His God Is Marching On

by Scott P. Richert

May 2nd, 2008 • Related • Filed Under

[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].

If you relied on wire service accounts, Catholic commentary, and the few snippets of video on the evening news, you can be forgiven for believing that the White House Welcoming Ceremony held for Pope Benedict XVI on April 16 was entirely “warm,” “friendly,” and marked by “mutual admiration and respect.”

But beneath the surface, the waters weren’t so calm, as anyone who watched the entire ceremony, listened closely to President Bush’s speech, and paid attention to the symbolism knows.

True, the President praised the Holy Father’s commitment to life, his embrace of “a culture of justice and truth,” and his proper understanding of liberty as entailing responsibilities as well as freedoms.

The shadow of the Iraq war hung over the festivities, however. President Bush had sought the approval of Pope John Paul II in the run-up to the war in 2002 and 2003, and he had been disappointed when Benedict’s predecessor spoke out strongly against the war. Cardinal Ratzinger himself had made it clear after the war had started that “reasons sufficient for unleashing a war against Iraq did not exist,” and that a preemptive war could never be a just war.

Five years after the start of the war, President Bush might simply have refrained from any reference to it, but, for whatever reason, he could not bring himself to do so. Ironically, he began his remarks with a reference to Saint Augustine, usually regarded as the first expositor of Christian just-war theory. He quickly moved on, though, to describe America as “a nation of compassion,” and his description of what such compassion entails included a veiled reference to the war:

Each day across the world the United States is working to eradicate disease, alleviate poverty, promote peace and bring the light of hope to places still mired in the darkness of tyranny and despair.

The fact that Saddam Hussein’s “tyranny” was used to justify “regime change” by force of arms leaves little doubt about what President Bush was referring to, and the smile that Pope Benedict had been sporting disappeared from his face.

Interestingly, the Holy Father’s remarks, prepared in advance, read at points as if they were a direct response to President Bush. Stressing the link between freedom and the moral order, which “calls for the cultivation of virtue, self-discipline, sacrifice for the common good, and a sense of responsibility towards the less fortunate,” Pope Benedict invoked George Washington’s Farewell Address:

Democracy can only flourish, as your founding fathers realized, when political leaders and those whom they represent are guided by truth and bring the wisdom born of firm moral principle to decisions affecting the life and future of the nation.

Those decisions include not only domestic but foreign policy:

For well over a century, the United States of America has played an important role in the international community. . . . I am confident that this concern for the greater human family will continue to find expression in support for the patient efforts of international diplomacy to resolve conflicts and promote progress.

President Bush, however, would have the final word, as the U.S. Army Chorus chimed in in support of his vision that compassion can be spread at the point of a sword. The decision to perform “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” for a religious leader known as a man of peace, one who has stated that he chose the name “Benedict” in part in emulation of Benedict XV, who campaigned unstintingly for peace during World War I, was odd enough. Set aside Julia Ward Howe’s Unitarianism, which leads to serious theological errors in the verses; set aside even the role that the Battle Hymn played in stoking the fires of fratricide. Focus, instead, on the symbolism at an event in which the President of the United States has justified an unjust war in the name of “compassion.”

And then watch the video of the performance. Observe the arrangement of the song: When the Army Chorus reaches the third verse (”In the beauty of the lilies”), the tempo is slowed, the dynamics soften—all fairly traditional, though exaggerated on this occasion. To what purpose? To heighten the effect when, after the words “As He died to make men holy,” the Army Chorus abruptly picks up the pace and drives home, in staccato beats, each word rising to a higher pitch, the final lines of that verse: “LET. US. DIE. TO. MAKE. MEN. FREE.”

“While God is marching on,” indeed. But the look of bewilderment that had settled on the Holy Father’s face at the beginning of the Battle Hymn changes so abruptly at that moment to a look of pain that one wonders whether he was asking himself just who that god might be. And the fact that Pope Benedict rises as quickly as he can—even before President Bush does—to leave the stage and head into the White House speaks volumes.

On occasion, here and elsewhere, I have described President Bush as a nationalist, and I’m almost always taken to task immediately by those who argue that nationalism simply means the defense of the nation-state. President Bush cannot be a nationalist, they argue, because he has no qualms about the destruction of the American, the shipping of U.S. jobs overseas, the tearing down of what remains of our borders, the demographic transformation of the United States.

While it’s true that many people who are concerned about these issues identify themselves as nationalists, historically nationalism has signified something else: an abstract commitment to a nation that isn’t necessarily concerned with the well-being of a particular people in a particular place (traditionally denoted as patriotism). For a century, American nationalists such as President Bush have been committed to an idea of America that has little or nothing to do with the actual lives of actual Americans (much less the land on which they live), and everything to do with America as a “proposition” or “credal nation,” which can accept all people as part of itself, while spreading what is “essential” to the nation (the proposition or creed) to populations abroad.

In President Bush’s case, even more strongly than in the case of, say, Woodrow Wilson, this abstract nationalism has been bound up with the conviction that he, like President Lincoln, can discern God’s Will. His continued commitment to the war in Iraq is not mere stubbornness; it reflects his sense that “a nation of compassion” does the work of God by “bring[ing] the light of hope to places still mired in the darkness of tyranny and despair.” As he sends men to “die to make men free,” his god is marching on.

Pope Benedict, who came of age under the rule of a man with a similar conviction of his (to borrow a phrase from Mel Bradford) “prophetic, teleological task,” undoubtedly sees parallels between Hitler’s national god and Bush’s.

What he does not see is the Prince of Peace—the true God Who did not die merely to “make men holy” but died and rose again to offer men the true freedom that comes from taking up their cross and following Him.

Comments

There Are 110 Responses So Far. »

1 Comment by MJK on 2 May 2008:

Scott, excellent post! As always, I appreciate your ability to make proper and necessary distinctions — an artfulness that most either ignore or take for granted, but which is sorely underdeveloped today.

I didn’t watch the ceremony that carefully. Is it available in cyberspace? In any event, I particularly enjoyed the last couple of paragraphs, putting a cherry on top to your point about Lincoln and the “hermeneutic” of misinterpretation. Regards, Michael
2 Comment by Kirt Higdon on 2 May 2008:

I seem to recall hearing a report that the Battle Hymn of the Republic was Pope Benedict’s choice and I was surprised and sceptical that he would select such a blood-thirsty hymn. I guess this report was just more war party disinformation.
3 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 2 May 2008:

Kirt:

I hadn’t heard that, but the idea that Pope Benedict would have chosen the music that would be played at the ceremony is laughable, even setting aside the particulars of that music. Does anyone seriously think that the Holy Father has nothing better to do?
4 Comment by Bob Sale on 2 May 2008:

I didn’t see the ceremony but heard Rush Limbaugh going off on it (calling the song, “God’s music”). I practically drove off the road in a rage when I heard that it was played for Pope Benedict (who surely understands the implications).

But now that Mr. Higdon says that the Pope may have requested the song, my heart sinks and my stomach turns. Please let it not be so.
5 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 2 May 2008:

Bob Sale:

No need for your stomach to turn at that thought. Watch this video. That doesn’t show everything that you can piece together from several videos from different angles, but it’s clear enough: Benedict is not happy.

The Battle Hymn sequence starts at about 42 minutes into the video. I’ll try to locate a few other versions (and, with luck, one confined to the Battle Hymn sequence).
6 Comment by Denise on 2 May 2008:

This is interesting and certainly makes sense. The only detail that I find somewhat credulous being the assumption that Dubya has the intellectual subtlety to make a point to the Holy Father through music, and especially through a particular emphasis on certain lyrics through musical dynamics.
Otherwise, great article, Scott! May God grant His Church many years with their earthly shepherd Benedict XVI!
7 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 2 May 2008:

The most I’ve found in googling around are claims that the Battle Hymn would not have been played unless the Pope approved it. There’s certainly some truth to the idea that, if Vatican officials had examined the agenda and objected in advance, the Battle Hymn would not have been played.

To get from that (which depends on several assumptions itself) to the idea that Benedict had “chosen” the Battle Hymn is a pretty big jump. Kirt, do you have any idea where you saw the claim being made?
8 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 2 May 2008:

Speaking of “war party disinformation,” I did find this claim from Fr. Richard John Neuhaus: “During the spirited rendition of the ‘Battle Hymn of the Republic,’ the pope seemed to be singing along with the ‘Glory, glory, alleluia’ part.”

Perhaps Father Neuhaus was there and could see something that I have been unable to find on any video of the event. Or perhaps his “seemed to be singing” is Father Neuhaus making the wish the father of the thought.
9 Comment by Grumpy Old Man on 2 May 2008:

Chronicles is channeling Bob Dylan, of all people:

Oh my name it is nothin’
My age it means less
The country I come from
Is called the Midwest
I’s taught and brought up there
The laws to abide
And the land that I live in
Has God on its side.

It is, of course, a theme that recurs throughout history. Bush is simply replaying it in his especially banal way.

Neither ancient Israel, the Catholics, nor the Orthodox have been immune to the notion that God was their centurion or co-pilot, though I’m told that in the early Church, soldiers who killed, even in a just war, had to do penance.
10 Comment by robert reavis on 2 May 2008:

Scott,
Thank you for this excellent commentary. The point about Father Neuhaus would be comic if it were not so unfortunate and true. The same could be said for so many popular catholic writers of today who twist and contort reality to fit their particular ideology.( depending on which think tank is paying their salary ? ) George Weigel is another obvious example as when he writes about just war and “natural law.” For years our diocesan newspaper carried the arch- heretic, Father Richard McBrien, and later switched to the “more conservative ” voice of George Weigel. Reading these fellows from the ordinary view from the pew, one has to wonder which is worse — the wolf dressed in sheepskin or the wolf dressed in shepherds skin ? Perhaps this is why the Vatican asked for cameras to be present when some from the American episcopate were asking for no cameras; such as the talk to Amerian bishops in the crypt of the National Shrine.
11 Comment by Tom Piatak on 2 May 2008:

An excellent post.
12 Comment by Tom K on 2 May 2008:

An excellent post. A lot of what doesn’t get covered can be drawn out form details like these.

Sometime in the 70’s, my church (and I assume US Catholic churchs generally) changed the lyric to “as he died to make men holy/let us live to make them free.” This bothered me, not because of the substance of the change, but for the fact of changing the meaning of the original so fundamentally.

Even having objected to the change back then, I can’t see reversion to the original (which has happened in the Catholic hymnbook and elsewhere) as progress, especially in the context of our times.

One quibble, though. You write: “In President Bush’s case . . . this abstract nationalism has been bound up with the conviction that he, like President Lincoln, can discern God’s Will.” I believe Lincoln went to great lengths to disclaim that ability, generally limiting himself to speculation on the subject. One might argue that he acted as if he thought he knew God’s will, but that’s another matter.
13 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 2 May 2008:

Tom K:

Mel Bradford points to a shift in Lincoln’s thinking on this matter that coincides with the Union victory at Antietam.

