 |
"AN OPEN LETTER TO THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOPS OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA REGARDING THE MORALITY OF OUR
NATION'S WAR ON THE PEOPLE OF AFGHANISTAN"
From the Oscar Romero Catholic Worker House in
Oklahoma City,
the Divine Mercy Catholic Worker House
in Lyons, Kansas,
the Columbia, Missouri Catholic
Worker Community,
and the Casa Maria Catholic Worker
House in Milwaukee, Wisconsin
The 28th day of December, the feast of
the Holy Innocents, in this year of our Lord 2001
Published here with permission
Click Here for a printable version in MS Word format
Today is dedicated to the remembrance of the Holy
Innocents, who were victims of a state-sponsored
terrorist attack at the very beginning of the
Christian era. We believe this is an appropriate
spiritual time to review and question the moral
judgement of the Catholic Bishops of the United States
of America that our nation's war on the people of
Afghanistan is just. We do this in a spirit of
fidelity to the teachings of the Catholic Church and
to the charism bequeathed to us as Catholic Workers by
our founders, the Servants of God Peter Maurin and
Dorothy Day of New York. Our statements, questions,
and conclusions may seem startling to you, they may
make you uncomfortable. This is because we come to
you, not as the rich and powerful, but as the weak,
poor, and powerless.
Actions have consequences, and the consequences of our
war in Afghanistan become more apparent as each day
passes. We bombed that already-suffering country until
we ran out of targets and then we continued to drop
bombs and missiles upon their land. Thousands of
innocent people have been killed, and more are dying
every day. Millions are at risk of starvation.
Hundreds of thousands are displaced refugees.
International aid agencies are reporting problems with
getting sufficient relief supplies to those who are in
need. Unexploded munitions remain scattered across the
landscape, each bomb a potential threat to an Afghan
child. The Taliban government of Afghanistan has been
replaced by a new regime, but the leaders of Al Queda
remain at large as of this writing. Violence and
anarchy are increasing in the area. The nation's
physical infrastructure has been destroyed. Such are
the consequences thus far of the "just war" waged by
the United States.
We are taught that the presumption should always be in
favor of non-violence. The burden of proof is on those
who would say that a particular use of state violence
is just and appropriate.
Therefore, we ask: Where was the national examination
of conscience before our launching of war and
devastation on the civilian population of Afghanistan?
Your November statement rightly reminds the nation
that we must consider the situations which led up to
the events of Sept. 11th, but where is the evidence
that the United States government has followed your
advice? Indeed, politicians and commentators have
ridiculed the idea that anything that the United
States has done in the past has contributed to this
situation. We are told that September11th was an
ahistorical eruption of evil into normality, with no
context to be understood. How can a government which
refuses to examine its own responsibilities for a
situation wage a just war? By endorsing as just the
military actions of this government, you give a de
facto endorsement to its willful historical blindness.
If this was not your intention, you need to make your
point again, in stronger terms.
When we read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, we
find that military action must be a last resort. What
non-violent means were employed to find a resolution
before launching this war? Here is the sequence of
events following the attacks. First, we published a
series of non-negotiable demands. Second, we refused
to submit the situation to any of the international
organizations with competence to resolve such
conflicts. Third, we refused to negotiate with the
government of Afghanistan. And so it came to pass that
we rushed immediately to the military solution. The
Taliban offered to talk to us: if we were seeking a
just war, shouldn't we have negotiated with them
before launching weeks of bombardment and killing
thousands? How can you reconcile our nation's refusal
to negotiate with the Holy Father's clearly announced
teachings about negotiations among warring parties and
loving our enemies?
The Pope teaches that the guilt for terrorist acts is
personal, and cannot be applied to an entire race or
nation. He seems to have a high respect for
international law, and great hopes in particular for
the new International Criminal Court. Why do the
bishops of the United States not share that respect
and his hopes? Why is the United States entitled to
proceed directly to a military solution that impacts
an entire nation with such devastation? By your
blessing of this war as just, you seem to be saying
that the United States has an exemption from the
teachings of the Church and is justified in ignoring
international law and established extradition
procedures and we ask that you publish your authority
for this position. Surely the common good requires
that the rich and powerful respect the rule of law.
