Saturday, June 19, 1926. Cadaverum cremationis.

Pope Pius XI promulgated the papal instruction Cadaverum cremationis, affirming the Catholic ban on cremation.  The prohibition would be relaxed by Pope Paul VI on June 5, 1964, but at least with some Catholics, myself included, the practice is looked down upon. Subsequent popes have also written on the practice.

DeFord Bailey became the first African-American to be listed in newspaper radio schedules as a performer on the WSM Barn Dance (The Grand Ole Opry).  He had performed on the show previously.

from the studio of the Nashville radio station WSM. As authors note in a biography of Bailey, "he had probably begun regular appearances before then.

It was a Saturday.

Last edition:

Friday, June 18, 1926. Egyptian troops at Mecca.

Labels: 1920s, 1926, 69th Congress, Egyptian Army, Food, Greece, Hobby and Interest Organizations, Islam, Localism, Mecca, Monarchy, Philately, Russia, trends

Sunday Morning Scene: ‘Common Good’ Conservatism’s Catholic Roots

 

‘Common Good’ Conservatism’s Catholic Roots

Monday, June 14, 1926. The Calles Law.

Mexico_Flag_(Cristeros).png: User:Immaculatederivative work: Jorge Compassio, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Mexico enacted the Calles Law attacking the Catholic Church.  Clergymen were to be punished for various crimes including wearing clerics and criticizing the government.  In a little over a month the Cristero War would break out as a result.

Catholicism was, and is, strong in Mexico, although the Mexican Revolution, which saw the rise of various anti Catholic figures within it, while others remained very loyal to the Church, weakened it. Most historians do not regard the Cristero War as part of the Mexican Revolution, but I'm not most historians and I do.  By the same token, the extent to which the Mexican Revolution was part of a worldwide rise of left wing insurrections is not often appreciated.

Anti Catholic elements in Mexico had existed since at least the mid 19th Century, and interestingly reflected similar movements in Europe, which itself shows the extent to which those revolutions in the country in the mid 19th Century reflected how close Mexico was to Europe in comparison to the United States.  For all his faults, Porfirio Díaz, who came from a devout Catholic family and who had originally intended to be a Priest, seemingly put those stresses behind the country, but they revived during the Mexican Revolution.  Madero was not a practicing Catholic, which in some ways made him an odd leader for the Revolution.  Zapata, while he certainly strayed in regard to sexual morality (he had a least fifteen children, but only two by his wife Josefa "La Generala" Espejo Merino, was Catholic.  Other figures were most definitely not practicing Catholics and some were anti Catholic within Madero's ranks.  In Baja California, American and foreign Wobblies tried to estaliblish an Anarch Socialist state.

Had Madero, who was not a practicing Catholic, but who was egalitarian in nature, survived, Mexico would not have taken the giant left word lurch it did.

Brazil announced its withdrawal from the League of Nations.

Last edition:

Friday, June 11, 1926. First flight of the Ford Tri Motor.

Labels: 1920s, 1926, African National Parks, Aircraft, Blog Mirror, Ford Motor Company, South Africa

Death's Head

 

Imperial German Totenkopf.

This election has been a reminder about being careful about getting tattoos.

Maine Democratic Senatorial candidate Graham Platner, in addition to other skeletons (no pun intended) in his closet, has, or at least had, a large Death's Head tattoo on one of his breasts.  Not one like the one above, but one more or less like this:

Shown here:

Well, I say, had, now its this:

We're informed that's a Celtic knot and a dog.

Well, anyhow, this has caused quite a flap, as the design he had is pretty clearly the same one used by the SS during World War Two.

He says he didn't know that.  Frankly, while people are incredulous about that, he may very well not have known that.

Indeed, one of the things that's interesting about this, as an (amateur) historian is that suddenly everyone is an expert on World War Two German insignia.  I doubt that many people, anymore, were before the last couple of weeks.  Indeed, I can recall Walmart getting in trouble some years ago has had a t-shirt it was selling with some Nazi symbology on it, if I recall correctly SS ruins.

Anyhow, the Totenkopf has an interesting and weird  history.  It's been around for a very long time, and is famously associated with pirates from the 18th Century, who flew various variants of death's head flags, nicknamed the "Jolly Roger", to warn a ship they were approaching that that's what they were.  Death's head on a flag threatened death, and the hope was accordingly that the opponent would give up without a fight.  Because of the pirate association, legitimate navies coopted the symbol and you can still find it in use to some degree in navies.

The crew of the HMS Utmost showing off their Jolly Roger in February 1942.