In Lincoln’s “Reply to Emancipation Memorial Presented by Chicago Christians of All Denominations,” Lincoln states that “I hope it will not be irreverent for me to say that if it is probable that God would reveal his will to others, on a point so connected with my duty, it might be supposed he would reveal it directly to me; for, unless I am more deceived in myself than I often am, it is my earnest desire to know the will of Providence in this matter. And if I can learn what it is I will do it!”

This is often interpreted as Lincoln disclaiming that ability; and Bradford himself regards it as Lincoln saying that he did not have it at that point. But the “Reply” was delivered on September 13, 1862—four days before Antietam. As Bradford points out, “members of his cabinet and leaders of the Republican Party in Congress [reported] that he saw in Antietam a direct communication from on high.”

It’s certainly an interesting series of events: Lincoln says on September 13, “it is my earnest desire to know the will of Providence in this matter. And if I can learn what it is I will do it!” On September 17, the Union is (strategically) victorious at Antietam. And, in the wake of Antietam, those close to Lincoln say that he believed that he had found what he was looking for.
14 Comment by TJF on 2 May 2008:

Wonderful piece, Scott.

The language of the Battle Anti-Hymn of the Empire is an indication of a seriously disordered mind. When she says her eyes have seen the glory etc., what Lord is she referring to? A Christian would think immediately of Christ’s second coming, but she means the arrival of the God of Battles to annihilate people she does not like. As for “trampling on the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored,” I have no idea what this can refer to. Grapes are not stored in a vintage. Grapes being picked and afterwards are the vintage. Finally, “in the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea.” The poor dumb unitarian lady seems to have confused Christmas with Easter, and, it goes without saying there is no reference to lilies either in the story of His birth or his Passion or resurrection. And what is this business about a glory in his bosom? This is some kind of neopagan way of saying that Christ, while not a god, was some kind of nice guy, who inspires us with beautiful thoughts about flowers and slaughtering people who speak with a different accent. Wherever may come from and whatever your thoughts about the War between the States or the Christian faith, these lyrics are mind-numbingly stupid and evil.
15 Comment by Bill Wilder on 2 May 2008:

Whatever the “Battle Hymn” might be (product of the furtive mind of one who denies the divine incarnation and hence is a heretic), it most certainly is not a hymn to God. I lament to say that I have heard it in worship and wish my pastors would cut it out of the hymnal.

I cannot believe the Pope would request something which is so theologically false on its face (theological differences between Catholics and others laid aside) and aesthetically unpleasing. It is designed for no purpose other than to raise the bloodlust; stoking Billy Yanks into butchering Johnny Rebs. And all by a woman who father was a pervert, who denied the revealed Christ and who today would undoubtedly be pillar and post with the worst anti-American leftists; all of which makes Dubya’s toe-tapping quite amusing–he of the worst confectionary patriotism imaginable.
16 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 2 May 2008:

Denise writes:

The only detail that I find somewhat credulous being the assumption that Dubya has the intellectual subtlety to make a point to the Holy Father through music, and especially through a particular emphasis on certain lyrics through musical dynamics.

I certainly don’t mean to suggest that President Bush micromanaged the ceremony that closely. It’s more a question of those who did manage it knowing what he wanted. Very few heads of state actually have anything to do with the planning of such ceremonies, yet somehow they generally manage to reflect their personality and ideology.
17 Comment by Kirt Higdon on 2 May 2008:

#7 – Scott, I saw in the course of web surfing, but don’t remember the site. I doubt that it is true, especially in view of your information.
18 Comment by Clyde Wilson on 2 May 2008:

In his second inaugural, Lincoln disclaimed responsibility for the War and blamed it on God.
19 Comment by PcH on 2 May 2008:

I certainly don’t mean to suggest that President Bush micromanaged the ceremony that closely.

No, the help do that. Bush has trouble stumbling though TelePrompTers. No micromanager he.

Besides, the Republicans use “Battle Hymn” for everything; I can’t get the picture of Reagan’s funeral out of my head, of his pall bearers, wearing five different unmatched uniforms and stumbling up and down the Capitol’s steps as the band played the “Hymn” 37 times.

I am not sure why it was 37 times. I assume it has something to with the number of states in existence at some important time. Maybe it is the number of the heavenly angels that have smiled upon all our undertakings. Or maybe our government is made up of a band of bungling fools who cannot even get the ceremony canonizing their latest favorite saint right. (I kept waiting for the lid to fall open while a group of school children rushed forward to grab a piece of his tie or a finger for eBay.)

The “Battle Hymn” is essentially our new National Anthem because its thesis is that the Republicans’ will is God’s and He will kill for them. Bush’s people played it, because they thought the Pope would say, “Oh I see, Bush’s will is actually God’s. Please don’t hurt me.”
20 Comment by Bob Sale on 2 May 2008:

>George Weigel is another obvious example as when he writes about just war and “natural law.”

Mr. Reavis,

I’m in the middle of Weigel’s little book, “Faith, Reason, and the War Against Jihadism” (which is published in small book style of the sort where they expect that you’ll want to place it on the shelf next to actual holy books like the catechism or the Bible itself).

There have been parts so far that have sent up red flags, especially when he delves into history. I am too illiterate to prove that he’s mistaken, but not so illiterate as to not be able to recognize that something seems skewed. I will have to check my back issues of Chronicles to see if the book’s been dealt with.

I’m reading this along side Serge Trifkovic’s much more coherent and robust book, Defeating Jihad.
21 Comment by John Willson on 2 May 2008:

Scott,
This is way beyond good. It connects some dots that most observers don’t even know are there. Thank you.
I know many neocons and Straussians who really think that Howe’s blood-thirsty anthem is the true American Hymn. Could it be, could it?–an administration in-your-face to the Holy Father? Dubya wouldn’t know it, of course.
22 Comment by Bob Sale on 2 May 2008:

>I know many neocons and Straussians who really think that Howe’s blood-thirsty anthem is the true American Hymn.

Indeed.

Bush is also an evangelical and evangelicals have been confusing the American empire with God’s City for a hundred years. And it makes complete sense that the same mixed up (or sinister) bunch who put lines from Dostoevsky into his inaugural address would stick a pagan battle cry in a ceremony welcoming the Pope.
23 Comment by PcH on 2 May 2008:

Bush is also an evangelical and evangelicals have been confusing the American empire with God’s City for a hundred years.

These “evangelicals” aren’t actually evangelicals anymore. Until sometime after WWII, evangelicals were strictly admonished to stay out of politics. Real evangelicals still do that. The ones who say things like “America is God’s city” are Dispensationalists; they believe that America is great only in so much as it obeys the wishes of one certain country whose religion claims Jesus is in hell and whose laws require jail time for attempting to preach the Gospel. A true evangelical, however, believes there is but one people of God and that anyone who does not believe in God’s Son is an enemy of God.
24 Comment by Mark Higdon on 2 May 2008:

When invited to share the dais in DC with the execrable President Bill Clinton and his first (choke) lady, Mother Teresa shamed both for their bloodthirsty pro-death politics by speaking the simple, undiplomatic truth about such politics, and about the policies and practices it begets and encourages. Such an opportunity was there for B16, and he apparently chose to pass on it.
25 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 2 May 2008:

Having read every word of every public text that Benedict delivered during his visit, I cannot be quite as hard on him as Mark Higdon is. He not only delivered a consistent, coherent message to American Catholics (who, admittedly, may not have ears to hear) about the need for renewal in the Church in America, he also spoke truth to power. The direct reference to Washington’s Farewell Address—no, more than a direct reference; the lecture on its meaning–was telling.

Could he have done more? Possibly. Could he have accomplished more by doing so? That, I think, is more debatable.
26 Comment by robert reavis on 2 May 2008:

Bob Sale @ 20
“There have been parts so far that have sent up red flags, especially when he delves into history.”
The only halfway honest review I have read of the book is Stuart Reid’s who was quite kind to the sinner ( too kind in my estimation ) but did condemn the sin. I think it is a good practice to read Weigel and Trifkovic at the same time. Serge knows what the hell he is talking about. When you start trying to convert the ant hill into a garden spot by killing one ant at a time, there will always be thousands more attending the funerals. Better to concentrate on those ants biting you and those uninvited ants inside your own home. Cleaniness is next to ….. when it comes to ants.
27 Comment by pablo H on 2 May 2008:

I agree the lyrics make no sense.

And I applaud the change to “let us *live* to make men free”. After all, in war one doesn’t “die” to make men free, one *Kills* to make men free. As Patton stated no dumb B*** ever won a war by dying for his country, etc. ”

You could, I suppose, change the lyrics to “let us die to *keep* men free”, but Battle Hymn was always about Crusading to impose our beliefs on others, and killing them if they resisted.

The melody however is fantastic.
28 Comment by robert m. peters on 2 May 2008:

In my local church on Veterans’ Day and on Memorial Day, a Southern Baptist Church, “The Battle Hymn of the Republic,” usually entitled “Glory, Glory Hallelujah” in the order of service, is given a full-throated “genuflect” by most in the congregation. Well before the first note thereof is struck, I break a cardinal rule: I rise out of my pew and exit the sanctuary. Long before one gets to its anti-Southern aspects, the hymns blasphemy and heresy appall me. Then, as another poster has mentioned, there is the modern PC version ” ‘live’ to make men free” rather than ” ‘die’ to make men free.” This might well have inserted by neo-cons who love the sacrifice that “others” make in their wars.
29 Comment by robert m. peters on 2 May 2008:

Pablo H @ 27

Your words:

“And I applaud the change to “let us *live* to make men free”. After all, in war one doesn’t “die” to make men free, one *Kills* to make men free. As Patton stated no dumb B*** ever won a war by dying for his country, etc. ”

The words “die to make men free” are necessary for the blasphemous usurpation. Good men, in this case Yankees, must die as a sacrifice for freedom as Christ died as a sacrifice for holiness. Indeed, one must also, kill men to make them free, i.e. kill as many of the enemy as possible, women and children and even slaves included, and in the end they will be free. This warped notion is now playing itself out in Iraq and Afghanistan.
30 Comment by Allen Wilson on 2 May 2008:

The scene in the video linked above by Mr Richert becomes almost surreal when the choir explodes with ‘let us die to make men free’. The effect the scene has is one of stiff, regimented automatons, devoid of all individual personality and all but the most fanatical thought or emotion, almost as if they themselves were about to march forward as one, trampling their victims under for the glory of God. It’s a most unsettling effect.