We are taught that civilians must not be targeted.
Yet, in defiance of this moral principle, we have
destroyed Afghanistan's roads, bridges, energy
production and telecommunications facilities and
attacked their water systems and dams. Why is the
United States entitled to attack the civilian
population of another nation with such thorough
viciousness when the teaching of the Catholic Church
clearly condemns such attacks?
Destroying the essential "life-support" technology of
a nation can be the death knell for an entire people,
as the physical ability to support the population will
be reduced by an enormous margin. Electricity is not
just a convenience, it is power to pump water and
treat it for disease pathogens. Roads are not luxuries
for tourists, they move food from farmers to
consumers, and if the bridges are destroyed, the food
does not move and the cities starve. Millions of
people are now at risk of starvation this winter, and
this isn't an accident of history. It is the
foreseeable result of our violent response to the
attacks of Sept. 11th, which have made an already bad
situation even worse.
The United States denies it targets civilians, but
whenever we go to war, we always target the
infrastructure that supports the civilian population -
claiming of course that since these targets also have
military value, they are "fair game" in our latest
"just war". The deaths resulting from infrastructure
destruction are slow, painful, torturously cruel, and
they disproportionately impact the poorest and
weakest, especially the children. We say to you that
targeting the technological infrastructure that the
civilian population is dependent upon is the moral
equivalent of firebombing residential neighborhoods
and machine-gunning children in schools.
We believe your acceptance of the Administration's
assurances regarding non-targeting of civilian
non-combatants has not been justified by the
subsequent events, and that the Administration is
playing semantic games to hide the true nature and
consequences of our targeting regime.
We are taught that war must not be for revenge, that
there must be a serious possibility of success, we
must have the right intention.
Since the November 2001 US Bishops' conference, our
forces have conquered the entire Afghan nation, yet as
of this writing the leadership of Al Queda remains at
large and the US has less than 50 Al Queda members in
custody. Where is the promised success? Will you now
say that the deaths of the thousands of Afghan
civilians killed in our Crusade were justified by
these paltry results? What was the point of destroying
that nation and killing all those people if not to
catch the leaders of Al Queda? And even if we do find
Osama bin Laden's body, dead in some cave, will you
still say that his death justifies the thousands of
innocent civilians we have killed to get him, not to
mention the millions that are now at risk of the
consequences of our Crusade?
What evidence do we have that killing Osama bin Laden
would eliminate Al Queda's ability to harm the United
States? Al Queda is described as a series of
interconnected but independently operating cells.
Removing leadership may not in fact prove to be a
death blow to the organization. Such groups typically
have alternative leaders who come into play when
others are killed or captured. It is possible that
there is no way out of this without negotiation. How
many more must die - abroad and perhaps at home -
before we come to understand this? Osama bin Laden as
a dead martyr may be much more dangerous than he is
now as a living, breathing, active terrorist
mastermind.
Does the United States really go forward with a right
intention in this battle? Given the public rhetoric
since September 11th, isn't it more probable that a
major influence on the decision for war was the desire
to make the US appear strong before the world, thus
reinforcing our global dominance? Is it therefore
morally justifiable to kill innocent civilians abroad
so that the United States can spread "fear and
respect" for our military power? Is it therefore
morally permissible to kill innocent civilians so that
US politicians can appear "strong and decisive" before
the American electorate? If our intentions were
honorable, shouldn't we have respected the government
of Afghanistan's demand for proof of guilt before
extraditing a resident of that nation? Even the most
guilty of criminals seems entitled to a preliminary
hearing to establish that there are enough facts to
proceed to a trial.
In ancient times, Thucydides remarked that "large
nations do what they wish, while small nations accept
what they must." Is this the position of the Catholic
Bishops of the United States? Do you support the
alleged "right" of the US government to order other
governments to hand over persons based on our
unilateral demand, with no evidence necessary? Are you
not aware that US military doctrine teaches that small
countries must be defeated decisively and quickly by
an overwhelming use of force lest the United States be
"embarrassed" before the world? Is avoiding
embarrassment a legitimate reason to kill the innocent
with overwhelming force?