The Prussians started using it as a military symbol under Frederick the Great, when it was introduced to hussars. That use was distinct enough that one US state militia unit, formed as hussars, was still using it with a distinctly Prussian style uniform at the start of the Civil War.  It also spread to other units in the various German states prior to German unification, and to some other European nations.  One Spanish unit, for example used it.

Field Marshall August von Mackensen in 1914 in his full dress hussars uniform.

Infante Fernando wearing the uniform of Spain's 8th Light Armoured Cavalry Regiment "Lusitania" in 1915

After German unification following the Franco Prussian War the pre unification units that used it continued to, with some German units and even individuals adopting it informally.  After the German defeat in the Great War, some Freikorps units used it and it carried on in use in German cavalry units.

After Hitler's rise to power, the SS co-opted it almost immediately at the time of their formation, but that didn't actually cause the German Army or the Luftwaffe from using it as well.  German panzer troops wore a black uniform with the Totenkopf early on, with the design aat first being identical to the SS in that regard. The SS later changed its design, which Heer panzer units never did.

German panzer soldier, wearing a 1939 black flat cap, with a feldgrau shirt, black tie and black jacket with Totenkopf lapel badge. The first version of the panzer uniform featured a very large black beret.

This actually created some confusion at the time and still does, although the confusion was more of a problem to German troops during the war.  By 1944 the Totenkopf was associated with the SS as was the color black, which actually was not worn by most Waffen SS troops.  Tanker POWs were easily mistaken for members of the SS and risked being shot out of hand to some degree.  By 44, however, black was being phased out for tankers, both in the Heer and SS, in favor of feldgrau.  They retained the Totenkopf, however.

As sort of a rough rule of thumb, every member of the SS wore a uniform with a Totenkopf device, including auxiliary units.  Armored units of the Heer wore it also, as did the one oddball Luftwaffe armored unit.  One Luftwaffe bomber unit used it as a symbol as well.  Black uniforms were worn by tankers of all branches early on, and as regular SS dress uniforms, but not as Waffen SS dress uniforms.

This doesn't get into the concentration camp system uniforms, which I don't know anything about, and which were often staffed by auxiliaries. They all wore the deaths head, however.

One Nazi organization that didn't wear the Totenkopf or a black uniform was the Gestapo.  Movies and television shows constantly show them doing that, but they didn't.  For example, an SS dress uniform is shown being worn by a Gestapo member in both Where Eagles Dare and Hogan's Heroes.  In reality, the Gestapo didn't have any uniform at all.  The depiction given in Von Ryan's Express is the correct one. They favored civilian dress clothes and trench coats, often leather ones.  They were, after all, secret police and were dressed like civilians.

Marine Corps Raiders' insignia.

One US ground unit used it too, the Marine Corps Raiders, which took it from Naval use.

By the war's end the death's head, except in naval use, was hopelessly associated with the SS, although amazingly some use continues on.  The South Korean 3rd Infantry Division, the British Army’s Royal Lancers and Brazilian Military Police use it officially.  Some Ukrainian units controversially use it which seems to be an intentional effort to associate themselves with the World War Two era Ukrainian National Army which fought both the USSR and the Germans, but the Germans rather late.

Various navies keep using it, but the Nazis didn't taint the pirate association it had on the seas.

One place it oddly saw use was in civilian groups that wanted to cultivate an edge look after the war.  All sort of Nazi paraphernalia became associated with motorcycle gangs.  And heavy metal bands affected the look as well.

Ian Fraser Kilmister, "Lemmy" of Motörhead who notoriously sported German military and German SS paraphernalia constantly, and who did know what it meant.  He claimed to have no Nazi sympathies.  His father had been a chaplain in the RAF.

The interesting thing there, I suppose, is that the predecessor to the SS was the SA.  The SA didn't use the Totenkopf, but it was comprised of thugs, so in a way the Nazi paraphernalia returned to a demographic that had first used it.

So, what of Platner? 

Darned if I know.  He says he didn't know what it meant, and I suspect a lot of Americans under 70 years of age don't know what it means.  World War Two is simply too long ago for a uniform detail to have much in the cultural memory.  Those younger people who do know what it was used for are likely students of history, members of prison gangs, or white supremacists.  History students don't get tattooed with the Totenkopf.  The other two groups likely do.  That doesn't mean that Platner was a white supremacist, however.

It does require some sort of explanation, however.

While on the topic of the tattoos, let's discuss Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of Defense.

Pete Hegseth is festooned with tattoos.

