It’s a new American moment -- if we’re lucky
Print Friendly Version| From Where I Stand by Joan Chittister, OSB | December 8, 2006 |
| Vol. 4, No. 28 |
We are living through a very unsettling time in U.S. history. Let no one take pleasure in it -- neither Democrat nor Republican.
Whole alliances are being formed against us around the world and that by countries either historically called friends -- or historically considered too weak to matter.
America, the “leader of the free world,” has been hobbled by its overreaching, its political missionizing, its reckless use of military power.
The country has been denounced in the international arena as a “rogue nation,” and our president chided, embarrassed, in the public forum -- internally as well as internationally.
That is surely sadness beyond sadness.
How could this have happened? This is, after all, America, “the beautiful.” This is an America with a great deal about which to be proud.
This is the country that did not invade Europe, it liberated it. It did not set out to conquer Africa, it emptied it of conquerors. This is a country that did not instigate the destruction of Europe and yet, in the end, it led the rebuilding of an entire continent, even of the countries of the destroyers themselves.
Those things in themselves led the world to have great expectations of us. And rightly so.
But the aura of World War II with its memories of U.S. soldiers stopping German Panzer divisions at the gates of great cities, driving the Wehrmacht out of the forests and the fields of Europe is fast fading. The generation of post-war European leaders who lived in faithful gratitude to the United States for those things has given way now to a new generation of world leaders who were not part of that world and who are committed to their own.
This is a new world where the very notion of putting the United States on trial before an international tribunal is neither unthinkable nor undiscussed. “We will put Vice-President Cheney on trial for war crimes,” the Grand Mufti of Syria said. “He owns more shares in weapons industries than anyone else. He has made millions of martyrs.”
Indeed, the expectations of the world about us have changed drastically.
No doubt about it: This is a sad moment for a great nation.
At the same time, as we are going through a period in which U.S. violence in Iraq has been repeatedly condemned, this is still a country that has emerged from either divisive struggles -- like slavery and women’s rights and Vietnam -- with a great tradition of justice and equality, of mercy and freedom, of checks and balances.
Which is exactly why this sad moment is an equally refreshing moment.
The fact is that we are also watching two other things emerge again, which -- if we achieve them -- however late, however slow they are in coming -- this time can be the rebuilding of this country itself.
First, we are watching the whole American concept of checks and balances begin to assert itself. For the first time in years, the Congress is beginning to function again, independently of the executive branch rather than its loyal accolyte, to voice its own concerns and expectations.
Just as we saw the country accept two hotly contested elections in peace, we are now seeing the ship of state beginning, like the aircraft carrier Intrepid in New York Harbor, to be tugged quietly out of the mud of intransigence and single-sightedness and monaural argument that had entombed it there. The mid-term elections, the “deteriorating” situation in Iraq -- long present, only now fully admitted -- and the work of the congressionally mandated Baker commission on Iraq have reasserted the voice of reason, of reality and of traditional Americanism in the country.
Secondly, this great turn-around in foreign policy is coming out of a genuine bipartisan effort, the likes of which this country has been lacking for years. Instead of “Democrats” and “Republicans” -- blocs and caucuses, candidates and party leaders -- we may be on the verge of having a genuine U.S. Congress again where multiple ways of achieving the same goals get melded in the centripetal forge of an established and time-honored legislative process.
Then, the needs of the country may finally supersede the political posturing of whichever party.
It’s been a long time coming. And, don’t be fooled: it’s not here yet. But at least we have a chance again.
And how did it happen? It happened because voters went to the polls more concerned about the nature of the country and the integrity of the government than they did about their party affiliation.
That should give us all hope. That should give both parties pause. That should give third parties the energy they need to go on doing what third parties do best: nudging the ship of state out of old berths into new waters so that the deepest values, the finest ideals, of “America, the beautiful” can rise to the top again.