One cardinal, speaking presumably for himself, said in
a speech in Rome that our judgment of the US military
attacks on Afghanistan must be colored by "moral
realism." What is this supposed to mean? How can we
view the killing of the innocent with "moral realism"?
What realities are there which justify the murder of
innocent people? Do we speak of "moral realism" when
we teach about abortion? It is a matter of grave
concern to hear a religious leader of a powerful
military empire, which has a long history of using
violence against the poor to achieve its national
aims, propose a novel evolution in moral doctrine to
justify his nation's killing of the poor.
This military crusade has been accompanied by a
campaign of demonization and depersonalization
directed against our enemies, and also against
American citizens who dissent from our government's
war policy. Everyone in the US government is
apparently in agreement that our enemies are so evil
that there is no possibility of negotiation with them,
nor are such negotiations seen as something desirable
that should be pursued because our enemies are such
beasts. Do you agree with President Bush's
demonization of our enemies and his refusal to
negotiate? Has the Pope not called us to forgiveness
in our pursuit of justice? How does demonization of
our enemies bring us to reconciliation and
forgiveness? Doesn't this in fact place great
obstacles in the way of forgiveness?
The attorney general of the United States has branded
those who disagree with the Administration's war
policy as "traitors." Do you agree with this? If not,
since you have so closely identified yourselves as the
Catholic hierarchy of this nation with the Republican
Administration, you should make your disagreements
with their extremist demonization tactics public
knowledge. A war that cannot go forward without
demonization is not a just war, and the Catholic
Bishops of this nation should not give their blessing
to such campaigns of dehumanizing propaganda.
Given what we have discussed above, we deny that the
response of the United States has been proportional to
the crime committed against us. The United States is
without a doubt the most powerful military force on
this planet. We have used our wealth and power with
great cruelty and overwhelming force against another
country which had done us no direct wrong. It is
painful to have to repeat this, but Al Queda was not
an activity of the government of Afghanistan. The
crime of Afghanistan was to not yield immediately to
the peremptory demands of our government to extradite
a criminal suspect without our producing any evidence
or following any established international legal
procedures. To this very day, the United States
government has published no evidence that the Taliban
regime in Afghanistan had anything to do with the
attacks of Sept. 11th other than Osama Bin Laden had
his headquarters in their country. We have indeed held
an entire nation responsible for the criminal
activities of a handful of people, and that is a
shameful thing for this nation to do, especially since
we were so instrumental in sending Osama bin Laden
there in the first place, and the Taliban regime was
itself helped into power by our ally Pakistan.
The moral foundation of a particular government should
also be questioned when we consider the justice of a
war. The United States of America is a nation which
has murdered by abortion more than 40 million of its
own children over the past 3 decades. We have a long
history of using and benefitting from state-sponsored
terror attacks against innocent people in other
nations. In Central America alone, hundreds of
thousands of innocent people - men, women, and
children - have been killed with the encouragement and
tactical support of the United States. The moral and
practical responsibility of the United States for
these deaths cannot be questioned, it is a matter of
the historical record. The bullets which assassinated
Archbishop Oscar Romero of San Salvador were sent to
that suffering country by the United States of
America. He was murdered shortly after publicly
appealing to President Carter to stop sending military
aid to his country because it was being used to murder
the innocent poor, not to fight communism (which of
course was our public justification). After his death,
we continued to send money, guns, and bombs, and
provide training and other tactical assistance, and
90,000 more people were killed in that one small
country alone over the next ten years.
This history does not mean that we do not have a right
to self defense against attacks, it does suggest that
our response and our responsibilities must be
scrutinized with greater care than is evident in your
current public statements about this war. The richest
and most powerful nation on earth must be held to the
highest standards of international behavior. We have
not done this in the past and as a result, poor people
throughout the world have been murdered with wanton
abandon. A nation may have the right to do something,
but it may not be prudent for it to exercise that
right, especially when there are alternative
possibilities for resolution of the conflict that do
not involve holding an entire nation hostage for the
criminal actions of a small gang. And effective
defense is not synonymous with violence, although
that's what our culture of death would like for us to
think. Indeed, all of the trillions of dollars we have
spent on armaments of death over the past 50 years
were not able to protect us from a handful of
determined murderers.
