Comments for 9/11 at http://www.thecatholicthing.org , comment 1 to 8 out of 8 comments http://www.thecatholicthing.org Thu, 23 May 2013 11:43:49 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/911.html#comment-8085 Manfred, in Al Qaeda's english-language releases to the media, they claim that the attacks are about our troop presence and this or that other grievance, but when they write for their own followers, they make their true intentions clear. They will not be satisfied until we convert to Islam, agree to pay them tribute in recognition of the superiority of the Muslim world, or die. Don't believe their propaganda. Al Qaeda doesn't want to live alone in peace... they want every Christian subjugated or killed. Several of their arabic language statements to that effect are available in The Al Qaeda Reader, edited and translated by Raymond Ibrahim. I, in large part, agree with the other sentiments expressed in the comments here. Perhaps it's my own weakness as a Christian, but I'm not sure what forgiving Zawahiri would entail. He continues to obstinately in his efforts to slaughter innocent people, and shows no signs that he's open to discussing the matter. I feel like my fury at what he's done is fully justified... St. John Chrysostom, among others, wrote about how a lack of anger in the face of injustice can, in fact, be sinful. Surely, I would be delighted if he repented of his wickedness and turned to Christ for forgiveness, but it doesn't seem like we can wait around counting on that. I can't say I wouldn't feel pleased if he were "eliminated" as a threat to humanity in the next drone strike or a special ops raid. Should I feel differently? Does Christ call us to something different? If so, I don't know what. - Mike M Mon, 12 Sep 2011 22:28:36 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/911.html#comment-8084 September 11, 2011 Today is the 24th Sunday in Ordinary time. The gospel is about forgiveness, with Christ telling Peter that one must forgive not just 7 times but 77 times. Today is also the 10th anniversary of 9-11. Today’s sermon was a lost opportunity to explain the nature of forgiveness. After a brief mention that we should pray for the victims of 9-11, the priest gave what could have been the same sermon he gave on this Sunday for the last xx years. What a lost opportunity! With the nation mourning still over the hateful and deliberate killing and destruction of thousands of lives and property 10 years ago, there was no mention or analysis of the (in)applicability of forgiveness of those who planned and/or implemented the attacks on 9-11. This brings me to the question what is the nature of ‘forgiveness’? This event was not just a personal affront by one individual against another individual. And its effects were not just to one individual, but to the nation and really to the whole of western civilization. Does forgiveness for this attack mean turning one’s cheek and implicitly saying “Do it again!” because we forgive you? Does this mean that we should release the prisoners in Guantanamo? What is the role of retribution, defensive measures, vengeance or even animosity? As Pope Benedict said in Caritas in Veritate, love /charity demands justice and never lacks justice. (Para. 6) What are the criteria for integration of forgiveness with pursuit of justice? Is justice being promoted by the armed fighting against Al Queda and the Taliban? Or trying and executing the masterminds of the attack? Does forgiveness mean that we cannot retaliate in any fashion? Even to prevent another attack? Is there not a place here for righteous anger? As an analogy, if a person has an infectious cyst, he has the right to cut it out so as not to spread the disease and possibly kill him. Doesn’t the same thinking apply by analogy to the West’s retaliation against the Taliban? What this boils down to is whether forgiveness means that the wrongdoers should not be punished for their wrongdoing. That is the moral question that we the people would have liked to hear in today’s sermon. What are the criteria that we should apply in making our decisions in this very real situation? After all Christ did make a whip and cast out the money changers from the temple. Maybe he should just have forgiven them and let them continue as they were. - senex Mon, 12 Sep 2011 17:38:29 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/911.html#comment-8070 Thank you Messrs. Kainz and Beckwith. I for one am in your debt for pushing back on the current "Catholic(?)" thinking on forgiveness. It is just silly. What else is the purpose of Confession? In the words of Cdl Ratzinger:"The way I see it, the proof that the Church has Divine origin is the fact that it has survived the millions of sermons delivered every Sunday." I am sure he would include the "too many homilists--" whom Francis Beckwith cites above. - Manfred Sun, 11 Sep 2011 17:05:29 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/911.html#comment-8069 If you read today's gospel, the story that Jesus tells is of a servant, who asks his master for mercy and he grants it. That servant subsequently does not extend that same grace to his debtor, and thus results in the master punishing the servant. Several things stand out here. First, if Jesus were teaching forgiveness without repentance, shouldn't the master have forgiven the servant a second time? Second, in both cases, the one in debt requests mercy, thus indicating a condition upon which forgiveness is granted. If the terrorists of 9/11 were to repent and ask forgiveness of those whom they harmed, then a Christian is required to grant it. If not, then the master punishing the servant for his lack of charity makes no sense. If forgiveness is unconditional and limitless--without regard to circumstance or repentant heart--then the master should be condemned for not extending forgiveness yet again. Jesus, however, does not do that. So, it seems to me that too many homilists--both yesterday evening and throughout this day--are reading into the gospels a pacifist sensibility that the text simply does not allow. - Francis Beckwith Sun, 11 Sep 2011 16:26:24 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/911.html#comment-8068 "We must defend ourselves against them, not allow their vision to prevail – and still forgive them." We should forgive those do us wrong, and pray for them, but I don't think there is any mandate to forgive those who do objectively unforgivable things to other people -- like Hitler, Mao,Stalin, Pol Pot. God, of course, may know of extenuating circumstances that we are not aware of. But we should not forfeit our ability to call a spade a spade. - Howard Kainz Sun, 11 Sep 2011 09:51:17 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/911.html#comment-8066 There is an interesting fact. In 1684, to celebrate the victory of the Battle of Vienna the year before, Pope Innocent XI inserted the feast of the Holy Name of Mary in the General Roman Calendar, assigning to it the SUNDAY within the octave of the Nativity of Mary (8-15 September). The feast was removed from the Roman Calendar in 1969 but it was restored by Pope John Paul II in 2002. Currently, the feast is celebrated on September 12. In the Ambrosian Rite, the celebration is on 09/11. - Leonardo Sun, 11 Sep 2011 07:43:04 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/911.html#comment-8064 It should be remembered that at the funeral Mass for Barbara Olsen at the Arlington Cathedral, during the prayer of the faithful read by Kate O'Beirne and written by Kate's husband Jim O'Beirne then working in the Pentagon, the congregants prayed for those who killed Olsen. A Jewish friend of many of ours, a real patriot and a wonderful woman, was at the Mass. Her daughter, then a young girl now a wonderful young woman, leaned over and said, "Mommy we don't believe that, do we." Her mother said, "No we don't." One of the staggering things about the Christian message is that we forgive our enemies and even pray for them, even when the wound is still bleeding. - Austin Ruse Sun, 11 Sep 2011 06:22:37 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/911.html#comment-8063 At some point it might be beneficial to discuss the true reasons we were attacked in New York and Washington. Bin Laden actually explained why. Perhaps, as he explained and informed Americans know, was the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia (since removed), and the U.S. support of the 60 year occupation of Palestine by Israel which many American Jews and Israelis can no longer abide. Once our and Israel's man in Egypt was removed, Mubarak, Egyptian crowds ransacked the Israeli embassy in Cairo. - Manfred Sun, 11 Sep 2011 04:53:35 +0100