The members of the choir probably didn’t see it that way, and they probably didn’t realise that they might deliver that kind of effect to viewers, but the effect is there regardless. Imagine the impression it might have had on the Pope as he sat there watching. It’s a small wonder he lost his smile.

The Pope, being a scholar, might already have known of the background story of the song and it’s author, and so might have been aware of it’s inanity and it’s heretical and blasphemous nature. If not, then it makes little difference. He knows it now. It is impossible not to suspect that he has gained a new insight into the true ‘American’ character.

In serenading the supreme Pontiff, the successor of Peter himself, the best they could come up with was this inane, stupid, blasphemous, idiotic, nonsensical, heretical, infidel, evil, butchering bloodlust fest of a ‘hymn’? That was the best they could do? That speaks volumes.

All we need do to understand the true character of the ones in power is to watch this video. Imagine the whole world as one gigantic scene, and this choir standing thousands of feet high, ramrod straight, totally impersonal and mindlessly fanatical, marching in lockstep across continents, trampling innocents they claim to liberate into bloody smudges, while the rest of the world watches in terror……’Glory, Glory, Haleluia!!!!!!’
31 Comment by PcH on 2 May 2008:

Some observations on the video:

Why are they still using the same old, bland arrangement of the Battle Hymn? It isn’t even very good.

I really enjoyed watching the authentic British Redcoats parading around playing Yankee Doodle. No more pretense of Yankeedom having anything to do with America or democracy.

At last the American Army has shed Union blue. They now wear Schutz Staffel black.

I’m no Catholic, but I really wanted to hug that sweet little Bavarian man.

I’m not violent, but I really wanted to clock that scroungy creature with the whiny voice that read a speech before the Pope’s.

Why can’t they hire somebody else besides a junior high school drama teacher to stage-manage an event of this importance? Surely there must be someone from an old English regiment looking for work that could do it better; a sergeant or a private even.

Yes, the Pope did look unhappy during the Battle Hymn. Can’t tell whether it was the cheap music or the bad, self-congratulatory theology. Maybe he was thinking about the company he would have to keep for the following 45 minutes.

Lesson: life is all about connections, if you have them you can become anything, no qualifications necessary. If you don’t have them, you get to moan on a blog.
32 Comment by Sean Scallon on 3 May 2008:

Scott, a very good response to Benedict XVI’s critics who wouldn’t have been satisified unless the Holy Father attacked President Bush II with his bishop’s staff. No Pope, or any foreign dignitary for that matter, is going to inject themselves into an American political dispute so vulgarly.

We do not know what was said behind close doors in private meetings nor what Benedict’s XVI true feelings about the President are. But we do know that the Vatican is againt the war and is heartbroken at what is happening to Iraq’s Christian community and that his public words are very consistent with what he’s said in the past.
33 Comment by Michael Kenny on 3 May 2008:

The interesting point is that the various attempts to hijack the Pope and make him appear to “endorse” this or that American political ideology seem to have utterly failed. The damage limitation on the right and the furor on the left tends to confirm that Benedict came out on top! I have always seen the Catholic religion as the ultimate revolutionary ideology and the more Benedict re-affirms the traditional teachings of the Church the more likely that is to come out. I’ve always been particularly proud of the fact that the founding fathers of what is now the EU were three extremely pious Catholics: Robert Schuman (currently a candidate for beatification!), Alcide de Gasperi and Konrad Adenauer.
34 Comment by Kirt Higdon on 3 May 2008:

#33 Would these “three extremely pious Catholics” be “particularly proud” of what the EU has become?
35 Comment by robert m. peters on 3 May 2008:

Dr. Fleming @ 14

That “glory in his bosom that transfigures you and me….” betrays a New England transcendentalist who commits the heresy that “you and I” are to be transfigured, when it is the Christ alone who is transfigured there on the mount in a conversation with Moses and Elijah. In Mark we see that as soon as the disciples want to build tabernacles to all three – putting Moses and Elijah on a level with Christ – Moses and Elijah disappear and the Voice out of the cloud places the focus on the Christ as His beloved Son and that they were to hear Him.

Ultimately, when “these people” take Christ out of the Trinity, they are preparing the way to become gods themselves, a sin as ancient as that of the Garden. Of course, as gods they can take revenge on whom they will.
36 Comment by robert reavis on 3 May 2008:

Micheal Kenny @33
“I’ve always been particularly proud of the fact that the founding fathers of what is now the EU were three extremely pious Catholics: Robert Schuman (currently a candidate for beatification!), Alcide de Gasperi and Konrad Adenauer. ”

I really didn’t know that. It makes the secular and insular results even more disgusting. This just goes to show you that extemely pious catholics are not what they once were
for Europe. Surely Blessed Robert Schuman’s miracle for beatification was not the creation of the EU.
37 Comment by Ronduck on 3 May 2008:

We are entering a new Dark Age where instead of having illiterate peasants who rely on ceremony and ritual to learn about their religion and government we have semi-literate working-class people who rely on ceremony and ritual to learn about their religion and government.

For many people listening to the Battle Hymn is their religious instruction.

14TJF you quoted the Hymn:

“in the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea.”

That line was written for those who may not read the Bible, although it does fit an imagined image of Christ being born in beauty as the child of God. It is also how we imagine our own children being born, beautiful and surrounded by beauty.

I remember hearing the Battle Hymn at Phoenix First Assembly of God when I was ten years old and it still rings in my ears, the melody really is fantastic.
38 Comment by PcH on 3 May 2008:

I remember when I first heard it in my Baptist elementary school. Like “He’s got the whole world in His hands,” I hated it but didn’t know exactly why. All I knew is that it seemed to be saying that if you didn’t cave in and admit as truth what somebody else wanted you to say, then they were going to kill you. I was sure that wasn’t Christian. I refused to sing it.

On the playground, I learned the real lyrics:

Glory, glory, hallelujah,
Teacher hit me with a ruler;
I bopped her on the bean
With a rotten tangerine,
And she ain’t gonna teach no mo’!
39 Comment by Allen Wilson on 3 May 2008:

For those who mention the beauty of the tune of the ‘hymn’, I believe it was borrowed from an earlier, and real, religious hymn. I’ve never heard it, because sadly the worthless parody of Christian hymnody which is now sung has murdered the earlier, real hymn. I believe it was called ‘Shall We Gather Together Again on Jordan’s Distant Shore’.

That song really needs to be resurrected, especially by Southrons, but also by anyone who wishes to undermine that ridiculous farce, that false ‘hymn’ of that false ‘Americanist’ pseudo-religion.
40 Comment by Allen Wilson on 3 May 2008:

Here is Mark Twain’s ‘updated’ version of the ‘hymn’ which he wrote in protest of American imperialism and the brutal suppression of the Philippines. Somehow it seems even more fitting for today’s America today than it was in 1901. He may as well have backdated it to the war of the 1860’s and ‘reconstruction’:

Mine eyes have seen the orgy of the launching of the Sword;
He is searching out the hoardings where the stranger’s wealth is stored;
He hath loosed his fateful lightnings, and with woe and death has scored;
His lust is marching on.

I have seen him in the watch-fires of a hundred circling camps;
They have builded him an altar in the Eastern dews and damps;
I have read his doomful mission by the dim and flaring lamps—
His night is marching on.

I have read his bandit gospel writ in burnished rows of steel:
“As ye deal with my pretensions, so with you my wrath shall deal;
Let the faithless son of Freedom crush the patriot with his heel;
Lo, Greed is marching on!”

We have legalized the strumpet and are guarding her retreat;*
Greed is seeking out commercial souls before his judgement seat;
O, be swift, ye clods, to answer him! be jubilant my feet!
Our god is marching on!

In a sordid slime harmonious Greed was born in yonder ditch,
With a longing in his bosom—and for others’ goods an itch.
As Christ died to make men holy, let men die to make us rich—
Our god is marching on.
41 Comment by Allen Wilson on 3 May 2008:

I may have been off a little on the tile (Brothers will you meet us on Canaan’s happy shore?) but here are the words to the real hymn:

Say, brothers, will you meet us,
Say, brothers, will you meet us,
Say, brothers, will you meet its,
On Canaan’s happy shore?
By the grace of God we’ll meet you,
By the grace of God we’ll meet you,
By the grace of God we’ll meet you,
Where parting is no more.
42 Comment by Jon W. on 4 May 2008:

robert m. peters @ 35

“Ultimately, when “these people” take Christ out of the Trinity, they are preparing the way to become gods themselves, a sin as ancient as that of the Garden. Of course, as gods they can take revenge on whom they will.”

Could anything be clearer than that? I don’t care if you are Lincoln, reading his 2nd inaugeral, Bush introducing the Pope, or the Pope meeting with the President of the United States, no matter what their claims in public or in private, no matter their opinions about poverty, war or tax abatements, if you take Christ out of the Trinity and prepare the way to become gods themselves, there is little relief from evil’s way in the world.

I’m not Roman Catholic and I’m generally quite leary of “organized” churches who are afraid to mention sin, less their coffers and minister’s retirement disappear, but I would think it best for Popes to stay clear of politicians and lawyers. I would have more respect for the Pope if he came to America to lay straight his authority over rogue American Bishops in his own political world, but what do I know about Church discipline other than to see it’s absence. The money interests of most protestant demoninations keeps them from admonishing the sins of the world and their parishoners just as the Pope keeps his mouth shut about American do-gooders and wayward socialist Bishops who claim to be adherents to their church, it’s the money stupid. Why would he come to talk to a politician, unless they have more in common than either are willing to admit publically. Bush, or any modern day president of the American Empire has far less power to “clean house” in his own party, let alone the nation he claims to lead than the Pope in his, or does he?. And clearly, the three branches of empire who work feverishly to swell federalism while smothering freedom and liberty have long ago dismissed the trinity and that anti-homosexual Jesus dude.

If there had been a lot less sin in the world, the Pope would not be admonished for failing to clean house, the Empire would be a republic, and we would not be engaged with the Islamic wickedness in such a backhanded way.

Who cares about the Battle Hymn of the Republic? It wasn’t sung in a church, it was sung by the military choir in a politicians stately tax payor funded home given as entertainment to a religious figure. If the pope didn’t want to be offended, he should have never attended. What Pope in his right mind would visit any president? Doesn’t he have a flock to tend to? Money to collect?
Bills to pay? Sermons to give? Instead, he creates controversy within his flock by upholding man created laws of sacraments, and then claims they are only given to a select bunch, but then, allow his Bishops to invite reprobate politicians to take sacraments in public for all the world to see in violation of their own rules. Man made laws usurping God’s law, politicians acting above the law and military choirs singing a religiously tinged lyric over a folk tune written by a reprobate women. Go figure.
43 Comment by Allen Wilson on 4 May 2008:

I sympathise with some of John W’s points, but he seems to miss one important point. The Pope lives in a world of sinners and politicians, and must move and deal in that world. This has been true since Christ met Pontius Pilate. That’s why he makes state visits.