Given the grave consequences of war upon non-combatant
civilians, when such a wealthy and powerful nation,
with a history of producing civilian casualties as a
consequence of its military actions (or the actions of
its surrogates), and whose history indicates frequent
use of military force, often for the basest of motives
(commercial greed), rushes immediately to a unilateral
military solution, and ignores established
international procedures for resolving conflicts,
questions must be raised about the justice of its
actions.
This history also suggests that accountability must be
demanded from domestic political and military leaders
for their actions which have placed the nation at risk
of war and devastation. There is, however, no sign of
any such examination of conscience, even though the
failures of the political and military leadership of
the United States have been extraordinarily grave and
devastating for so many innocent people, both here at
home and abroad. The silence of the Catholic Bishops
of the United States about this issue is troubling, as
is the public embrace by the bishops of politicians
whose hands are stained with the blood of the
innocent.
Does your blessing of justice rest upon the coming
expansion of the military conflict to other nations?
If so, why do you support the government in its
refusal to consider any other ways to bring this
conflict to a peaceable end? Why are you so
accommodating of a policy which has such deadly
consequences for the poor? How many of this world's
poor are you willing to kill in pursuit of the war
aims of the United States government? Should we stop
at 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? Where do you draw the
line between justice and injustice? If you cannot
answer this question, as Catholic bishops, then who
has the competence to do so? Archbishop Oscar Romero
of San Salvador ordered the police and military of his
station to stop killing the poor. Will you follow his
holy and courageous example and speak truth to power
in defense of those least able to protect themselves?
If you are to continue to judge this war as just, do
you expect to see progress towards resolving the
larger issues that surround this conflict? We welcome
your call for an end to the murderous sanctions on
Iraq, but thus far there seems to be no response from
the Administration. Indeed, Iraq is high on the list
of future targets for war. Isn't it time for you to
follow the example of Archbishop Oscar Romero of San
Salvador and forbid Catholics to willingly participate
in the enforcement of those sanctions which are
killing the poor?
We cannot fail to note the irony in destroying another
nation in an attempt to hold a handful of criminals
responsible for the deaths of 4,000 American citizens,
while our government turns a blind eye to the daily
deaths of an equal number of American citizens by
abortion. For this Republican administration, as with
the Democratic administration which preceded them, it
seems as though every issue in the book is of more
importance than protecting human life. Not a single
bill has been introduced into this session of Congress
to ban partial birth abortions. We wonder how the
bishops of the United States can seem so friendly with
and accommodating to an administration which has so
cynically abandoned unborn children to their fates
because of the politics of this issue. The witness of
the Church to the cause of life has been dealt a
serious blow by the tacit acceptance by the bishops of
the United States of the Republican Administration's
decision to place the abortion issue on the back
burner and by your blessing of our war on the people
of Afghanistan as just.
On this day of remembrance of the Holy Innocents, we
must ask, if now is not the time to protect human
life, when will the time be appropriate? What should
we say to the hundreds of thousands of children who
will die by abortion so that the Republicans can enact
the rest of their legislative agenda and fight their
war before tackling the controversial issue of
abortion - if indeed they ever decide to invest the
political will necessary to protect the lives of
unborn children? Why do the deaths of Sept. 11th
demand and justify the destruction of an entire
nation, while an equivalent number of violent deaths
every day are completely ignored by President Bush and
his allies in Congress? When will we begin to do
something serious about the constellation of issues
surrounding abortion - not just legal protection for
unborn children, although that is vital, but also
violence against women, sexual exploitation, economic
insecurity and injustice?
Many bishops gave their tacit endorsement to the
campaign of George Bush for president. They should be
publicly accountable for the lack of progress on the
abortion issue, but we hear nothing from them except
praise for our political leaders. On this remembrance
of the Holy Innocents, we remind you that while the
US. Government concentrates on war, economic policy,
tax cuts, and corporate welfare, since Sept. 11th,
more than 400,000 American citizens have been murdered
by abortion, without a single word of protest or
mourning from President Bush or anyone in Congress.