Pete has a variety of them, which seem to be the following:

• Jerusalem Cross, a type4 of Christian cross associated with the Crusades, rightly or wrongly.
• "Deus Vult", Latin for "God wills it", a phrase claimed to be associated with the Crusaders.
• Kafir, the Arabic for infidel, but also Afrikaans slang for blacks.
• Cross & Sword, apparently referencing Matthew 10:34
• Yahweh, the Hebrew lettering for the name of God, added near his cross and sword tattoo.
• "We the People", The opening phrase of the U.S. Constitution.
• American Flag & AR-15. 
• Roman numerals (1775) & Stars: The year the U.S. Army and the Revolutionary War began.
• "Join, or Die" Snake, the Benjamin Franklin cartoon depicting a severed snake, symbolizing colonial unity during the American Revolution.
• Infantry Patch.

It's really a bit much.  Hegseth is an example of how people become addicted to getting tattoos and won't stop.

So what of it?

Well, the top two tattoos are offensive to some Catholics, myself included.  Hegseth is a member of the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches, he has stated., which is a collection of Evangelical Churches.  The Crusades are a Catholic thing, grossly misunderstood, and for which Catholics have taken heat from Protestants for five hundred years.  Moreover, the Crusaders would have regarded the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches as heretical.

"Kafir" is a flat out weird thing to tattoo on yourself, and for Sub-Saharan Africans its highly offensive, being the Afrikaans equivalent of the n word.  I suppose its supposed to be a taunt at Muslims.

Tattooing Yahweh on yourself is just weird, and potentially offensive to Jews, as well as others.  Leviticus 19:28 prohibits tattoos themselves, although this is not regarded by most Christians as applicable to Christians and many modern day Jews do not follow that as well.

The point here is this.  Tattooing the Totenkopf on your chest is bound to be offensive to the historically aware.  Tattooing Crusader phrases on your body is no doubt offensive to Muslims, although I'm not particularly concerned about that, but it's a cultural appropriation that is offensive to some historically aware Catholics.  Kafir, as a tattoo, is outright calculated to be offensive to Muslims, and it's highly offensive to Sub Saharan Africans.  And the Yahweh tattoo is disturbing.

I suppose the lesson is to be careful about tattoos.  Hegseth is so tatted up its frankly absurd, but he comes across as disturbed.  Platner comes across as just sort of messed up.

Of course, you don't get to vote for or against Hegseth, no matter where you live.  Your view of him has to weigh into your view of the administration.  If you live in Maine, you can weigh the tattoo in your opinion on whether to vote for him or the ancient Susan Collins.

Showing the spirit our age, I suppose, Donald Trump called Platner a pig.  Pigs have a highly hierarchal pecking order, so I suppose that's the big pig reacting to a younger one in the pen, if you accept the analogy.  

Donald might look to have a Porky tattoo. . . 

Lex Anteinternet: Sunday Morning Scene. Religion in the military. A resolution?

Lex Anteinternet: Sunday Morning Scene. Religion in the military.: The Department of Defense scaled back its list of recognized religions.   There were 211, now there are 31.  Here is the full list: Agnostic...

And a happy ending, or at least an ending, occurred to this story when the Pentagon redid its classifications to read as follows:

It's actually not a bad reclassification, although a person does hae to wonder why, in order to make a non Christian religion happy, the Christian identification was taken away from actual Christian religions.

One of the major newspapers ran statistics for the various religions in terms of the what percentage of the military is comprised of them. While there are Mormons in the military, the percentage is infanticidally small.  As noted earlier, however, there would be units in the military that would be heavily made up of Mormons, principally Guard and Reserve units in Utah.  Their spiritual needs would be different than those of Christian religions, however, which would gain importance in a large scale war.

According to exit polls form the last general election, 64% of Mormons voted for Trump in the last election.  20% voted for Harris.  56% of Catholics did, with 41% voting for Harris.  Catholics are a much larger demographic than Mormons and Trump has interestingly shown little concern about enormously offending them.  68% of Southern Baptists, the largest Protestant religion in the country, went for Trump.  Southern Baptist, I suspect, are probably the largest Christian denomination to be upset by the reclassification, if they are.

I don't know that I have a strong opinion on the list being reworked to address Mormon concerns, but I would note a couple of oddities about it.  One is that that the U.S. Government didn't define them as Christian, although they seem happy with the result.  The second is that what Trump may say aside, he doesn't love Mormons anymore than he loves anyone else.

Lex Anteinternet: Sunday Morning Scene. Religion in the military. Paring the list, much ado about nothing?

Lex Anteinternet: Sunday Morning Scene. Religion in the military.: The Department of Defense scaled back its list of recognized religions.   There were 211, now there are 31.  Here is the full list: Agnostic...