I dont really think the Pope would have been personally offended so much as strongly dismayed by what he was seeing and hearing.

Nevertheless, the Catholic church in America needs some real house cleaning, as do most Protestant sects, and this must come first before revival can take place.
44 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 4 May 2008:

Let the faithless son of Freedom crush the patriot with his heel

Twain was perhaps never more serious about anything in his life than in the last decade of his life, when he served as vice president of the American Anti-Imperialist League. This single line sums up perfectly the point I made regarding the nature of Bush’s nationalism.
45 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 4 May 2008:

Jon W.’s comments are classic anti-Catholicism and, hence, hardly worth responding to, but I will say this: Clearly Jon W. did not bother to read any of Benedict’s remarks here in the United States before he sat down to write his rant. Otherwise, he’d know that the Holy Father did, indeed, call the U.S. bishops to account. Nor, for that matter, is Jon W. familiar with Benedict’s theological writings, if he can make the absurd suggestion that Benedict has taken Christ out of the Trinity.
46 Comment by Flavius Claudius Julianus on 4 May 2008:

Actually, I like the Battle Hymn. It has a catchy beat to it. I do think it may have been out of place however…

Smile everyone…It is all just business as usual….
47 Comment by Flavius Claudius Julianus on 4 May 2008:

Oh, and by the way…When the hymn states ‘trampling out the vintage…’ What it means is the grapes given life by the spirit of wrath have been harvested, and turned into wine..To be stored for later use…Along comes the lord to trample over the bottles…subsequently spilling all the wrathful little wine (vintage) over the trodden earth…

Come on….It’s not that hard to understand….Geeez…
48 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 4 May 2008:

Over on his blog, “The Blue Boar,” Sean Dailey, the editor-in-chief of Gilbert Magazine, posted a link to this column. One of the commenters, Steven Paul, makes the following fascinating claim:

It was reported by the alleged visionaries of Medjugorje that the Battle Hymn is a favorite of Our Lady, an odd piece of trivia, don’t you think?

Googling around, I discovered that this is apparently true–the “visionaries” claim to have received this message in May 1988.

As I wrote over at “The Blue Boar”:

The idea that Our Lady would endorse a “hymn” with potted theology (Christ did not “die to make men holy”; He died and rose again to restore man to eternal life) written by a Unitarian and used to justify a war that the Vicar of Christ, Pope Pius IX, regarded as unjust tells us all we need to know (as if we needed to know more) about the veracity of the claims of the “visionaries.”
49 Comment by Ronduck on 4 May 2008:

If the Pope really wants to clean house then he should order the American Bishops to excommunicate Ted Kennedy.
50 Comment by PcH on 4 May 2008:

Flavius Claudius Julianus @ 47

I think you may be missing the point. War is evil. Even the defensive war such as the South waged when it was invaded may be unavoidable and necessary and rightful, yet war is still evil.

The first blasphemy in the song, which I understood intuitively as a little boy, is that “His truth” is coupled with war. God does not force us to chose Him by bayonet.

The Christian, however cannot believe in “His truth” by bayonet, because no such conversion is genuine. The trinitarian God, unlike Howe’s Unitarianism (or Islamic unitarianism), allows free will. God wants us freely to choose Him.

The second blasphemy in the song is that it says that the desires of some mortal men are in fact God’s will. That is, what I want is what God wants. My will is God’s will.

Worse, the song spells out that my will is war.

And worse still, the song says that my war is absolutely like God’s Last Judgment on mankind.

In other words, I am judging you and I am God.

Moral: do as I say or I will kill you.

—–

That said, Dr. Fleming’s comments are also obviously right. Grapes aren’t vintage. One tramples out grape juice. The wine comes later after careful tending.
51 Comment by PcH on 4 May 2008:

Allen Wilson @ 40:

First rate! Thank you!
52 Comment by robert m. peters on 4 May 2008:

As my daddy used to say, “Do not get into a biblical sword drill with the devil, for he knows the Scriptures better than you do.”

The “good” Unitarian lady was probably referring to the following verse from Holy Writ, totally out of context, of course.

“Then another angel came out from the altar, the angel who has power over fire, and he called with a loud voice to him who had the sharp sickle, “Put in your sickle, and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth, for its grapes are ripe.” So the angel swung his sickle on the earth and gathered the vintage of the earth, and threw it into the great wine press of the wrath of God.” (Revelation 14:18-19 RSV)
53 Comment by BadCompany on 4 May 2008:

Scott,

Listen to yourself.

“In President Bush’s case, even more strongly than in the case of, say, Woodrow Wilson, this abstract nationalism has been bound up with the conviction that he, like President Lincoln, can discern God’s Will.”

You are using ambiguous language. If discerning God’s Will means for example having a rudimentary understanding of the 1st commandment – then any regenerate Christian can discern God’s Will to some extent. I can discern that God’s preceptive Will includes “Thou shalt have not other gods before me.”

Not that I necessarily believe that Bush 43 is a regenerate Christian, for if he is, what is he doing in the liberal United Methodist Church?

Did Bush or Lincoln ever claimed to have extraordinary powers for discerning God’s Will above and beyond those of the ordinary Christian? I doubt it. That kind of claim of extraordinary discernment has been openly made percentage wise by a small number of individuals (Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus and various other patriarchs, prophets and apostles) – and also by other more modern era brazen types, Muhammad, Joseph Smith and Pope Benedict XVI and his predecessors, being some of the best examples that come to mind.

Benedict can quote Washington’s Farewell address and Bush can have the Battle Hymn of the Republic played. In the end it is just the Satanic workings of two politicians and heads of state using various symbols including abstract creedal nationalism to promote their own power enhancing agendas.

A church government that ordered, carried out and praised the wars, crusades and massacres against the Albigensians, Hussites and Huguenots shouldn’t be taken seriously when it notes “concern for the greater human family will continue to find expression in support for the patient efforts of international diplomacy to resolve conflicts and promote progress.”

Pope Gregory XIII ordered a Te Deum to be sung as a special thanksgiving (a practice continued for many years after) and had a medal struck with the motto Ugonottorum strages 1572 showing an angel bearing a cross and sword next to slaughtered Huguenot Protestants. I’m not surprised by the resolution of “conflicts” and promotion of “progress” deceptive rhetoric, nor would I be surprised if the pontiff “discerns” 2nd Thessalonians Chapter 2 differently from the way Paul intended it to be discerned.
54 Comment by Allen Wilson on 5 May 2008:

Good catch, Mr Peters, although a quick look at KJV gives : ‘And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast [it] into the great winepress of the wrath of God.’

Was the RSV at least partly based on a pre-1861 version which had ‘vintage’ instead of ‘vine’? If so, we may see the source of the use of that word in the hymn, but wikipedia lists only post-1865 versions as sources for the RSV, along with KJV and Tyndale. The Tyndale version doesn’t use ‘vintage’.

Regardless, ‘vintage’ looks like a clear misuse of words. If such misuses have already gotten into more modern versions of the Bible, then obviously Dr Fleming was right when he said in his most recent thread that we need some way of correcting bad usage.

Finally, here’s a terrifying thought: what if the use of ‘vintage’ in the evil ‘hymn’ influenced scholars to use the word in later American Bible versions?
55 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 5 May 2008:

Finally, here’s a terrifying thought: what if the use of ‘vintage’ in the evil ‘hymn’ influenced scholars to use the word in later American Bible versions?

I was thinking the same thing last night, after reading Mr. Peters’ comment, so I tried to find an earlier version that uses the word vintage. No luck. I’m afraid Mr. Wilson’s suggestion might well be correct.

The 14th chapter of Revelation is terrifying enough when the language hasn’t been hijacked. For instance, verse 20 goes on to say: “And the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs.”

The first verse of the Battle Hymn sets the stage for transferring the Son of Man and the angels at the end of time into time and into the hands of men. I’m not one to throw around Eric Voegelin’s warning about the dangers of “immanentizing the eschaton,” but with the connection to Revelation 14, it’s perfectly clear that that is what Howe is doing.

Even more alarming: Revelation 14 includes two references to the “wine of wrath,” and these are clearly two “vintages,” so to speak. In Rev. 14:8, we have: “And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.”

At first glance, this would seem to be what is trampled, which is bad enough, considering that Rev. 14:9 follows with an explicit reference to the Antichrist (thus seeming to place the enemies of those that the sing the Battle Hymn in the camp of the Antichrist).

But Rev. 14:10-11 discusses another “wine of wrath”: “The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.”

And, reading all of this in context, it would appear that it is this vintage to which the first verse of the Battle Hymn refers, because this leads to Rev. 14:19-20: “And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of God. And the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs.”

In other words, the grapes of wrath are turned into the wine of the wrath of God, and the winepress which effects the transformation is that which is trampled (”trodden”), bathing the earth in blood.
56 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 5 May 2008:

Over at Sean Dailey’s blog, a 25-year-old ex-sailorette has accused me of engaging in ad homen [sic] attacks on the Battle Hymn, because I’ve brought up Julia Ward Howe’s theology. While I did not engage in ad hominem (I discussed the theology implied by the song first, then explained its roots in Howe’s Unitarianism), she does inadvertently point to a problem with most of the longer criticisms I’ve seen of the Battle Hymn.

The ex-sailorette points out that “Truth is truth,” even if the Devil utters it, and, of course, she thinks that the Battle Hymn is true. What we need is a dispassionate examination of the theology of the Battle Hymn, relying on the words themselves. Then, having laid that groundwork, we can discuss how that theology reflect’s Howe’s own theology.

While I don’t expect such efforts to change the mind of my ex-sailorette, whose blog makes it clear that she is a fanatical supporter of the war in Iraq, those efforts might well convince some who regard the best-known attacks on the Battle Hymn as primarily ad hominem.

I think the comments on this piece have made a significant step in the right direction.
57 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 5 May 2008:

BadCompany makes a good point. Instead of writing:

bound up with the conviction that he, like President Lincoln, can discern God’s Will

I should have written:

bound up with the conviction that he, like President Lincoln, can discern God’s Will in a special way.

Unfortunately, she then proceeds to sabotage her own point, by writing:

Did Bush or Lincoln ever claimed to have extraordinary powers for discerning God’s Will above and beyond those of the ordinary Christian? I doubt it.

There’s no reason to doubt it, when the evidence is clear. I’ve already pointed to Lincoln’s statement that, if God were to reveal His Will to anyone, it would be to Lincoln, and Clyde Wilson has pointed out that Lincoln’s Second Inaugural is proof that he had become convinced that God had indeed done so.