Have the bishops privately asked President Bush when
anti-abortion legislation will be introduced to
Congress and acted upon? If not, why not? If yes, what
was the answer? Why do the Bishops not ask this
question publicly when members of the Administration
are feted at Catholic events?
We ask none of these questions in a spirit of anger or
hostility, but rather of sorrow and very grave
concern. We ask them on behalf of those who have no
voice, who cannot speak for themselves because we have
killed them. We hear their cry for justice and
remembrance, but it seems to us that the Roman
Catholic Bishops of these United States of America
have shut your ears to their cries, closed your eyes
to the suffering and the devastation caused by our
national policies, and by your approval of this war as
just have blessed the murder of the innocent. You are
sorry about this, your November statement says so, but
they still have to die in violence and destruction. As
people say, "It's them or us." Isn't it sad that after
all the blessings this nation has received, this is
the best we can do in this crisis?
The Holy Father has clearly and without ambiguity
taught that it is immoral to hold an entire nation
responsible for the activities of a criminal gang. He
has called for a response proportional to the crime
and for negotiations. He has reminded us that the
guilt for the Sept .11th attacks is personal, not
collective. Yet, the American Bishops continue to
support the US government as it holds the entire
nation of Afghanistan responsible for the actions of a
handful of terrorists, as it refuses to negotiate, as
it puts the people of Afghanistan at risk of death and
starvation on a mass scale, and as we wield a response
that is not proportional to the crime committed
against us. Where is the justice in this? It is not
enough to simply repeat, as if it were a magical
mantra, that "nations have a right of self defense,"
as though that justifies any action the United States
government deems appropriate.
With great sorrow we say to you that in regard to this
crisis it seems to us that you have separated yourself
from the witness and teaching of Pope John Paul II and
are in the process of carving out some kind of
"American Exception" to the teachings of the Church on
war and peace, and we think this is a dangerous place
for the Bishops of such a wealthy and powerful and
violent country to go.
Jesus of Nazareth, who is God, did not speak with
ambiguity about war and peace. He said to us, "Love
your enemies. Do good to those who curse you." And,
"All they who take the sword will perish by the
sword." Since He spoke those blessed words, an ocean
of ink has been expended to explain how He really
didn't mean what He said. The rich are always ready,
willing, and able to justify their killing of the poor
with high sounding phrases and appeals to morality,
and so even though we are nobody important, and
getting less so all the time, we dare to say to you
who are rich and powerful that you must more strictly
question yourselves and examine your consciences about
your approval of the killing of the innocent by the
government of these United States of America. Our
government has been quick to use military force for
many years, and the past century has seen an ocean of
blood shed in the name of "just war." Those who
advocate such violence as just must share in the
responsibility for the consequences.
We promise you our prayers and acts of reparations.
"Following the teaching and example of Jesus,
Christians hold that to show mercy is to live out the
truth of our lives: We can and must be merciful
because mercy has been shown us by a God who is love
(cf. 1 Jn 4:7-12). The God who enters into history to
redeem us, and through the dramatic events of Good
Friday prepares the victory of Easter Sunday, is a God
of mercy and forgiveness (cf. Ps 103:3-4, 10-13). Thus
Jesus told those who challenged his dining with
sinners: "Go and learn what this means, 'I desire
mercy and not sacrifice.' For I came not to call the
righteous, but sinners" (Mt 9:13). The followers of
Christ, baptized into his redeeming death and
resurrection, must always be men and women of mercy
and forgiveness. " Pope John Paul II, World Day of
Peace Message 2002
We say these things to you, in the memory of all who
have been killed in war and terrorism, with sorrow and
concern on this the 28th day of December, the feast of
the Holy Innocents, in this year of our Lord 2001.
- Robert Waldrop, Oscar Romero Catholic Worker House,
1524 NW 21st, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73106
- Marion Latiolais, Divine Mercy Catholic Worker House,
325 East 1st St, Lyons Kansas 67554
- Lana Jacobs, Columbia Catholic Worker Community,
913 Rangeline St., Columbia Missouri 65201
- Lincoln Rice, Casa Maria Catholic Worker House,
1131 N 21st St., PO Box 05206, Milwaukee Wisconsin 53205
Text by Robert Waldrop
|
|