The big flap over the Pentagon's new list of religions, mostly focused on the LDS insisting it be recognized as a Christian religions which at least conventional Christianity holds that it is not, is obscuring the fact that frankly the list may not matter all that much.

All the list does is to provide some guidelines on anticipating the patrol needs of troops.   T/he prior list was so large there was no way that it was useful.  The original list, Protestant, Catholic and Hebrew, was probably too narrow, in the modern world, to be useful.

Arguably the current list is too big.  It'd make more sense, actually, to have Mainline Protestant, Evangelical Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, Judaism, Islam and Other.  Every one of those categories, it might be noted, has various groups within it.  Probably only Catholic expresses a singular religious group, but even there, there are a lot of Catholic rites.  The Orthodox are a collection of Orthodox churches and have a major division between Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox.  

Anyhow, that's probably more useful.

Of note, listing religions isn't an endorsement of them.  

About 70% of all service members are some sort of Protestant.  20% are Catholic.  I've given the figures already, but the number of LDS troops is very small, although in National Guard units from Utah the opposite would be true.  At least one religion on the list discourages its members from joining the military and last had any presence in the military when there was conscription in place.  

Sunday Morning Scene. Religion in the military.

The Department of Defense scaled back its list of recognized religions.   There were 211, now there are 31.  Here is the full list:

Agnostic (AN)

Baha'i faith (BH)

Buddhism (BU)

Christian - Assemblies of God (AG)

Christian - Baptist (BA)

Christian - Brethren (BR)

Christian - Catholic (CA)

Christian - Church of Christ (CC)

Christian - Church of God (CG)

Christian - Church of the Nazarene (CN)

Christian - Episcopal/Anglican (EA)

Christian - Evangelical (EV)

Christian - Jehovah's Witnesses (JW)

Christian - Lutheran (LU)

Christian - Methodist (ME)

Christian - Non Denominational (ND)

Christian - Orthodox (OX)

Christian - Other (CO)

Christian - Pentecostal (PE)

Christian - Presbyterian (PR)

Christian - Quaker (QU)

Christian - Reformed (RE)

Christian - Scientist (SC)

Christian - Seventh Day Adventist (SA)

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (CJ)

Hindu (HI)

Islam (Muslim) (IS)

Judaism (Jewish) (JU)

No Religion (NR)

Other Religions (OR)

Sikh (SI)

One of the things that I find discouraging to do is to give any credit to Hegseth's Department of Defense, but every now and then he's right.  Frankly, his view that too much social experimentation, or "woke" policies as the far right would have it, had been going on inside the military was correct.  Transgenderism and the the like had no place in the military.

Acting Chief Army Chaplain Maj. Gen. William Green Jr., who is serving until his successor is appointed.  He's a Baptist minister.  When I was a National Guardsmen, the 115th FA Bde., the Chaplain was a Baptist minister from Utah.  He was a nice guy, but the troops had little interaction with him.

And frankly the huge number of religions that the DoD recognized was a problem.

The Air Force's Chaplain Corps also serves the Space Force.

One thing I'd thought that Hegseth would do, and which I wish he would do, is to remove women from combat roles.  To some degree it looks like he's creeping up on that, but if that's the case, he ought to realize that after January 2027 he's going to be much less capable of doing anything.

The problem Hegseth interjects, however, is that like the Trumpian far right in general is that he combines some concerns over legitimate problems, including legitimate social problems, with wackiness, which makes it really hard to give him credit on anything.  In terms of religions, Hegseth is festooned with Crusader related tattoos which would be an insult to Crusaders, given his own beliefs, and fits into the theologically unsupportable hardcore millenialist Calvinist camp.

Maj. Gen. Trent C. Davis, Chief Chaplain of the U.S. Air Force.  He is also a Baptist.

Anyhow, this probably made sense, in the abstract.

And this is a far more complicated story than people might imagine.

The U.S. Army has had chaplains since July 29, 1775, sort of, as there were religious that served on a regimental level at that time.  Religious diversity existed in the colonies that early, but nowhere near to the extent it does not.  An official Army chaplain did not exist until  Reverend John Hurt of Virginia (who had served as Chaplain of the 6th Virginia Regiment during the American Revolution) was appointed to the position of Chaplain of the Continental Army on 4 March 1791, which even for the Revolution is sort of late in the day.