As for Bush, how soon we forget! In July 2003, Nabil Shaath, then Palestinian foreign minister, claimed that Bush told those at an Israeli-Palestinian summit that “I am driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, ‘George, go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan,’ and I did. And then God would tell me, ‘George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq.’ And I did.”

While the White House denied the statement, others present at the summit confirmed it.
58 Comment by Flavius Claudius Julianus on 5 May 2008:

To PcH @ 50,

Thank you for your comment. I do not ascribe, however, a moral tone to the battle hymn; I merely state that it has a catchy beat. Which, of course, it does.

Leaving that point behind, vintage is used with poetic license, but it is used correctly. Vintage=stored grape juice (harvested from wrathful grapes) turned to wine. The wine of course shall be used to intoxicate and lower the inhibitions of soldiers and commanders to provide an excuse for moral abandon and reckless destruction.

Man’s natural state is war (fortunately or unfortunately), and is only interrupted by brief periods of peace to rebuild and reload.

Man is an animal…and animals fight…
59 Comment by PcH on 5 May 2008:

Bad Company @ 53:

Just to quibble: I think the current PC narrative of the Albigensian wars is wrong. They (like the wars with Islam) were a rare example of a necessary war, if unfortunate as all wars are. The Albigensians were a violent, non-Christian religion and hardly innocent as some pretend.
60 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 5 May 2008:

PCH (@58):

Indeed. But there are certain Protestants who regard all things opposed by Rome in the centuries leading up to the Reformation as precursors of the Reformation. From BadCompany’s remarks, it appears that she is one of them.
61 Comment by robert m. peters on 5 May 2008:

Mr. Wilson @ 54 and Mr. Richert @ 55

The “Battle Hymn of the Republic” is fraught enough with heresy and blasphemy before we come to the word “vintage.” The point of my post was to demonstrate that our “good” Unitarian lady was most likely referring to the verse in Revelation which I cited. What translation of Scripture a New England Unitarian might have read or referred to is unknown to me. One assumes the King James, but that is, as stated, an assumption.

I will yield to the authority and expertise of Dr. Fleming and others on what the original Greek might say and on wine or wines and the words therewith associated. I do enjoy wine and have come to prefer Franconian wines, particularly the Klingenberger Rotwein; however, a connouisseur thereof I am not.

To the hymn in question, there is no record that the Holy Ghost, the Church or Holy Writ has given the republics which make up these United States, the people thereof, the general government thereof, or the armies or agencies of that general government the role of being the agent of the Almighty in unleashing His wrath or in executing his vengeance on any individual, group or nation.

Christ was transfigured before the select diciples on the mount. There is no transfiguring of “you and me” through some “glory in His bosom.” That’s “figure of speech” is pure New England transcendentalism influenced by a wayward current in German Romanticism.

I have read, but cannot verify, that Mrs. Howe when referring to “the terrible swift sword” claimed to be thinking of John Brown’s sword which he used to murder innocent people in horrible ways. If so, this makes her “hymn” even darker.
62 Comment by PcH on 5 May 2008:

Scott P. Richert @ 59:

The irony about the excessive complaints against Rome is that they actually concede the best arguments to the Rome they criticize. For example, the hyper-critics ignore all early church history, but insist that the whole church (including Eastern Orthodoxy!)was subject to the supreme power of the pope back since before Constantine to the close of the apostolic age. Which if it were true, would be a pretty good precedence for them to “follow the pope” today. But at the time of the Albigensian wars (800 years after Constantine), power was only just beginning to be centrally consolidated, as the Refomers knew it, in Rome.

I look forward to the discussion on the Battle Hymn including (1)specific reasons that justify defending people from war and (2) ways of seeing through the usual propaganda that blame aggressive war on its victims.

For example, the first few Crusades were justified because the Christian Crusaders were defending Christians in Christian countries from being tortured and murdered by Muslim hordes.

And for example on propaganda, Fort Sumter was not the beginning or spark of anything. It was just clumsy propaganda to distract from the North’s invasion of the South, planned far in advance.
63 Comment by Allen Wilson on 5 May 2008:

PcH @ 62: You’re right concerning excessive complaints against Rome, especially concerning the crusades.

Even in the podcast lecture series on the history of the Church which I have been listening to (recorded in class at Covenant seminary), which in all other ways, including the church’s suppression of heretics, seems fair to Catholicism as far as I can tell (though I dont remember enough about the part concerning the Albigensians to state an opinion on it’s treatment of that subject), there was still a negative attitude taken by the lecturer concerning the crusades, and he was even sympathetic to that silly pilgrimage to the middle east that took place during the late 90’s, when those idiots went around apologising to Muslims for the crusades. I would recommend the podcast series most highly, but get your information for the crusades elsewhere. I dont understand why so many today are so critical of the Church militant when the church itself was under direct assault. It was nothing like Howe’s heretical vision of her god marching on.

It is said that the heretic ‘hymn’ came to Howe in a dream and then she wrote it down right after she awoke. If this wasn’t a lie she or someone else came up with just to make the song seem divinely inspired, then perhaps the nonsensical use of ‘vintage’ can be traced to it’s dream state origins. Even if that’s true, however, certainly the song must have been rewritten or edited to some degree after she initially wrote it down, so there is still no reason for ‘vintage’ to be used so nonsensically.

My favourite part of Twain’s version is, ‘As ye deal with my pretensions, so with you my wrath shall deal’. We could go on for months discussing that one sentence.
64 Comment by Clyde Wilson on 5 May 2008:

I have been waiting for somebody else to point this out. The music to the BHR was stolen from a Southern camp meeting song, “Oh, Brother, will we meet on Canaan’s distant shore?…”
I have always thought that anyone who appropriates meaning from Revelation is self-evidently up to no good.
65 Comment by Lee on 5 May 2008:

Flavius Claudius Julianus: War is not man’s natural state, commonplace though it may be, and the state never seems to run out of stooges.

Here is the US army’s understanding: (My percentages are from memory so may be slightly off) In WWI fewer than 10% of frontline GIs actually fired their rifle at an enemy soldier; in WWII it was less than 25%; in the Vietnam war it was less than 40%; but in Iraq II, the selection and training has been so successful that that percentage is 100. This doesn’t come cheap as the US military is shooting something going on 6,000,000 rounds per enemy combatant killed. The majority of soldiers killed in WWI, WWII, and Korea were killed with artillery. I suspect that automatic fire and bombs from gunships and planes has overtaken artillery. Wait till our police learn push button enforcement administered by kids watching the TV output from city-patrolling drones.
66 Comment by M.A. Roberts on 5 May 2008:

Great post. I have noticed that many pro-war Catholics I know (and pro-war Protestants for that matter) seem to confuse just-war theory (both ius in bellum and ius in bello) with pacifism, which allows them conveniently to dismiss Papal disapproval of the war along the lines, “Well, he’s unrealistically against all war, so of course he’ll be against this one.” It this observation unique to my experiences, or have others noticed it as well?
67 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 5 May 2008:

Matthew, I’ve had similar experiences. What makes this inexcusable is that just-war theory is not particularly hard to understand.

On the other hand, there is a certain grain of truth in the remark that you quoted, at least as it applies to Pope John Paul II. While he certainly did not dismiss just-war theory, he tended not to frame his discussions of war in those terms, and that often gave the impression that he was somewhat closer to pacifism.

The same is not true of Benedict, either as pontiff or as cardinal, and those who dismiss his objections out of hand are really dismissing two millennia of Church doctrine on just war.
68 Comment by Flavius Claudius Julianus on 5 May 2008:

Lee @ 65

Thank you for your comment. I will not quibble with your statistics; after all, I do not have any of my own so I must take your word for it. Your numbers sound close to the mark. However, I am not certain as to the implication you try to project. From the beginnings of recorded history, man has been fighting man. My statement, mentioned previously, is not really questionable; man’s natural state is to be at war. The evidence is irrefutable. Just pick up a history book–your choice as to which one–it won’t matter.

Thank you.
69 Comment by Edward on 5 May 2008:

Cannot war ever be glorious, though? Tolkien and Lewis certainly thought so. Putting the War in Iraq aside, isn’t it a Christian’s duty to do battle on behalf of what he loves when the time calls for it?

“Among the signs of hope we should also count the spread, at many levels of public opinion, of a new sensitivity ever more opposed to war as an instrument for the resolution of conflicts between peoples, and increasingly oriented to finding effective but ‘non-violent’ means to counter the armed aggressor.” -Pope John Paul II Evangelium Vitae 1995

When I look at this quote I am reminded of the modern world’s cowardice and inability to defend what they love: their homes, their women and children, their way of life, and their Faith.

When I am at college I always see signs in protest of the Iraq War (usually by the International Socialists) but I never see any other positions that are also shared by Chronicles or even the Church being supported by these same liberals. I can tell you, anecdotally, why there are Catholics who agree with this particular war even though I am not saying that I still do. It is because when you look at these faithless infidels who support abortion, “gay marriage”, state socialism, atheism, and modern liberalism in general you tend to violently react against the totality of it. I did when I was 15 (5 yrs ago). I decided to reject everything they stood for, and when they were calling the president a Nazi and saying we went into Iraq for oil or to kill innocent people etc. I saw the same people saying similar things about the Church’s history. They also said opposing “gay-marriage” meant you hated gays and opposing abortion meant you hated women etc. (you know how it goes). I decided that they were wrong about everything.
70 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 5 May 2008:

Edward, as you seem to know now, the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. Nor is anyone likely to be wrong all the time.

We need to be careful about judging that something is right because all the wrong people oppose it. We at Chronicles oppose the war in Iraq for very different reasons from those international socialists that you mention. And yes, it is a Christian’s duty to do battle on behalf of what he loves when the time calls for it.

But what is that time? Well, in fact, just-war theory tells us what it is: It’s when that which we love needs to be defended against an aggressor.

The statement from John Paul II that you quote is one of those that I had in mind when I noted that he tended not to frame his discussions of war in terms of just-war theory. On the other hand, I’m not sure why it reminds you of cowardice, since the Holy Father assumes the need for “effective . . . means to counter the armed aggressor.” That Christians should prefer “non-violent” means, if they are effective, to violent ones seems a truism.
71 Comment by Edward on 5 May 2008:

Agreed. Thank you for you response and I think you are exactly right. Speaking of the Pope’s words, what I meant was that I thought he was ‘reading the signs wrong,’ so to speak. The modern world’s aversion to war does not spring from love or peace but from a refusal to acknowledge that something exists which is indeed worth going to war for (The Crusades come to mind. Most liberals think that the very reason for going to those wars was superstitious and ridiculously unjust.) I can understand why the Pope might find this hopeful, though, as he was a child of Poland and was directly affected by war. Maybe I am just wary of pseudo-pacifist language because it reminds me so much of leftists. But your point about the means being ‘effective’ is well-taken.
72 Comment by Mike Ezzo on 5 May 2008:

The unitarian nature of the lyrics to such a
chest-pounding nationalist song makes
sense in a way, since they have to try to appeal to everyone.
They express no particular sentiment of any particular people, in the way that the
South has her (enviously much better) song about wishing one
was in Dixie.