And it’s happening not a moment too soon. We have come too close to the edge this time. This has not been a period of distinct differences about how to achieve what we all desire. This has been a period in which the very values of the country have been in flux, in danger, at stake and polarized.
The problem is not simply that time is running out for Iraq. The problem is that, that same time is running out for us, too.
This is surely the time, then, to start at the bottom and ask ourselves all over again what kind of a country we really want to be together. A country of secret prisons and torture chambers? Of imposed “democracy” and invaded nations? Of armed missiles and great spies in the sky?
From where I stand, it might be time to risk assuming once more that justice and equality, mercy and compassion, checks and balances, might be more than enough to make us respected, to make us secure, to make us great again.
| Archives | Signup for Weekly E-mail |
Sr. Joan's grammer is better
Sr. Joan's grammer is better in this posting but her thinking continues to be flawed. The "international arena" denounces us, she says, and she quotes a Syrian source as an authority. Golly! When Syria takes their hands off Lebonan and contributes positively to the peace of the area we may then be able to credit them for their remarks. In commentary after commentary She cannot resist comments like "a country of secret prisons and torture chambers" when all reasonable people realize that this is a wild overstatement and unreasonable. She has always been totally against current national policy but needs to comment with clear reason if she is to plead successfully for her cause. Maybe a focus on praying for our nation seeking wisdom from on high for our leaders should be a more frequent admotion from her pen.
How's her spelling?
How's her spelling? grammar?
Ummm... the correct
Ummm... the correct spellings are "grammar" and "Lebanon" ... and what's an "admotion"? ;0)
Pretty much the whole world knows Bush foreign policy is contrary to every kind of human decency, and even common sense... I don't know how many decades it's going to take for us to even begin to rebuild our image with the rest of the world. And I'm sure Sr. Joan and all other peace-loving Catholics pray every day for our leaders to begin to recieve some enlightenment from on high.
Pat, you cannot be very well
Pat, you cannot be very well informed if you believe we had a fine image to the rest of the world previous to the Bush administration. And exactly why do you care how Syria perceives us. Apparently you, like Chittister, think a terrorist state's view of us is important. From this I can only conclude that you have a high opinion of Syria, perhaps Iran, their ally, the terrorists of Hezbollah, the terrorists and insurgents of Iraq -- that leave you deploring us moreso than those murderous thugs. Yes, I see the common sense you refer to. What was in Iraq before our arrival was peace after all -- wasn't it. Saddam 'peacefully' put many to death. He 'peacefully' rebuked the peace terms by firing daily upon American aircraft that flew over to enforce no-fly zones as permitted by peace terms. You, Pat, are entitled to your perspective, but to present your views as peace-loving are an abomination. What you are using is any means to speak derisively of Bush and America.
And exactly how is our image enhanced by the Democrat proposed cut-and-run? Will not many die? Will we not renege on our word? You express no consideration for these elements that hugely impact our image.
Thanks for your slanderous,
Thanks for your slanderous, raving, hate-filled opinions of me. I in no way said I approve of Syria, Hezbollah, Iran or Iraq under Saddam! You are so incredibly angry that you really are embarrassing yourself.
Saddam was a brutal tyrant -- like many, many other brutal tyrants in the world. But we have no right to invade every country in the world which is headed by a brutal tyrant.
Obviously America has had image problems from Vietnam onward, and for good reason. But by and large, before Bush 43 came along, the rest of the world liked Americans themselves although they didn't necessarily agree with US politics.
I have relatives from Syria who have married into my extended family and they are fine, loving people and good Catholics. I said nothing about the GOVERNMENT of Syria which does indeed sponsor terrorism. I agreed with one religious figure's statement, which I think is a pretty clear statement of reality. I can see people as individuals, not just representatives of their governments, but apparently you cannot.
I have to go to church now. Have a great Christmas season, and the Peace of Christ be with you!