It wasn't until the Mexican War that there were Catholic Chaplains in the Army, the influx of German and Irish immigrants, and the bigoted attitudes of the Southern officer class making it a necessity.  The Mexican War remains the most unpopular war that Americans ever fought, something even some professional soldiers acknowledged, and the desertion rate in general was huge.  The desertion rate of Catholic Irish and German troops was particularly problematic.  So, during that war, Catholic Chaplains came into the service in response to the government recognizing the problem.  It's sometimes noted that the Mexican War served as a training ground for the Civil War, and in that context it certainly did, as  huge numbers of Catholic troops served in the Civil War, with most of them serving the Union.  Some senior officers by that time, such as Sheridan and McClellan, were Catholic.

The service did not start issuing "dog tags" until 1906, and that was due to the concern of Army Chaplain Charles C. Pierce, who who was in charge of the Army Morgue and Office of Identification in the Philippines.  To put this in context 40% of the Union dead from the Civil War remained unidentified after the war.  Their bodies were never identified.   The early dog tags did not identify religion, but late Great War ones did, with that being indicated by a single initial, P, C, or H, for Protestant, Catholic, and Hebrew, the latter being the term used to identify Jewish soldiers.  After the war, with a return to a small military, the practice was discontinued, but it was revived in 1941.

By the Vietnam War the practice had changed to allow troops to choose what would be stamped on their dog tags.  This is the type we had in the 1980s, and in my case it was stamped "Catholic".  Apparently this is the system that's still used.  

Of course dog tags are one thing and ministering to troops another.  I honestly have no idea how the protestant chaplains minister to protestant troops  There are so many varieties of Protestantism it must be difficult.  The task faced by Catholic, Jewish and Muslim must accordingly be easier in that regard.

Anyhow, with the current diversity of the US, this must be a huge task.  Cutting the categories down to sizes makes sense, but its also guaranteed to upset people.

The Navy's Chaplain Corps also served the Marine Corps and the Coast Guard.

One group it's upset is the Latter Day Saints, as they aren't listed as Christians, which they aren't.  Jehovah's Witnesses, however, are listed as Christians on this list, and they are not either.  Both religions recognize that Christ existed, but their theologies are radically different from Christians.  Mormon theology is really had to nail down, and it moves, but generally the LDS do not believe Jesus is the co-eternal God of the Holy Trinity, but rather view Him as an exalted, separate being who is the literal spirit brother of all humanity and Satan.  Jehovah Witnesses believe that Jesus is the most exalted of God's created beings.  Neither religion, therefore, hold what Christians do, as defined by the Nicene Creed:

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,

the Only Begotten Son of God,

born of the Father before all ages.

God from God, Light from Light,

true God from true God,

begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;

through him all things were made.

For us men and for our salvation

he came down from heaven,

and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,

and became man.

In other words, they don't believe in one eternal God with three personalities, which have always existed.

At least traditionally they haven't believed that.  As noted, Mormon theology moves and frankly isn't well defined.

Nonetheless, this has upset the LDS, which regards itself as Christian.  It may regard itself as such, and surely does given its name, but it isn't.

That it upsets them and is a big deal to them makes sense, however, as its a direct rejection of their religious claims.  So in essence the Pentagon has made a statement rejecting their theology, and it pretty much had to, which shows the danger of recognizing even 31 faiths.  But you also have to recognize some distinctions as well.  Protestants and Catholics are different.  The LDS is extremely different.  

Rear Adm. Gregory N. Todd, Chief Navy Chaplain.  He is a Missouri Synod Lutheran.

A peculiarity of this we'd note is that this would only matter in practical terms if you have troops fitting these categories.  Jehovah's Witnesses are precluded from serving under their religion, so not only is the identification of them as Christians incorrect, but even having that category for the service may be fairly pointless.  

There are about 36,000 Mormons in the military, which is surprisingly slightly lower than the number of Orthodox, which is about 39,000.  There are only 15,000 active duty members of the service who are Jewish.

Cpt. Jennifer Bowden, USN, Chief Chaplain for the Coast Guard.  She's an Elder in the United Methodist Church.

So, I guess, is there a point to this discussion?

I suppose, with part of it just being to note what the overall story is.  The US is very diverse and that reflects in the military, but not to the extent that a person might think.  20% of servicemembers are Catholic which mirrors our percentage of the American population.  In Korea, to attend Easter Mass, a colleague of mine and I went to an on base chapel, but the Priest was Australian and not in the Army.  Probably a fairly typical scenario.  In contrast, my father was pretty good friends with a Catholic Chaplain in the Air Force when he was stationed overseas.  

70% of servicemembers overall are Protestant, but of course, as noted Protestantism is very diverse.  That makes the 20% of the service that's Catholic a pretty big block.