Edward, I sympathize with you.
But hang in there; sometimes these fine points
find us on the temporary side of unsavory
company. Of course they hate our religion as much as they
hate conservative politics.
Don’t throw the baby (the truth that the war is absolutely
unjust) out with the bathwater (the sick liberal creed).
This is one example of why the Catholic Church,
very rightly, does not promote any one political system.

Mr. Roberts you are not alone. I see it all the time.
Since politics is a spectator
sport, it’s all related to whose side you’re on. If Bill Clinton had started
the war, they’d be on our side, calling anyone who supported it a tax-and-spend bloodthirsty
warmonger.
73 Comment by Jeff Anderson on 6 May 2008:

Eyes which have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord (that glory being almost exclusively tied to the notion of wrath and destruction) are remarkably more prescient than most. The esoteric nature of the religious experience found in the terrible Battle Hymn is ridiculous…no redemption from a true man dying on a true cross, no mediating notion of sacrament or Scripture, vague (at best) references to decontextualized passages…the song is a train wreck. The movement it bespoke was not any better.

Christ does judge, and He will bring God’s final justice to this world – but it won’t be connected to any republic. If I’m not mistaken, He also covers our sins with His blood and carries the title “Prince of Peace.”

Awesome song, Mr. President. Walk over the graves of all your enemies all the way to Kennebunkport.
74 Comment by Kirt Higdon on 6 May 2008:

The statement that war is man’s natural state is generally used by war mongers to save themselves the trouble of justifying any particular war. It’s pretty much the equivalent of saying that theft or adultery or sodomy are man’s natural state. These things, after all, occur in history even more frequently than war does. Any morality that goes beyond might makes right has to distinguish between man’s nature as God created it and the flaws in that nature due to the original sin.

Another diabolic rejoinder I frequently hear is “war is hell” in response to any account of atrocities done in the course of war by US or allied forces. Of course, the same people who make this rejoinder will wax supremely indignant at any atrocity, even hypothetical, commited by designated enemies and even call for their “obliteration” – note would be warrior queen Hillary’s comments with respect to Iran. Thank you, Mr. Julianus, for your introduction to neo-con morality.
75 Comment by Tom K on 7 May 2008:

#13: Thanks, that’s interesting, but ambiguous at best (as you acknowledge). Especially in light of the Second Inaugural . . .

#18: I don’t see how you can read the Second Inaugural as claiming to know God’s will:

“Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. . . . The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes.”

* * *

“If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said ‘the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.’”

“If we suppose” is not normally the language of certainty, is it? “His own purposes”, being unknown to us, can only be speculated about — is this not what is being said?
76 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 7 May 2008:

#13: Thanks, that’s interesting, but ambiguous at best (as you acknowledge).

No, what I wrote was that it was ambiguous on September 13, 1862, because Lincoln says that he has been looking but hasn’t received a sign. Post-Antietam (September 17, 1862), it’s no longer ambiguous: “members of his cabinet and leaders of the Republican Party in Congress [reported] that he saw in Antietam a direct communication from on high.”

“If we suppose” is not normally the language of certainty, is it? “His own purposes”, being unknown to us, can only be speculated about — is this not what is being said?

No, that’s not what’s being said at all. Lincoln is assuming both that slavery must now end, and that God has willed that it end by bloodshed; the only thing that he questions is how long it will take. Yet, however long it takes, “the judgments of the Lord”–being enforced by the war–”are true and righteous altogether.”

By the way, even the most fervent supporter of Mr. Lincoln’s war would, I should think, be sickened by this: “until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword.” Long before the Second Inaugural, infinitely more blood had been spilled by the sword in the Civil War than was spilled by the lash in “the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil.”
77 Comment by Tom K on 7 May 2008:

Scott, it is reasonable to suppose that Lincoln believed what you are saying, but it is not reasonable to argue that the Second Inagural says it.

It says: “If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, . . ..” By the plain meaning of the words, that is supposition — not as to timing — but as to the Divine purpose, on the very point at issue.

It is sickening to me, to imagine that God would require the horrors of the Civil War. I do not see the Divine hand in such things — only the hand of fallen man, whose misdeeds God sees fit to tolerate. But the American Protestant tradition, in particular, had already by Lincoln’s time a significant strain that saw direct Divine intervention as the explanation for events.

As he was peaking to an audience where many held such views — both in the North and, critically by the time of the Second Inagural, in the South — Lincoln’s decision to expand his speculation about Divine intent to the possibility of Divine retribution does not seem surprising. It spoke to a question that must have been very much on people’s minds — why is this happening to us?

I don’t believe that even (most of) Lincoln’s critics would argue that his internal answer to this was “because I have chosen to force war upon the South to destroy the traditional Republic.” I think it likely that he himself wondered at the dramatic course of events, and actually considered the possibility of God’s judgment working out as expressed in the Second Inaugural. But, still, to consider it is not to claim to know God’s will.
78 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 7 May 2008:

Tom K, what you’re missing is the rhetorical technique at work here. Go back and look at the full passage that you quoted in #75. Yes, Lincoln starts out with the language of supposition in that first long sentence. Then we get the transitional sentence: “Fondly do we hope, etc.”

But then, the very next sentence takes as a given that which was merely supposed in the first sentence. Lincoln is no longer suggesting that the war might have been God’s will; he’s now assuming that it is, and asking only how long it might last. It is, in fact, in asking how long it might last that he makes it clear that he believes he knows the meaning of the war: That’s where the blood of the lash and the sword come into play.

It’s a common rhetorical technique: Begin by saying, “Let us suppose,” then put forth a supposition that isn’t accepted by all. Then build the argument upon that supposition. At the end, don’t come back and point out that this is, of course, all based on the disputable supposition, and, therefore, if the supposition is wrong, the argument falls.

Indeed, the effect of this technique is to convince people that the argument (initially based on the supposition) somehow itself justifies the supposition. Whatever else one might say about Lincoln, he was a skilled orator.
79 Comment by Flavius Claudius Julianus on 7 May 2008:

Kirt Higdon @ 74

Seeing man as he is, however great my lamentations for said observation, does not make me a neo-con. Mr. Higdon, I long for the day humanity evolves into a more rational creature, when violence gives way to discourse and intellectually resolved disagreements …But I shan’t hold my breath.

Additionally, name calling does not prove a point.

Thank you.
80 Comment by PcH on 7 May 2008:

But the American Protestant tradition, in particular, had already by Lincoln’s time a significant strain that saw direct Divine intervention as the explanation for events.

God does and always has intervened in his creation. What I object to is Lincoln’s blaming the victim. This is now very common. People commonly worship status and if you don’t have that, then you are responsible. In other words, they are denying God’s will. Lincoln was denying God’s will, because he is saying the South got what it deserved.

Lincoln is denying the possibility of innocent suffering. But if we went back and read the book of Job, we could conclude that:
(1) God does what he needs to do for the greatest good in ways we cannot possibly understand;
(2) We cannot explain everything, and if we try, we are really imposing our will upon the world;
(3) The South, like Job, remained true to God through the greatest hardships, while the North, particularly the Puritans, lost their faith while acquiring fabulous wealth;
(4) We must stay true to God whether we our suffering is divine chastisement, or to our strengthening, or a chance for God to reveal his comfort and grace;
(5) The Bible is clear that all evil-doers, even those carrying out divine chastisement, are guilty of sin and will judgement.

Thus even if the war were somehow divine chastisement as Lincoln insists, he is nonetheless guilty of great sin – like the king of Assyria who stole away the kingdom of Israel and the king of Babylon who stole away Judah.

So the bottom line is that if Howe in her Battle Hymn were somehow right that her beloved war were divine wrath, she is admitting to her region’s own bloodguilt.

And hasn’t the Yankee ethnicity been almost entirely replaced by Irishmen, Italians, and the Third World in their own region? Doesn’t the South still stand? Could this not be God’s will, His judgement on the sinners of that catastrophe that replaced our own constitutional age of judges with the unconstituted and unlawful rule of kings?
81 Comment by Kirt Higdon on 7 May 2008:

#79 – I didn’t call you a neo-con, Mr. Julianus, I stated that you had provided us with an introduction to neo-con morality. Also, you do not see man as he is. Man does not await a process of evolution to become a more rational creature. Man was created rational and devolved due to his own freely chosen sin, beginning with the first man and woman. But in cooperation with God’s grace as earned by the redemptive merits of Christ, man is already capable of behaving rationally and without violence toward other men. Although ruthless rulers attempt to condition their subjects for violence as mentioned in #65, the majority of men enjoy peaceful relations with their fellows the overwhelming majority of the time. The habitually peaceful are acting in accord with human nature as God created it; the habitually violent are often referred to as sociopaths. Do you consider this to be name-calling?
82 Comment by Clyde Wilson on 8 May 2008:

Abe explained the war thus: “And the war came.” An abstraction (like Sherman’s “War is hell”) which relieves him of his responsibility for the bloodshed. Abe then goes on to suggest that the war was punishment for slavery, something that had nothing to do with his acts and motives in inaugurating the war.
He was not talking about “blood drawn by the lash” in 1861 but is making a retrospective justification for the horrendous slaughter and revolution he had brought on, making himself the helpless victim of Divine will. In order to fully understand what is wrong with this, you need to study the contemporary Southern orthodox Christian comment on the war, which accepted responsibility for their actions and saw the outcome as a manifestation of God’s purpose beyond the comprehension of men. If you can’t see the origins of Amnericans’ penchant foir self-righteous agression in Abe’s rhetoric, then you are in the thrall of that very same self-righteousness.
83 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 8 May 2008:

making a retrospective justification for the horrendous slaughter and revolution he had brought on, making himself the helpless victim of Divine will.

That’s a very good point, Clyde. And it brings up something that I’ve never quite settled in my own mind. Much of Bradford’s critique of Lincoln takes Lincoln (and the testimony of those close to Lincoln) at his word. In other words, when Lincoln indicates that he has come to know God’s will, Bradford seems to accept that Lincoln actually believes this.

But as you point out, it could all be a retrospective justification. Lincoln might no more believe that he is an instrument of God’s will after Antietam than before; he might simply recognize that certain events allow him to make that claim.

Which do you think it is?
84 Comment by Clyde Wilson on 8 May 2008:

Nobody can know for sure what was in his heart, but I think he felt it sincerely, though conveniently, as self-justifi9cation. His Biblical rhetoric before that point was entirely calculated, I think.
85 Comment by Flavius Claudius Julianus on 8 May 2008:

Mr. Kirt Higdon @ 81

Once again, Thank you for your post. Yes, your implication is clear; by refering to my statement as neo-conesque, you are calling me a neo-con–which is of course incorrect.