One becomes hated by taking
One becomes hated by taking a stand, and there are many who do not like it when the right thing is done. You still are not accurate in how we were perceived previous to Bush. The so-called 'change' is manufactured by the media and those like yourself for your political fodder. My hate-filled opinions of you? I don't see that I expressed any hate for you. Those like yourself and Chittister do like spreading hatred for Pres. Bush, however.
If you can't perceive what
If you can't perceive what has happened to our world image since we invaded Iraq, there's not much I can tell you. I do read some foreign papers occasionally and our abysmal image is glaringly obvious.
Iraq has become exactly the complete chaos that Bush 41 correctly thought it would become if he had invaded in the first Gulf war. He foresaw exactly the kind of slaughterhouse that Baghdad would become if the coalition troops had gone in and fought hand-to-hand urban warfare in a city of five million people. That's why he didn't invade any further. Whether or not we lose any more troops in this debacle is all Bush's responsibility, not the responsibility of antiwar activists. Wasn't it pretty obvious in 1968 that we were going to lose the Vietnam War? Do you think it was worthwhile to stay there in an attempt to not lose face for seven more years, and then slink out with our tail between our legs anyway, in the meantime losing thousands more American lives?
You might want to take a look at what you've posted over these last few weeks to see where one would get the opinion that you are hate-filled. When you directly accuse American citizens of sympathizing with terrorists and terrorist states, as many Republicans did before this war became almost universally unpopular, that's slanderous and libelous.
It's important what you talk
It's important what you talk about. I do not hear you speaking out against terrorism. But you so willingly participate in speaking out against America and Bush. Your chosen words reveal your heart. You find us worse than terrorism -- I can draw no other conclusion. Likewise those others in the so-called anti-war movement. Shootingstar deplores Iraq, yet turns around and talks about doing something regarding Darfur???? Huh? Invading another sovereignty? If you can't condone one, how can you the other? To suggest the other undermines all underpinnings of deploring the other. If you want to talk about slander -- why do you permit yourself to slander America and Bush each and everyday? You people operate under a double-standard in everything you say and do. And Chittister does all this, too.
You are absolutely right.
You are absolutely right. The words one uses reveals the heart.
Of course I deplore
Of course I deplore terrorism -- there isn't time or space enough here to state all that I care about, or things that are so obvious.
I can't explain my position any more to you. It all hinges on "Thou Shalt Not Kill". You either get that or you don't. We all have vengeance in our souls, it's something we're born with, part of the original sin of violence. But we can rise above that and refuse to return evil for evil.
As far as slander goes -- you're going to hear a lot more "slander" when the whole truth eventually comes out about Bush and this war. I think eventually he'll end up in The Hague for war crimes in Iraq. I think it will take a long time, but it will happen.
Pat, you also clearly
Pat, you also clearly express nothing but hatred for Pres. Bush. Christ taught 'love your enemy', which you don't do. Why 'thou shalt not kill' but not 'love your enemy'?
You pursue your 'justice' for Bush with more expressed vigor than justice for terrorists. The killing by terrorists or insurgents somehow seems exempt from 'thou shalt not kill' in that we can't act against them.
When we had our retreat with
When we had our retreat with John, a lady asked him what she should do with all her anger over Bush and the war in Iraq. John said, "Pray for him". So we did! John led us in a very nice prayer for Bush and our other leaders and I really felt more at peace afterward.
And I do continue to pray for our leaders, as we do in church every single Sunday, because we are lucky enough to have a pastor who deplores all the violence in the Middle East. I never use the word "hate" when referring to any person. That doesn't mean I think Bush is exempt from punishment in this world for what he has done, or that I should refrain from expressing my strong opinions over what I and many others see as the meaningless slaughter of our troops.
