My response to his latest essay in First Things (a very good magazine)
I am not overly familiar with George Weigel. Currently, I am reading his biography of JPII, Witness to Hope, which has provided me with a lot of insight into the man behind the vestments.
Like his biography, George rarely focuses on the negatives. I was surprised at the optimism of his paper, although the subject does not convey images of puppies and bunnies. International politics (like domestic politics) is firmly entrenched in my mind for bastards and cut throats. Often they are embodied in the same person too. This paper attempts to identify the problem (what should the Catholic Church's response be to terrorism et al) and offers some possible over riding principles that should guide the Vatican's decision. My article is in response to his, therefore loyal readers, I suggest you read Weigel's article too.
There were two things that really caught my eye in Weigels (now on known as W.) paper. First, he clarified the end of government in Catholic Social teaching. The "tranquillity of order," with governments working for the common good in a decentralized frame. I am in whole-hearted agreement. Perhaps it is my understanding of Canadian regionalism and that different areas do need different solutions, but I fail to see the effectiveness of a central federal government. Undoubtedly nations need a federal government, but i think that large, over-riding beaucracies are dehumanizing. I think challenging the individual and the community where he lives is more effective than passing legislation that costs money and oftentimes infringes on the diginities of indiviuals.
Secondly, he mentions his idea of two kinds of power: "hard" and "soft" power. Hard power tends towards military, economic, and political sanctions, while soft seems to be educational, philosophical, and cultural. JPII has used soft power innumerous times. I suspect that JPII life under the Nazis and Communists has greatly influenced his skepticism in the use of hard power. This understanding between the two different kinds of powers and their relationship, is the thesis of W's essay.
AS the recent Iraqi action has shown us, the Vatican is leaning ever towards the UN. W. brings up an important point that Catholics should be aware of: the UN is not the Church's friend. The UN openly advocates positions that are fundamentally opposed to Church teaching, such as contraception and abortion. While there are many admirable qualities to the UN, we must remember that it does not proclaim (nor provide) the necessary tools for life eternal. The Church is our mother. We must never forget that.
Therefore, the question, particularly regarding Just War doctrine, is whether the UN is a legitimate authority. Personally, I am more willing to follow Rome rather then Geneva, but I do think that the symbol of the UN is important and should be maintained. This is where I think America blundered the most. If we refuse to talk, we refuse to understand and we close ourselves off from whatever the Spirit may be trying to tell us through our fellow human beings.
Finally, Catholics must start to realize that the Church is an international organization. Whatever little pet issues push Westerners buttons, (say, women's ordination) the Church is bigger than my parish or my country. She must accomidate the civilized, the savage, the rich, the poor, the educated, and the ignorant. What I think W wants Catholic, both in the Vatican and otherwheres, is to question why we are thinking the way we do. Like every culture, we have our presumptions, which turn out to be damnably wrong time after time. I pray the Catholics everywhere will show humility towards those who both agree and disagree with us.