Putting that aside, I imagine all there is left to be said is–Christ is risen! Truly he is risen!
86 Comment by Tom K on 8 May 2008:

If Lincoln is to be taken at his word, then the Second Inagural cannot be cited as evidence that he claimed to know God’s will, as it is overtly speculative on the subject. As I said earlier, it becomes a different argument if one says that, despite the literal meaning of his words, Lincoln’s actions suggest that he believed he knew God’s will.
87 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 8 May 2008:

Tom K (@86):

Yes, you said that. Then I went through and explained what Lincoln was doing, on the basis of his words and rhetorical technique.

Then, rather than respond to the argument I made, you simply said it again.
88 Comment by Tom K on 8 May 2008:

#78: I missed this until after I had posted 86 above. I reread the inaugural with your comments in mind, and cannot agree that there is a clear transition from speculation to certainty as to the war being God’s will. The phrase “if God wills that it continue until . . .” could, I suppose, assume that the war is God’s will, and that the subject of speculation has shifted to how long God intends to continue it. But without a clear statement of that assumption, the continued use of “if” to signal uncertainty seems more fairly read as signalling continued uncertainty at the broader level as well.
89 Comment by Tom K on 8 May 2008:

Scott: I also wrote my 38 without seeing your 37, and thought my answer would excuse my earlier omission. As your post intervened, I do formally apologize for having overlooked your response, which was substantive and deserving of response not only as a matter of good manners, but on its merits.
90 Comment by Tom K on 8 May 2008:

Terrible left margins on my screen — that should have been “88″ and “87″ in my last post, and I don’t want to sow confusion by leaving that uncorrected. I will stop cluttering the board until I’m confident I can read what I think I’m reading.
91 Comment by Clyde Wilson on 8 May 2008:

That Abe was offering such speculations in explanation of his role in history speaks for itself. The style may be speculative but the intent is clear.
92 Comment by Guadalupe Guard on 8 May 2008:

I just watched the video and all I can say is that many of you, including Mr. Richert, suffer from popalotry. His Holiness applauded the battle Hymn of the Empire and cordially walked away with the Bushwacker. While I don’t ascribe bad intent to His Holiness, he nonetheless was used by the neo-con propaganda machine to advance its agenda. The post is another example of the neophyte, still wet behind the ears, Catholics who edit and write at Chronicles.
93 Comment by Allen Wilson on 8 May 2008:

The intent looks pretty clear to me. It’s nothing but demagoguery, much like what Bush often says, if not always in content, then certainly in character. The big difference is that Lincoln was a lot more articulate and could be expected to at least put words together coherently, while Bush often can not.

It’s amazing that people so often forget that Lincoln was a lawyer. Why does this not inform their understanding of what he said and wrote?
94 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 8 May 2008:

Guadalupe Guard, I’ve been accused of a lot of things in my life, but this is the first time I’ve been accused of “popalotry” (sic). Yes, the Holy Father applauded–in a perfunctory way–after the Battle Hymn was finished. Yes, he “cordially walked away” with his host.

Tell me, what would you have had him do? He stood on the White House lawn and quoted George Washington’s Farewell Address to President Bush. He made it clear that the United States should be guided by virtue–and, in saying so, implied that the country has fallen short. He explicitly tied the discussion of virtue to foreign policy. And he refused to attend a White House dinner in his honor.

As for “the neophyte, still wet behind the ears, Catholics who edit and write at Chronicles,” this “neophyte” was baptized in May 1968, shortly after he was born. I do not claim to know all that there is to know about my Faith, but perhaps you might be so kind as to instruct me.
95 Comment by Guadalupe Guard on 9 May 2008:

Your first characterization: “And the fact that Pope Benedict rises as quickly as he can—even before President Bush does—to leave the stage and head into the White House speaks volumes.”

Your revised, more accurate characterization: “Yes, the Holy Father applauded–in a perfunctory way–after the Battle Hymn was finished. Yes, he “cordially walked away” with his host.”

Unfortunately, His Holinesses’ acquiescence to the militaristic honors, which resulted to his being used by Bush and his neo-con handlers to prop up the popularity of the regime and imply papal support. Unfortunately, HH enjoyment of the reception, including his applause of the Battle Hymn, is what speaks volumes, though, I am sure, not volumes His Holiness would choose to write on his own accord.

I doubt HH has really studied the lyrics of the Battle Hymn and was probably trying to catch the words, something difficult in any case for an octogenarian and non-native English speaker. Finally, it is not customary for the Pope to dine with others, much less dine at a banquet, hence it cannot be construed as a slight.

Alright Mr. Richert, unlike others at Chronicles who did not see the biased slant of your post, you cannot use neophytism as an excuse.
96 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 9 May 2008:

Your revised, more accurate characterization

I did not “revise” anything. I made a second statement that does not contradict the first.

Finally, it is not customary for the Pope to dine with others, much less dine at a banquet, hence it cannot be construed as a slight.

Did you pay any attention to Pope Benedict’s schedule when he was in the United States? On every other night (and at a number of lunches), he dined with others.

Finally, what exactly is my “biased slant”? Most of those who disagreed with my piece thought that I was biased against President Bush, but your comments about Pope Benedict’s “acquiescence” show that you cannot mean that. Why don’t you enlighten us as to what you mean?
97 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 9 May 2008:

But without a clear statement of that assumption, the continued use of “if” to signal uncertainty seems more fairly read as signalling continued uncertainty at the broader level as well.

I guess the question, then, is this: If Clyde Wilson and Allen Wilson and Mel Bradford and I are wrong about what Lincoln was doing, then what do you think he was doing? In other words, what purpose was served by the speculation?

To look at the text and say, “Well, he did put everything in terms of if and suppose, so clearly he’s not certain” reduces Lincoln’s Second Inaugural to something like a bull session in a college dorm. Lincoln got up to address the people who had reelected him, and he said–what? “I really don’t know what’s going on. Here’s one thought; you folks have any others?”

The fact is, despite the ifs and supposes, Lincoln doesn’t offer any alternative explanations. You can argue, I suppose, that that’s just because the alternative is that the war has no divine meaning, so why mention that, but that’s hardly a satisfying counter-argument.

Lincoln felt it important to mention what he mentioned. To reduce it to mere speculation, I think, actually does a disservice to Lincoln.
98 Comment by Tom K on 9 May 2008:

Well, the question, as I understood it, was not what Lincoln was doing (that is, not why he said what he did), but what he was saying (what his words mean, as a matter of direct textual exegesis). Taken at face value, I don’t think the words reasonably support the assertion that he clamed to know God’s will. I’m not looking to do him a service or a disservice, just to evaluate the words . As to what he was trying to do, it seems clear that he was *suggesting* a Divine purpose — and one that would put the war he had chosen on the side of God’s plan — but that is different than claiming to *know* God’s plan. The Second Inaugural does not contradict his saying (paraphrasing), “rather than claim that God is on our side, I would rather strive to be on God’s side.” One who had so striven (granting him that, for sake of argument, since the question here is the consistency of his phrases, not his sincerity, decency or judgment) could properly and consistenly engage in the speculation of the Second Inaugural, it seems to me.
99 Comment by Clyde Wilson on 9 May 2008:

Note in the Gettysburg Address how absrtactly and remotely Abe deals with the struggle and death and destruction of thousands of his fellow countrymen at that place. He was simply portraying himself as a sad but wise and pious observer of history—making himself the central character, bearing all our sins, but without responsibility for what happened.
100 Comment by Allen Wilson on 9 May 2008:

Tom K: The problem is that we have only two options: either Lincoln believed he was an instrument of God’s will or he didn’t. If he didn’t, then he was a cold, sociopathic monster. If he did, then he was a lunatic madman. The effect is the same: war, death, destruction, and the end result of it all was the dooming of civilisation in America to a long, slow descent into barbarism and eventual collapse, when that didn’t have to happen.

I choose the former option, because his words seem to me to be the mark of a manipulative sociopath.
101 Comment by PcH on 10 May 2008:

I often think that abstraction is the whole problem with “Yankeedom” (can I use that word?), beginning back with the Puritans. It is a way of not facing real consequences, what things really amount to. Dealing with the suffering of humans remotely is visible in the excessively proscriptive moral codes of some colonial New England communities, in the slave-trade, the predatory economic system that was built on that, the fascination with Socialism to trample on the freedom of everybody, and the eagerness for the super-state which must by definition be remote from the people it rules and the consequences to them. I must also agree that Lincoln’s and Bush’s remoteness from responsibility is the mark of a sociopath.
102 Comment by Tom K on 12 May 2008:

#100:

Well, he could have have *believed* that he was on God’s side, without claiming to “know” it. Which is about where his words put him, and I don’t see anything in his actions inconsistent with that positioning.
103 Comment by Allen Wilson on 13 May 2008:

What, in the end result, would be the difference between him ‘believing’ he was on Gods side without claiming to ‘know’ it, and him actually thinking he ‘knew’ it? How would it have made any substantial difference in his actions? Either way, he would have been a deluded madman.

His very intention was to imply, without actually being so brazen as to say it, that we was, in fact, on God’s side. After all, he didn’t want people to think he was a megalomaniac, or religious nutcase, which in fact he was not. You are mincing words here and refusing to see what is right before your eyes, that he was a cold manipulator and demagogue, given to clothing evil deeds with seemingly noble sentiments and ideals, often in pseudo-religious garb. That’s one of the marks of a sociopath.
104 Comment by Tom K on 14 May 2008:

I think that the difference is critical. One ought to behave in a way that one believes to be consistent with the Divine will, if one believes in God. However, one ought not to be too certain of how God would have us deal with our contemporary political issues. (Or so it seems to me.) While I think some revision of the Lincoln hagiographies is in order, particularly to explore the extent to which his goal of preserving the Union could have been advanced without war by a more skillful politician, it overbalances things to cast him as a sociopath. Unless you consider many or most national leaders to be sociopaths (which is a plausible position, but undermines the word’s bite), neither Lincoln’s goal of preserving the federal union he was handed, nor his tactic of resorting to arms to do so, seems so out of the mainstream as to support that charge.
105 Comment by Clyde Wilson on 14 May 2008:

As Mel Bradford pointed out, Lincoln’s rhetoric was in a mode of “speaking for the gods.” He was not merely submitting to God but presuming to speak for Him.
106 Comment by Joseph D'Hippolito on 21 May 2008:

After reading most of the previous responses, I’ve concluded the following:

1. The Catholics who agree with Richert’s piece do not give a damn about defending the innocent, unless those innocent happen to be in one of three “politically correct” categories: the unborn, immigrants or sex cells, which happen to reflect the more esoteric aspects of their “moral theology.”