I would point out that many
I would point out that many of us do not believe our involvement in Iraq is meaningless. You are entitled to your opinion. I will also point out that the vast majority in Iraq express that their involvement is not meaningless. I will also point out that Saddam engaged in slaughter. There was slaughter during the main engagement of the war and there is slaughter now. There will continue to be because the world is a very messy place. What Bush has done? I believe that is a very misguided focal point of what troubles beset Iraq and the Middle East at large. Out of all, against this backdrop, you think it is important that Bush be punished. Maybe in your mind how Bush responded to leading this portion of the world away from the means of violence it is descended into is wrong or misguided, but for such choices he is not culpable for punishment. I resent that you discover that as a course of action that should be undertaken. There are Presidential policies I have disliked in the past, but I would never think to submit any president to any farcical world court, not even if the punishment were just. The precedent would be wholly objectionable.
"Thou shalt not kill" --
"Thou shalt not kill" -- then fighting WWII was wrong.
We do not belong to the World Court, Pat. Your suggestion that he should is nothing short of anti-Americanism. We are a sovereign nation and vastly superior to anything the UN introduces into this world. And 'you think' based upon what? What you imagine? According to your political bias? Do you really want American political battles settled at The Hague? Then you do not believe in America one iota.
THe single problem I have
THe single problem I have with a completely pacifist view is that it would let evil run wild.
Pacifism, imo, is a great ideal, but is useless in reality. Should people strive toward pacifism? Absolutely. Should we choose to be pacifist when the only other alternative is to let evil spread? No. Can we try non-violent alternatives first before resorting to violence? Beyond a shadow of a doubt, violence in response to violence should only be used as a last resort.
Hermeneutic of Continuity
Pat: I'm confused: are you a
Pat:
I'm confused: are you a hawk then? I thought you were a dove..
Hermeneutic of Continuity
I have wrestled with this
I have wrestled with this question. The best I can come up with is that love is a weapon against evil, but love's victories are not always visible to the world. For me, this is the meaning of the cross. Surely it looks like the ultimate victory of evil, yet we see it as the ultiimate triumph of good.
Agreed, and we simply cannot
Agreed, and we simply cannot let evil be pervasive, all in the name of pacifism.
Hermeneutic of Continuity
I refer you to your writings
I refer you to your writings to discover your hate for Bush and America. It is forthrightly expressed in blame you attribute to us for all world ills. Pat, it doesn't logically follow that we are hated because we do wrong. Those who seek to do evil hate us because we hinder them. There are those, like yourself, that believe there is 'peace' if we do not act. You represent that misguided group well who are at home and abroad, harming our image.
The division anti-war folk like you have caused has damaged the war effort and invigorated the insurgents and terrorists. Yes, those like you deserve blame for that. Our enemies at the outset were dependent upon those like you -- they even stated their strategy.
In reading Sister
In reading Sister Chittister’s column, it seems America has a big item it should put on its "don't do" list…..and that is, its sense of omnipotence. But our leaders and our people are unable to get out of our boxed-in mindset of having everything we want, when we want it, generally ignorant of the condition of the rest of the world.
The rest of the world wants to change and embrace us but struggles to do so, and seems to be telling us that it wants us to start living like the rest of the world, in common with them too.
Maybe we ought to reflect on the things most of the rest of the world can't do and, thus doesn’t do, because they do not have the wealth, or the political freedom, or the guns and ammo. Perhaps, then we should put some of these things on our own individual "don't do" lists as a measure of finding common ground with the rest of the world and not wait for “people in power” to fix this problem.
What would this look like?. Maybe something like this:
*
Much of the world lives on about $1 a day....what if we limited our Christmas shopping to $1 per day this season, or perhaps $1 dollar of gasoline consumed per day, once or twice a week;
*
Much of the world lives in oppression…so, when is the last time you or anyone you know picked up a phone and called one of our political leaders about the situation, say, in Darfur and ask them to help fix it...or wrote a letter to the head of a big energy company asking why they aren't being more leader-like in getting america off its petro-dollar junkie habit...or organize a group of friends to visit an adoration chapel once per week to simply pray to Mother Mary to pray for us;
*
Much of the world is threatened by our military might, but how many times are we asking ourselves or anyone else, for that matter, including those who live around us in our neighborhoods, at the grocer’s checkout, with a co-worker, not to mention “people in power”, this question: Does it really make sense to borrow from China so we can spend $2 billion a week in Iraq so we can maintain our lock on cheap gas paid with petro dollars that we send back to horrible regimes in places like the middle east that use that money to finance terrorists who go to places like Iraq to kill our boys and girls and men and women and the Iraqi innocents...seriously, when is the last time you heard someone ask that question?