The other part of this story is, I guess, that you are going to upset people with a list like this.  The service can't possibly list every single Protestant faith and Protestants themselves notoriously disregard their own denominations.  Catholics, Orthodox, Jews, and Muslims, don't.  That's a real reason some discretion is needed.  A Catholic needing last rights needs it from a Catholic or Orthodox Priest, who are the only ones who can deliver that.  The LDS are their own thing as well, and frankly, except they obviously feel uncomfortable that, they ought to accept it.

But is there more to this?

(To Be Continued).

Pope Leo and the Just War Theory.

To all of this, the media and digital dimensions are adding new and decisive elements. Communication networks, fragmented information environments and algorithms that reward conflict can magnify polarization and resentment, increase propaganda and make shared discernment more difficult. Thus, war is not only fought, but also culturally conditioned through simplistic narratives, a friend-or-foe mentality, disinformation and fear. When historical memory fades and the ethical principles that protect civilians and the most vulnerable are weakened, it becomes easier to justify violence as necessary, inevitable or even “sanitized.” It is in this context that humanity is slipping into a violent culture of power, where peace no longer appears as a responsibility to be taken on, but as a fragile interval between conflicts. Today, more than ever, without prejudice to the right to self-defense in the strictest sense, it is important to reaffirm that the “just war” theory, which has all too often been used to justify any kind of war, is now outdated. [182] Humanity possesses far more effective and capable tools for promoting human life and resolving conflicts, such as dialogue, diplomacy and forgiveness. The use of force, violence and weapons reflects a relational poverty that always has disastrous consequences for civilian populations.

Pope Leo XIV, Magnifica Humanitas.

When first released, almost all of the attention given to Magnifica Humanitas was on his discussion of Artificial Intelligence, but then somebody noticed is comments on the Just War Theory, and now people are freaking out.  Conservative Catholic pundits have already come out with the "Pope is wrong" commentary, and even an Anglican journal came out with an article to the same effect.

He isn't wrong.

And this isn't really new.

First of all, the Just War Theory was always that, a theory.  It's not doctrine, and in some quarters its never been accepted.  Moreover, since World War Two the Church has really made significant modifications to what can be considered a "just war".  

So, what did Pope Leo really say here.

First, what's the Just War Theory hold?

Well, let's look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It states:

According to CCC 2309, the following conditions must be met in order for war to be just:

(1) The damage inflicted by the aggressor must be lasting, grave, and certain.

(2) All other means of putting an end to it must have shown to be impractical or ineffective.

(3) There must be serious prospects of success.

(4) The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated (the principle of proportionality).

So, presently, those are the criteria set out in the Catechism.  Will this be changed?  I suspect it will be modified.  And frankly, based on prior statements by the last three Popes, the Catechism does not support the view that the Pontiffs have  been stating.  The thing that they've repeatedly stated is that war is only justifiable for defensive purposes.  Hence the comment; "Today, more than ever, without prejudice to the right to self-defense in the strictest sense, it is important to reaffirm that the “just war” theory, which has all too often been used to justify any kind of war, is now outdated."

So, with this in mind, what we might suppose (although I'm treading on dangerous grounds here as I'm not a theologian) is that the Church would modify the material set out above to read:

A country may legitimately act in self defense when:

(1) The damage inflicted by an attacking aggressor must be lasting, grave, and certain.

(2) All other means of putting an end to it must have shown to be impractical or ineffective.

(3) There must be serious prospects of success.

(4) The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated (the principle of proportionality).

Is that a big change in what the Popes have been saying?  Not really.

But does it effect some sort of a change?  Well, yes.  A clarifying one, in my view.

What I think the Pope's statement makes clear that the moral laxity in interpreting the Just War theory is not justified.  It never has been, but all too often those citing it go on to hold that whatever war they're speaking of is kind of sort of justified by the theory.  That should not have been the case, and it needs to come to an end.  

It's needed to come to an end for a long time.

There's no way that, for example, the US and Israeli war upon Iran is a just war.  No way.  At least from the U.S. prospective, it's an illegal war as it defies the requirements of the U.S. Constitution for Congress to declare war, making it immoral to a certain extent from the onset.  But the criteria required for a just war even as the CCC states it cannot be met.  The first criteria alone, that Iran was inflicting damage upon the United States in a way that is lasting, grave, and certain, was never met.  The repeated baloney that "they've been attacking us for 47 years" didn't come close to meeting this criteria.  Yes, Iran is a sponsor of terrorism.  Terrorism, however, is an act of the weak and is largely ineffectual.  Launching a massive offensive against Iran was not justified by the fact that Iran acts immorally. 

Indeed, on that score, the war does not meet, in my view, the requirements of the forth criteria.  And it never met the requirements of the second criteria either.

