafs:

The Iraq war is just and defensible: Taking arms to depose a dictator who twice has attacked neighboring countries, tortures his own people and lies to the United Nations is precisely what a responsible international community should do. But the administration's efforts to rally support for war have been dangerously inept, and Rumsfeld has been a principal culprit. The administration's mistakes have now produced so much opposition that the United States will face serious political problems in the future, no matter how quick or decisive the victory in Iraq.

Rumsfeld increasingly reminds me of a previous secretary of defense, Robert S. McNamara. Both men came into office mistrusting the generals and admirals of the uniformed military as overly timid and cautious, a mistrust that was reciprocated by the military brass. Both men believed in rationalizing and modernizing a hidebound Pentagon bureaucracy. Both surrounded themselves with cadres of bright intellectuals who appeared to have contempt for less clever people who didn't understand their strategic vision.
Ignatius also probes the fascination that both men have/had for "special operations" forces. Worth reading.

posted by Peter Nixon 9:09 AM
. . .
Tuesday, February 25, 2003
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo had an interesting point this morning:

One of the small, ugly ironies of all this haggling at the UN is this line of reasoning that the UN's credibility and future are on the line in all this. To a significant degree, I think this is true: The Security Council said Saddam had to disarm. Now they really need to make sure he does. But the people in the administration who are pressing this argument about the UN's credibility are also people who have more or less unconcealed contempt for the institution in the first place and would probably just as soon see it trashed anyway. As John Judis (see next post below) notes, they haven't worked with the UN. They've bullied it.


posted by Peter Nixon 9:28 AM
. . .
WHY IRAQ? John Judis recounts the tale of how we got to this point. Before September 11th, neither Bush nor Powell favored confrontation with Iraq and were advocating "smart sanctions" and continued containment. There was a group of neoconservatives, based primarily in the Defense Department, that favored confrontation, but it wasn't until after September 11th that their views received a serious hearing and ultimately became the Administration's position.

posted by Peter Nixon 9:25 AM
. . .
HAPPINESS IS: Dancing with your children in the kitchen in the morning while you all sing the "Bear Necessities" song from Jungle Book.

posted by Peter Nixon 9:17 AM
. . .
STEP CAREFULLY: Kathy the Carmelite, who could often be found in the comments sections of a number of blogs, has started her own. She calls it Gospel Minefield. Check it out.

posted by Peter Nixon 9:16 AM
. . .
Monday, February 24, 2003
A DAY OF PRAYER AND FASTING: John Paul II has called for a day of prayer and fasting for peace, especially in the Middle East, to be observed on Ash Wednesday, March 5.

posted by Peter Nixon 4:14 PM
. . .
POPE TELLS BLAIR 'NO TO WAR': CNS Coverage of British Prime Minister Tony Blair's audience with the Pope.

posted by Peter Nixon 4:08 PM
. . .
GET INTO SPIRITUAL SHAPE: In this month's U.S. Catholic, Father Robert Barron offers us three ways to get into "spiritual shape." Martha Gies also has a piece on fasting.

posted by Peter Nixon 9:38 AM
. . .
AWESOME GOD: Our men's retreat went very well. Thanks to all of you who kept us in your prayers. You know, Gregorian Chant is a fine thing, but there are times when a man just needs to lift his hands in the air and sing "Jesus! Jesus! Jesus!"...

posted by Peter Nixon 9:23 AM
. . .


. . .