Leaving aside the answer for now, what might happen if you, indeed all of us, asked someone this question out loud at least once per day. What REALLY would happen just speaking this question out loud daily? Maybe we can’t find the answer because no one is really asking the question.
The rest of the world seems to want to share in America's ideals (freedom, democracy, the bill of rights, etc.)...but is it possible the rest of the world is asking each one of us individually to share in its humility as well. Lets each journey together to a place where the "people in power" can't seem to lead us.
-end-
Wouldn't suggesting to our
Wouldn't suggesting to our political leaders that Darfur be fixed be advising use of our military that the world fears? You lament 'oppression' but you admonish those that stand up against the oppressors. This piece is sloppy and contradictory from start to finish and distills to 'do what I want' and not what someone else does quite likely from the same motives. In the theoretical nothing goes wrong. Nobody looks at the motives when it does and certainly you haven't in what you condemn.
I forwarded your latest
I forwarded your latest column to a British ex-patriot friend who is a great critic of American policy but a great fan of the American ideal. If his comments, which follow, are true, what a shame it is that your message is obscured by factual inaccuracy. If he is correct, a follow-up comment from you would set the record straight and give the critics of the Good News pause.
Well, it's (your commentary) so full of hyperbole it is difficult to pick examples but here are two.
Us soldiers facing German Panzer tanks at the gates of European cities..... This perpetuates the myth, held by all Americans I have ever met that America won both world wars single handed. A population that doesn't read history books but gets its understanding of the past from Hollywood, Band of Brothers and such like is unlikely to set much store on accuracy. The USA joined both world wars very late and very reluctantly, dagged in by events it could not ignore. You know about Pearl Harbour. For an excellent description of the US entry to WW1 try Margaret Tuchman's book The Zimmerman Telegram. How many battles were fought in either war before US entry and how many afterwards? There is no question that US entry to both conflicts provided the tipping point, though Hitler's suicidal attack on Russia and defeat at Stalingrad was actually what initiated his downfall.
America never conquered Africa but emptied it of conquerers..... What's that all about? As someone born and bred in Africa who has worked in 6 African countries for over 30 years, I am unaware of America's involvement in Africa other than Liberia and, very briefly, the Suez fiasco. What conquerers did the US evict from Africa, when and how? Look, noone would dispute that America has been one of the least territorial of the great powers, though its diplomatic and CIA meddling in countries worldwide has been largely ill-advised and destructive ( South America, Vietnam, Iraq) but this woman is simply inventing history as she goes along.
I have to agree with your
I have to agree with your Brit friend, with one caveat, the Russians would have failed without lend-lease. I've often thought this was brilliant strategy on Roosevelt's part. Russian blood, our tanks.
I also think Sr. Joan's hyperbole points out just how indoctrinated Americans are, if a leading voice for peace can make these kinds of pro American statements based less on facts and more on myth.
Probably indicative of just how far we as a nation have to go to really understand our place in a just world.
Your expatriate friend is, I
Your expatriate friend is, I assume, a Brit now living in the U.S.? He is absolutely right, and I am glad he likes our ideals. It must be only us old-timers who remember our own history, anymore.