A war launched to change the regime, which was an earlier excuse for the war, was certainly not justified.

And it turns out that the third criteria cannot be met either.  The war has actually made the regime more hard line. The only chance for success would require a massive ground invasion of the country, which is certainly not proportional to the hoped for outcome.

What Pope Leo has clarified is something that other Popes have said, to some degree, and which follows the history of the discussion on the death penalty. Pope St. John Paul the Great made statements to the effect that the death penalty could not be justified in the modern world. The following two Popes amplified that.  Catholic conservatives have still refused to accept that, but that's completely correct.  In the modern world, the criteria which would allow for the imposition of the death penalty simply to not exist.

And with Pope Leo's statements, it seems fairly clear that the criteria for launching an offensive war never exist either.  That's been somewhat presumed all the way back to the 1940s, but now its clear.

And, it should also be clear, this is not a mere academic discussion.

War is killing people and breaking things. There's no two ways about it.  Killing people intentionally is gravely evil, except in self defense.  Supporting killing people except in self defense is likewise gravely illegal.  The same Catholic beliefs that hold that murder is immoral, that abortion is immoral, lead directly to war and the death penalty being immoral.  You cannot, no matter how much you might want to stretch it, supporting abortion if you are a Catholic, and frankly at this point, you cannot support immoral wars.

It was Pope St. John Paul, I think, who instructed that Catholic lawyers should not represent people in divorces.  Judges can still preside over them however.  Which brings us to this next point.

Catholic politicians can clearly not support immoral wars.  When people like Chuck Gray and Megan Degenfelder come around seeking votes, as they are Catholic, their position on this war should be asked of.  If they support it, as Trump supports it, they're willing to condemn their souls to Hell for their ambitions, or at least risk that.  Those Catholics in the Trump administration supporting the war, and we don't really know who they are (we know that Vance wasn't in support of it) are doing the same, to a larger degree.  The military raid on Venezuela that occurred earlier likewise presents the same problem.  Any invasion of Cuba, which it seems likely we will do, poses the same situation.

But beyond that, can Catholic servicemen morally serve in these wars?

I'm sure opinions will vary, but I don't think they can.

And that is a real change.  And given that war involves death, that's a change for the good.

Related threads:

Just War 101: Catholic Teaching for a Dangerous Moment

Supporting Immorality in War is Immoral.

Archdiocese for the Military Services. Not a Just War.

Churches of the East: Magnifica Humanitas

Churches of the East: Magnifica Humanitas: Just out, it's notably already being hailed as a great work, and notably already criticized by the United States Secretary of the Interi...

Magnifica Humanitas

Just out, it's notably already being hailed as a great work, and notably already criticized by the United States Secretary of the Interior.

 MAGNIFICA HUMANITAS

OF HIS HOLINESS
POPE LEO XIV
ON SAFEGUARDING THE HUMAN PERSON
IN THE TIME OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

Churches of the West: Wyoming’s Mountain Monks: Simple Men Of Faith Go High-Tech To Build A Gothic Monastery

Churches of the West: Wyoming’s Mountain Monks: Simple Men Of Faith Go H...:   Wyoming’s Mountain Monks: Simple Men Of Faith Go High-Tech To Build A Gothic Monastery

Sunday, May 24, 2026

Wyoming’s Mountain Monks: Simple Men Of Faith Go High-Tech To Build A Gothic Monastery

 

Wyoming’s Mountain Monks: Simple Men Of Faith Go High-Tech To Build A Gothic Monastery

 

Just War 101: Catholic Teaching for a Dangerous Moment

CliffsNotes of the Zeitgeist, 135th Edition. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus

I've been saying for awhile, and statements like this really demonstrate it:

It looks like President Trump has a better understanding of what the Bible teaches than the Pope.

Robert Jeffress, senior pastor of the 14,000-member First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas on Fox News.

That comment was stupid.  But then, he's called Catholicism a cult.

The Catholic Church is an Apostolic Church.  It was founded by Christ.  John Smyth, an Englishman, founded the Baptists in 1609.  

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus is a Catholic doctrine. There is no salvation outside the Church.  None the less, the Church holds that those who did not come to Christ innocently, or those who did not come to the Church innocently, can be saved, which operates again through the Church.  You can't be held responsible for what you innocently didn't know.

But what about here?

We're in the death throws of the reformation.  Things Smyth could get away with believing in 1609 there's no excuse to believe now, other than invincible ignorance.

Being a pastor of a 14,000 member church puts a pretty heavy burden on you and your soul for remaining ignorant.

Smyth is also a Fox News contributor, which really figures.  

