Many years ago when I first became involved with the Catholic Worker movement discussions took place around the country, in churches, schools, colleges and in the media relative to not just the Vietnam War but the larger questions related to opposition to war itself. Everyone weighed in - theologians, commentators, students and so on. Much of this was due to the fact that members of the Catholic community were taking strong stands in opposition to the war in Vietnam. It struck some as contradictory, confusing, unpatriotic and misleading. Catholics as conscientious objectors was not a very common place thing, although there was a history of that position being taken during other conflicts and wars. The Catholic Church after all was not one of the recognized peace churches. No, instead the Catholic Church was best known for the justification of war through the 'just war theory'. But Vietnam was different for other reasons. Atrocities of war were being brought into people's living rooms by TV news reports. People were seeing casualties and the reality of a war far off in an Asian country that many knew little about.
As I said there were many discussions during this time frame about Catholics as pacifists, Catholics as conscientious objectors, as well as the just war theory. In discussions and arguments people would raise examples of Hitler, the holocaust and the ultimate rationalization for violence - "but what would you do if someone raped your sister, your mother, your wife?" Remember, this was a male dominated discussion.
I lay all of this out because we are facing a real moral dilemma in Syria that brings many of these issues to the table. The horrific use of chemical weapons by any party. The killing of well over 100,000 people to date in Syria. The flood of refugees into neighboring countries and their settlement in refugee camps. The whole world is watching as they say as all of these horrors go on. There are very real cries for peace, not war.
At the same time there are those who's calls for restraint are in the simplest terms political and disingenuous. The left and the right both have demagogues in this debate. It seems to me that your position on war and killing shouldn't change based on your political party or who is sitting in the Oval Office.
Dorothy Day lost many of her own supporters during both the Spanish Civil War and World War ll because of her her unwavering pacifist position. She stuck to it in the face of fascism and Hitler's inhumanity. Her Catholicism led her down that road and her Church was not supportive of her position. If you read her writings, you know there were struggles of conscience and positions. But she always returned to the scriptures and found her way.
And yet here we are today debating a military strike on Syria. Here we are witnessing a tyrant, a bully and rebels of questionable standing and the use of chemicals and poisons on innocent civilians including children. Here we are with a President trying to find a way to use military action in an acceptable way while our own citizens are weary of war and still struggling with the loss of life in many families as a result of the last war. Here we are with people struggling in an economy that fed a defense budget but cut supports and services to citizens and infrastructure. If there was ever a time when military action could be justified, this is probably it.
But I'm going to continue my journey with Dorothy Day. The violence on all sides needs to be condemned but shouldn't be used to justify more violence. Reconciliation requires hard work, discussions, negotiations and at times consequences. There continue to be plenty of options for peace and peace talks. There may be economic and other sanctions that will need to be placed on Assad and Syria. Regime change may be part of the international discussion and solution. The bottom line though is that we, all of us, have to keep trying other ways besides violence. And credit should be given where due. Barack Obamba forced us all to take a few deep breaths to think about and talk about what we want to do. When was the last time that happened?
A gadfly upsets the status quo by posing different or novel questions, or just being an irritant. Socrates pointed out that dissent, like the gadfly, was easy to swat, but the cost to society of silencing individuals who were irritating could be very high.