Most Americans I know, anyway, have been well-schooled in American History enough to know that, not only did we not win the WW's I and II "singlehanded", (leaving out all the heroic resistance fighters who had to fight these Wars on their own soil and run the risk of losing their nearest and dearest to ememy bombs and the vagaries of enemy troops, rapes, and looting) but we also owe our Independence to the assistance of the French who came to our aid at the Battle of Yorktown during the Revolutionary War (The Marquis de Layfayette among others) and to a couple of other amazing European (Polish) officers who came to the assistance of Washington. We have never forgotten that fact, which is why the Europeans (including the Brits, whom we forgave long ago) have always been our allies.
The Americans shed much blood in France and Germany and landed on the Beaches of Anzio, not to mention that they sweated out the Blitz with your British expat friend's relatives and gave many lives in the Air War over Britain, not to mention the Normandy Landing. But I'll tell you, the rationale was that we were allies, and we were all in that fight for freedom together. (Despite what some revisionist peaceniks will tell you about there being "no need" for that 1940's War---true, perhaps, if "mistakes" had not been made decades before!) I remember; I was alive. Small, but alive.
I do think the War in the Pacific was pretty much an American and Aussie Enterprise.
But anyone who tells you we have ever done it all by ourselves (except with this fiasco pretty much in Iraq, and even then, wonderful brave small forces tried to support the idiotic enterprise in which many valiant people have given their lives.)
I keep evilly wishing that the Iraq Promoters and "Deciders", so privileged and safe, most of whom never fired a shot in combat, were all tied to the fronts of the humvees whenever the troops now had to go out on a sortie. Is that sinful of me? Too bad.
Turnabout is fair play
Turnabout is fair play !
Humans Grow In Virtue Not By Being Forced To Repeat Virtuous Actions But By Freely Choosing Such Actions
Deacon Denny As much as I
Deacon Denny
As much as I enjoy Sr. Joan, I too wondered about the facts, and I wish she had been more explicit. I was very interested in hearing more about the world view she alludes to, of other nations developing alliances against us. That I can well believe to a certain extent, from what I read and experience of other countries. But wish she would have said more, that I might know how deep she believes that this runs, and on what facts she bases this belief.
As to Africa, I do know something of it, and am not aware of what US presence or actions she is talking about.
Yet her overall message, of the sadness at a once-great moral US turning into a fearful, fear-filled bully... I do most certainly agree with this. It's not just Bush 43, or the Republicans; as a people we wanted to punish someone, we wanted those deaths to be avenged, we wanted never again to be vulnerable to madmen. That fear enabled small men to manipulate a people. Many of us still are in the grip of this fear, and buy into its consequences.
I do hope that she is right about the basic goodness of our people and the correcting elements of our system of government. Unfortunately I am a bit more skeptical.
The North Africa Campaign,
The North Africa Campaign, originally under British auspices, finally managed to drive the Axis forces out and proceeded to take Sicily and move into Italy for eventual liberation from the Fascists. Several good movies document the various battles across the Southern Mediterranean Shores. ' Casablanca ' , with Humphrey Bogart highlights the European intrigues in Morocco. ' The Desert Fox ' , showcases the career of Gen. Erwin Rommel who masterminded the German Panzer strategy that was finally defeated by Gen. George Patton who read his book on the subject. Tobruk in Libya is the site of another epic battle of the era remembered on film. There was a popular television series in the 60's called, ' The Rat Patrol ' , that offered a fictionalized account of groups of light attack teams in jeeps similar to the PT boat approach to operations in the Pacific.
Gen. Dwight Eisenhower made a name for himself by successfully assuming responsibility for the defeat of the Axis in North Africa after the British under Montgomery had failed. This played a big part in his eventually being put in charge of the invasion of Europe at Normandy.
World War II ended and the many colonial holdings of the Europeans all over Africa began to collapse and we see the effects to this day.