As an irony here, although one he will not be capable, right now, of appreciating, Smyth has gone after Mormons, Jews, and Muslims as well.  In normal times, he would not have a national television audience.  He would have a local Dallas one as Texas is part of the former Confederacy and the Baptist rose in the wake of the Southern defeat in 1865, replacing the Episcopal Church in the South as the dominant religion culturally.  Nationally, however, picking on Jews, Muslims, Catholics and Mormons would get you booted off of television.

Religious aspects of this aside, this brings up a political one I've warned about here repeatedly.

Catholics voting for MAGA candidates are voting for a group that not only doesn't regard the Church highly, they don't believe it's a Christian religion at all.  People like Lyin' Chuck Gray, Reid Rasner and Megan Degenfelder, who are Catholics who run as MAGA are making a political bargain that will cause them, as it seems to have already for Lyin' Chuck to decide between their faiths, and their political fortunes.  Degenfelder has signs up all over which say "Endorsed by President Trump".

They should say "Endorsed by Blasphemous Donald Trump".

And this isn't merely esoteric.  We're in the same position now that Catholic Germans were in the 1932 German election (and the Catholics in fact went for Hitler much less than German protestants did).  There's really going to be no good "um, well, the other guy . . . " excuse here.  The far right Evangelical edge of the Trump coalition isn't even pretending not to hate Catholics much anymore.

And what about Mormons?  

Mormons include a heavy MAGA contingent, although the only really devout Mormons I know here locally right now are heavy duty Never Trumpers, and openly so.  But then you have guys like Deseret Mike Lee who come pretty close to viewing Trump positively in some sort of creepy religious terms.  Deep in the Jello Belt it's always been the case that there was a sort of ignorant conservatism in some quarters, and in the last 16 years, in spite of guys like Mitt Romney, it's really come out.

Trump and Islam is simply laughable as a joke.  In the last election Trump drew a fair amount of Islamic support because Muslims were so mad about Joe Biden's support of Israel.  Well, they got what the should have expected. The only person Trump loves more than Putin (and of course Trump) is Benjamin  Netanyahu and as a result we've supported genocide in Gaza, a war in Lebanon and we helped Israel attack Iran and we can't get out of it.  I suspect that most Muslims are voting for the Democrats next go around, just like most Hispanics will be (and in both instances, this really gives the Democrats a chance to evolve away from their sea of blood positions).

And this sort of thing should even be a revelation for Jews of all stripes, although I think they're more awake to what MAGA is than most.  The strong Trump support for Netanyahu comes in part because Netanyahu is good at playing Trump, much like Putin is.  But it also comes from people like Hegseth or Huckabee, who have a radical Protestant view of Israel and want to bring about the Second Coming of Christ basically by force, which they see current events as an opportunity in which to do so.  Put another way, do you really want to get in the car with somebody who wants to drive you to a giant gun fight?

Donald Trump, of course, is sort of beyond all of this.  Trump isn't any sort of serious Christian and we don't really know if he has any religious beliefs at all.  Most of his life has been spent chasing cash through real estate development and his hobbies have been golf and chasing tail.  Christians are just a convenient vehicle for him.  If the Sultan of Oman offered him a bigger better airplane tomorrow if he'd convert to Islam, and remind him that Muslims can have more than one wife, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if he signed on.  His personal conduct actually squares better with Islam than Christianity, which is after all a religion focused on the poor and duty.

In the end, all of this is going to fall apart.

Christians who aligned with Trump, just like Muslims and Mormons who did, are going to have to pay the cost.  It'll be different for each.  For Muslims, well their fellows are playing through blood right now.  Jews will pay by the backlash that's already started.  

For Christians, it'll be different, depending upon where their allegiance lay.  For the ignorant members of the American Civil Religion, and for the hardcore Evangelical right, this will be the beginning of an end of an era that started in April 1865, when the South fell and the Evangelical far right stepped into its own.  For the Protestant world in general, this will accelerate the death of the Reformation.

For the Catholic and Orthodox Christians who supported Trump, how could you be so blind?

Nonetheless, this will be a good thing for the Catholic and Orthodox.  A delusion that started in 1960 that you could be fully American and fully Catholic, or Orthodox, has ended.  National Conservatism will end with it.  

And that will be a good thing.

Last edition:

CliffsNotes of the Zeitgeist, 134th Edition. Paying the cost of failed Reconstruction.

Labels: 1860s, 1960s, 2020s, It was because of the Civil War, Politics, Racism, Reconstruction, Slavery, The Lost Cause, The Second Trump Administration, You heard it here first, Zeitgeist