2. Those same Catholics are not only fundamentally ignorant of the values on which this nation was founded, but they profoundly resent those values because they have a closer connection to Protestantism than Catholicism (though, on close examination, they’re more connected to British Common Law and the ideas of Locke than any Protestant theology).

3. Those same Catholics are so infatuated with esoteric arguments that they refuse to look at the practical consequences of their arguments and their positions. They criticize Lincoln yet fail to realize that Lincoln not only tried to preserve the Union but, in the end, defeated a grotesque moral evil, slavery. Would any of you self-satisfied, self-absorbed Catholics prefer that slavery exist in roughly one-third of this nation?

Moreover, all this talk about JPII and “just war” is nothing but poofery. JPII’s attitude toward Islam was one of fundamental appeasement. He did nothing to help Catholics in communion with Rome who are oppressed by Muslims.

Consider the following passages, first from The New Republic upon JPII’s death:

Muslim leaders are widely reported to be mourning the death of the Pope…In the midst of all these tributes, however, one thing has been lost: When it came to the Middle East, Pope John Paul II largely failed to promote social justice and religious freedom. His political strategy in the region was in many ways the very opposite of his political strategy in Eastern Europe. The Pope took a hard line against communist governments, but in the Middle East, his strategy was too often one of appeasement–not only toward authoritarian regimes but also toward powerful religious-political movements that preach intolerance toward minorities. Partly as a result, the percentage of Christians in the population of many Middle Eastern countries continued its precipitous decline over the past three decades. Ironically, the Muslim Middle East grew more religiously homogenous and less tolerant at the same time as the Christian West was growing more religiously diverse.

It’s impossible to know for sure why so many Islamist leaders and Arab heads of state were so generous in their praise of John Paul this week. But here’s one theory: They liked him because he didn’t hold them to the same standards to which he held Poland’s Wojciech Jaruzelski and the USSR’s Mikhail Gorbachev. They liked him because whereas he successfully fought for religious freedom, equality, and social justice in Eastern Europe, in the Middle East he did not.

Dialogue, not the moral stridency with which he so frequently spoke about other issues, was the Pope’s modus operandi when it came to the Middle East. And so rather than take Arab and Islamist leaders to task for their shared role in creating a climate that was hostile to Arab Christians, the Church too often placed the lion’s share of the blame on Israel. Why have Arab Christians left Palestinian territories? According to the Catholic Near East Welfare Association (”a papal agency for humanitarian and pastoral support”), “The principal reason for the dramatic rise in Christian emigration has been the continuing Israeli military occupation and the denial of the sovereignty of a Palestinian state wherein Christian Arabs could feel at home economically, politically, culturally, and spiritually.” And why have Arab Christians left Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon? Under the section heading, “Christian Emigration from Jordan,” the group writes that “Students of migratory phenomena have pinpointed a series of factors, which have triggered or accelerated” the trend of Christians leaving Jordan and other Arab countries. The first item: The “Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which has continued unabated since 1948.” What you won’t find in any of these reports is the frankness of Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, who retired in late 2003 after serving the Pope as Foreign Minister for 13 years. He told Reuters, “There are too many majority Muslim countries where non-Muslims are second-class citizens”; and he singled out “the extreme case of Saudi Arabia, where freedom of religion is violated absolutely–no Christian churches and a ban on celebrating Mass, even in a private home. Just like Muslims can build their houses of prayer anywhere in the world, the faithful of other religions should be able to do so as well.”

Perhaps the best-known example of the Pope’s appeasement strategy in the Middle East came in 2001, when he met with Syrian president Bashar Assad and top Muslim clerics in Syria. At the time, an Arab journalist reported on the speech Assad gave in the Pope’s presence:
Assad pointed to the atrocities that the Israelis in Palestine are perpetrating and the perpetual aggression that they are carrying out on the Islamic and Christian holy places in an attempt to kill all the principles of the divine religions, with the same mentality by which [they perpetrated] the treachery against Christ, and his torture, and similarly did they attempt to double-cross the prophet Muhammad, peace and blessing be upon him.

The Pope turned the other cheek at Assad’s nod to old-fashioned “Christ-killer” rhetoric, and was subsequently treated to another lecture on the Palestinian cause from Syrian Sheikh Ahmad Kuftaro during his visit to the Umayyad mosque in Damascus. The fact that the Pope was made to listen to the central message of Arab-Islamist populism was Syria’s way of saying, We are in the driver’s seat today–not the Pope. When it came to relations between the Catholic Church and Arab and Islamist leaders during the last 25 years, that too often seemed to be the case.

Now from Italy’s L’Espresso:

But when, on the ruins of the Soviet empire, the United States asserted itself as the sole worldwide superpower, John Paul II became a realist again. He put up direct opposition against the war of 1990-91 conducted by the United States and its allies against Iraq, in spite of the fact that it had UN approval and was intended to restore legitimate sovereignty to an invaded state, Kuwait. Among the “interests” motivating the pope’s opposition, the first was the defense of the Christian minority in Iraq. Another was the rejection of a new world order under an unbounded American hegemony (see John Paul II’s speech to the diplomatic corps on January 12, 1991). Yet another was the proposition of establishing a relationship, not of conflict, but of dialogue between the Church and the Muslim world, analogous to the one established with the Soviet bloc during the years of Ostpolitik.

In effect, during the years that followed, the Holy See would protect its overtures of dialogue with the Muslim world through a general silence on the aggressions coming from that world, even when these struck Christians. It would not hesitate to make occasional alliances – for example, at the UN conference in Cairo in 1994, against the legitimization and encouragement of abortion – with Muslim governments that are clamorously oppressive of fundamental human liberties and rights. In obedience to realism, the papacy would even undergo humiliations: as at the mosque of Damascus in 2001, when John Paul II had to stand by silently while the Syrian president involved him in an intolerable anti-Jewish invective.

In short, I would rather have a President who takes the risk to protect Americans and defend the innocent than a Pope (even an allegedly “great” Pope) who disguises his appeasement of evil and his geopolitical agenda in flowerly language.
107 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 21 May 2008:

Joseph D’Hippolito (@106):

1. The Catholics who agree with Richert’s piece do not give a damn about defending the innocent, unless those innocent happen to be in one of three “politically correct” categories: the unborn, immigrants or sex cells, which happen to reflect the more esoteric aspects of their “moral theology.”

You forgot the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi Christians who have been forced to leave their homes, their homeland, and, if they have remained, have been threatened with death if they did not apostatize–and, in all too many cases, have seen the threat become reality. All, of course, because the United States has been so devoted to “defending the innocent.”

Of course, those who believe that the United States can do no wrong always seem to forget about those Christians.

As for point 2, clearly you’re not familiar with anything I’ve written, including the piece you pretend to respond to.

As for point 3, if you wish to construct a straw man, you might try to create a more convincing one. Seriously–who do you expect to believe that anyone involved in this discussion “fail[s] to realize that Lincoln . . . tried to preserve the Union”? That would seem to be at least one main point of the debate, would it not?
108 Comment by Joseph D'Hippolito on 23 May 2008:

You forgot the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi Christians who have been forced to leave their homes, their homeland, and, if they have remained, have been threatened with death if they did not apostatize–and, in all too many cases, have seen the threat become reality. All, of course, because the United States has been so devoted to “defending the innocent.”

Scott, who is seriously responsible for that situation? The Americans, who are trying to create an ethic in which the rights of religious minorities are protected? Or the Muslims, who intend to enslave everyone they convert and murder those they can’t?

Moreover, where were you when Saddam was putting political prisoners into wood-chopping machines and dropping chemical weapons on people? Do you seriously believe that Kurds, Shiites and political prisoners were the only victims? Are you that naive?

You and your fellow “paleo-cons” don’t give a damn about the Iraqi Christians, except as a convenient foil for your own philosophical agenda. For that matter, neither did Rome under JPII. What did he ever do for them? Did he ever fight for them? When has Holy Mother (Dominatrix) Church ever fought for them since the Crusades?

I’ve noticed that you didn’t reply to my comments about JPII. That’s because they are true.
109 Comment by Joseph D'Hippolito on 23 May 2008:

As far as Points 2 and 3 are concerned, I don’t have to be intimately familiar with everything you have written. In reading between the lines of your post, you demonstrate yourself to be one of those types who ignores overall moral success to pick nits. However Lincoln framed the rhetoric of his second inaugural address, his was a foresighted attempt to attempt to reunify a nation ravaged by civil war. If he had not been assassinated, Reconstruction might have gone differently, since Lincoln might well have been the only man with enough political capital to keep the Radical Republicans in check.

Furthermore, I’m not one of those who believes that the United States can do no wrong; history judges otherwise. OTOH, neither am I one of those who believes that the United States can do no right — unlike you and your ideological fellow traveller, Buchanan.
110 Comment by Joseph D'Hippolito on 23 May 2008:

Finally, your critique of the words “As he died to make men holy” shows blatant ignorance of the fundamental necessity of blood atonement. Throughout Scripture, God has revealed the moral necessity of blood atonement for redemption. Not only do the the Mosaic Law’s regulations concerning ritualistic sacrifice make this clear, but so does much of Scripture before the revelations of Sinai. God’s clothing of Adam and Eve in animal skins before expelling them from Eden shows that one’s sin affects other innocent individuals. Abel’s acceptable sacrifice demonstrated that he knew (unlike Cain) the necessity of blood atonement for even approaching God.

If blood atonement were unnecessary, then no Christian could claim that Christ fulfilled the Mosaic Law’s regulations on that point. The entire Epistle to the Hebrews would be utter nonsense.

You might criticize me as a blatant fundamentalist but whether the passages in question are literal, allegorical, metaphorical or anything else is irrelevant. What is relevant is the message they portray about God’s personality, morals, character and demands for humanity — and humanity’s response to God.

I Love What You Do For Me, Toyota! (34)
- John Seiler: Yes, Mr. Tom Piatak, you were right to bring up what you did and start this debate, even though I...
Greek Diary II (17)
- Robert II: “should I junk my copy of Hamilton’s “mythology”? Jim, Edith Hamilton is an educated person and...
- Jim: I’d be interested in TJF’s opinion of H.D.F. Kitto’s book “The Greeks”. Also,...
- Daria: Thanks, that helps.
Will Obama Play the War Card? (12)
- Edmond: “Will Obama cynically yield to temptation, play the war card and make “conservatives swoon,” in Pipes’...

Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture

About the Author

His God Is Marching On

Comments

There Are 110 Responses So Far. »

Search

Most Comments

Tags

Archives

Advertisements

Recent Comments

Blogroll

News

Webzines