Humans Grow In Virtue Not By Being Forced To Repeat Virtuous Actions But By Freely Choosing Such Actions
And oh, when we were in
And oh, when we were in Paris the word was out. Though most Brits got along well with the Americans, that Montgomery just could not abide us. It is said (snitches of cocktail conversation I picked up) that he was in a jealous snit most of the time, I always wondered about the reasons behind his rumored ill humour. Now I have more of an idea. Thanks for the additional bit of history, L2L. I knew about Rommel's (The Desert Fox's) Campaigns, (didn't he also plot against Hitler?) but didn't realize it was Ike that had mopped up in North Africa, most of my attention being focused on the South Pacific at the time. Now I have to check that out!
Yes, Rommel was involved in
Yes, Rommel was involved in that incident and his suicide followed closely after its failure. Sir Basil Liddell-Hart has written a Landmark account of the History of WWII. His tome highlights the blunderings on both sides of the conflict and a claim that the victory was more a matter of who screwed up the least. This was just a continuation of the First World War. Barbara Tuchman wrote a similar rendering of WWI in her book , ' The Guns of August ' . These should be required reading at places like Yale. ' All Quiet on the Western Front ' , had a profound effect on my young soul in grade school. The astonishing waste of the battle of the Somme and other trench warfare confrontations cannot be forgotten. Surely you have become familiar with the , ' Devil Dogs ' , of Belleau Wood !
Humans Grow In Virtue Not By Being Forced To Repeat Virtuous Actions But By Freely Choosing Such Actions
Insightful words -- "Who
Insightful words -- "Who screwed up the least". I think that sums up all wars. Yet we talk of the Bush failures and missteps as if any previous war were nearly undertaken adequately. My familiarity with the Revolutionary War, Civil War and with critical events of WWII only confirms to me this Iraqi war is nothing extraordinary and receives undo criticism -- except that corrections need to be made to undertake it better going forward.
Sr. Joan: The world is
Sr. Joan: The world is desperate for real leadeship that will at least give pause to the insane violence in the mid east.
Please considr using your good offices to encourage both Pope Benedict and key Muslim leaders to proclaim a cease-fire on the occasion of the birthday of the Christian Prince of Peace and the Muslim Prophet,Jesus.
Lions 1, Christians 4 --
Lions 1, Christians 4 -- here's hoping that the 'spiritfed' cat sees itself in the mirror and recognizes the signs of anorexic thinking.
Sr Joan, no matter what, keep drawing a bead on the truth, and don't take your eye off of the 'Baker' report. It is beginning to look and sound a lot like a goat, with a longbearded time-table and a generous amount of baaakroom committee maneuvering to allow time to pass while not much gets done. Please don't let them fool us. Keep speaking our mind--and also keep reminding us of the wisdom and heart that we are capable of. Thank you for your generous spirit, and for your discernment.
Chittister at her most
Chittister at her most pathetic -- and the proof is in her first assertion that alliances arise against us. Therefore we are to succomb to the head in the sand approach like our closest friends? Europe. Europe suffers mightily from ongoing struggles against non-assimilated Islamic peoples. Yet these peoples have assimiliated to a far greater degree in America -- not forced to the margins as in Europe. Chittister praises world involvement in the past -- including liberation. Suddenly, because it is difficult and far fewer people die than in that previous age, it is wrong. This logic escapes me. Are we to wait for a graver situation and one in which many, many more will die, another world war? Then we can take on the role of liberator again. Astounding. And Chittister is Idol-ized.
Drs. John & Karen Dwyer Pax
Drs. John & Karen Dwyer
Pax Christi Naples
Spiritfed: if you're not already here, c'mon down. Naples is the perfect place for you. You might, however, consider that this town will be a perfect first target during the season.
A paradise of like-minded folks who think they are never guilty of anything awaits you.
Dear Sister Joan
Dear Sister Joan Chittister,
Thank you for your wonderful writing! I like where you are coming from on most issues. Thank you for being our protest-prophet, pastor, and guide. Thank you for being our ambassador. Thank you for this space, the NCR Café.
Drs. John & Karen Dwyer Pax
Drs. John & Karen Dwyer
Pax Christi Naples
Down here in the mucky bottom of Limbaugh Land such words as these are a life-line thrown to us warriors of peace.
Heaven's face does glow/ O'er this solidity and compound mass/ With heated visage, as against the doom,/ Is thought-sick at [our shattered domain].
Out here in the pews of St. John the Evangelist Church and St. William Church, the parishioners refuse to shake my hand at the kiss of peace on Sundays. One fine old lady bedecked with gold and diamonds said to me, instead of the ritual "May the Peace of Christ be with you," a more honest, "I despise you and all you stand for." Pax Christi Not. May God's grace transform her heart. She has chased two of my family members out of the Church.
St. Anselm wrote nine centuries ago about another holy virgin. His words may seem overpraise for Sister Joan, but for me they fit: "Blessed Lady, sky and stars, earth and rivers, day and night--everything that is subject to the power or use of man--rejoice that through you they are in some sense restored to their lost beauty and are endowed with inexpressible new grace." Sr. Joan you restore life to the corrupted and tainted world where so many have been serving idols.
Thank you. Great to see you in the _Washington Post_. With you, we are Intrepid!
I do not agree with the
I do not agree with the choice of these people in how they interact with you. However, I must also highlight -- how do you interact with them? "Bottom of Limbaugh land"??? These many hate-filled insults delivered to Bush that I read here -- and yes some I believe attributable to you. It is easy to blame others and believe you should suffer no consequences of what you do. Maybe you should look into what respect you show -- or don't toward what others value. You certainly denigrate our nation at every opportunity.
I am so horrified at what
I am so horrified at what has happened to you at church. That was a true abomination for one Christian to say to another in a place of worship, or indeed anywhere. This lady certainly needs some divine intervention if she is that filled with hatred.
In my previous parish my Pax Christi information and petitions against torture were ripped off the wall in the vestibule by the person who was the head of the Social Justice and Peace commission. And I thought THAT was bad! I don't think it would be out of line to have a conversation with the priest to let him know that she is harrassing other parishioners... it's worth a try, I would think.
I am now attending another church where we pray for peace in the Middle East every week, but we're lucky here in the Northeast to have the option of many different churches since there are so many Catholics in this area... Good luck and keep up the good work with Pax Christi Naples!
Sr. Joan --I have been a
Sr. Joan --I have been a reader for a number of years of your writings, and have seen you several times when you have lectured at Trinity Cathedral in Portland, OR. I wish to thank you for what you say, think, and for the way in which you put into words the things that many of us think. I, too, am hopeful that a new Congress will bring about a new way of thinking--"but we're not there yet". I wish that somehow those of us who consider ourselves Christian also could bring about a new way of thinking "but we're not there yet". I wish that there were a sense of unity amongst the nations
but we're not there yet". I just hope in my lifetime that we will finally be able to say "we're there".
Thanks for your leadership, kindness, grace and love. May your Christmas be blessed. Fr. Bud Thurston
Sr. Joan. Reading your
Sr. Joan.
Reading your article, “It’s a new American moment -- if we’re lucky,” I was very disappointed in the fact that you have not reviewed your American History. Many new documents have come to light over the years to prove that it was the US that forced both Germany and Japan to start wars of survival. And the US forced Japan to attack Pearl Harbor (knowing full well it was going to happen and when and could have prevented it).
The US has for most of its history caused certain aggressions to happen and caused the events to be blamed on nations falsely in order to have an excuse to attack those innocent nations
Furthermore, the US CIA has been fostering unrest and military take-overs in nations all over the world since the CIA entity was instituted.
There is nothing of which this nation can be truly, honestly proud when you consider all the people who have had to die over the years just for political and / or war profit reasons.
There is a better summary (far from the only one) of what I have written at:
http://www.michaeljournal.org/pearl.htm / The 9-11 attack: a second Pearl Harbor?
Walter Brewster