The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF versionPeace vigil at Los Alamos
by John Dear SJ on Mar. 02, 2010
On Sunday, 50 of us stood an hour in the snow, rain and hail for a simple peace vigil at the Los Alamos National Labs in New Mexico. There we protested the Obama Administration’s new state-of-the-art plutonium bomb factory (the CMRR) and prayed for the abolition of nuclear weapons.
Our gathering was not unlike the scores of peace vigils that occur each week across the country -- on street corners, in front of Federal Buildings, and at military installations.
But this particular gathering was the culmination of the annual Pacific Life Community weekend retreat, held amid the red rocks of the Jemez mountains near Jemez Pueblo, N.M. Each year, activists of faith and conscience from across the West Coast gather to pray, study, reflect, compare notes and build community.
What makes these retreats unique is that they end, not with a private liturgy, but with a public witness at some major U.S. military site. Two years ago I attended the gathering at Vandenberg Air Force Base in Central California; last year friends gathered at the Trident Submarine Base in Bangor, Washington. And now Los Alamos.
Protests at Los Alamos are rare, even though, in my opinion, it is the most evil place on earth. Nuclear weapons inflict the greatest terrorism; they are the ultimate terrorist threat. It follows like an Aristotelian syllogism: Los Alamos, therefore, is the ultimate terrorist training camp.
On Sunday, going to Los Alamos felt particularly dangerous -- not just because were under hot police and FBI surveillance, but because of the ice and snow. It made for treacherous driving up the mountainous road, on the teetering edge of staggering cliffs. I confess to an excess amount of worry as my jeep made it up the incline, my knuckles white and pulse racing. But once at the summit, I found it a blessing to be among friends in prayer.
Along the way, I drove pass the Church of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, which always breaks my own heart. There, out front, she stands -- Mary in bronze holding her heart in her hand. Near the entranceway burbles a little pool for peace, worth thousands, a tribute to St. Francis. In honor of Mother Teresa nearby sits a beautiful stone bench. Etched on the side: “The greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion.”
Every Sunday the parishioners pass by and eye the monuments they’ve erected and complaisantly regard themselves as pro-lifers. But come Monday, back to work they go, back to the Labs, oblivious of the deadly work they do. A staggering incongruity. The Labs are staffed by vast numbers of Christians, church-goers of all sorts, a goodly number of them Catholic, yet their work blasphemes the God who calls us to make peace.
NCR: February 3-16, 2012
Subscribe to NCR to get all the news and special features that aren't always available online. In this issue:
- US News: Bishops Host Conference on Immigration
Conference fields advocates' questions on law, policy
- Special Section: Deacons. Serving as parish administrator; roles of wives; and more
- Study: Black Catholics are more engaged
New study by Notre Dame researcher about parish involvement in America
As for our motley assortment of protesters, passersby must have dismissed us as a foolish lot. But to the extent that we acted, as best we might, in unconditional love, in creative nonviolence, in heartfelt prayer, then our effectiveness cannot be measured. It can’t be measured any more than the Mass or the sacraments can be measured. Who can gauge the transcendent? All sacramental actions are, first and foremost, life-changing, disarming and healing for those who participate. And the promise stands. Our actions will bear good fruit in God's good time.
One can’t help but wonder, though, how makers of homicidal weapons keep it up. How do they suppress inevitable nagging doubts? Turns out the Labs spend a fortune on sophisticated PR campaigns -- “to keep up the morale of the workers,” we’ve been told. The slogans and jingles -- “Where Discoveries Are Made” is the latest, hanging from banners on telephone posts throughout town -- they’re meant to persuade employees that they provide the last line of security for the nation, that they are the true peacemakers.
More, things are so tightly arranged -- tasks and knowledge -- as to create a sense of diffusion. No one feels accountable for the Bomb; the work is carefully and finely divided up, responsibility spread thin. And that’s why we come. Our modest presence, we hope, breaks the veneer, sheds a light, names the work as evil. We come to call everyone to accept responsibility for this evil work -- beginning with ourselves.
While gathered at the foot of the towering snowy mountains, I walked around and asked friends why they had made the journey. “I came because the threatened increase in nuclear weapons has to be stopped, and this is the key place to start,” said Betsy Lamb of Bend, Oregon.
“This is the heart of the nuclear threat,” said Franciscan Fr. Jerry Zawada of Tucson, Ariz., “and the nuclear threat is the ultimate slap in the face of God, so I’ve come to join with those who yearn for the end of the nuclear threat.”
“I came with my two children, Rozella, age 10, and Thomas, age 9, to witness for life and a new future of peace for them,” said Tensie Hernandez of Beatitude House, in Guadalupe, Calif.
“I came here because I think our country was conceived and born in violence, and continues to expand itself as an empire of violence,” said Larry Purcell of Redwood City, Calif. “The weapons produced here are the ultimate nightmare of violence. So I’m here to protest the notion that weapons which threaten the species give us security.”
“I’m here to help bring about a culture of life and to show that there are other ways to participate in our system besides casting a vote,” said Allison McGillivray, a young Catholic Worker from Southern California.
“The only future is a non-nuclear future, so I’ve come here to let my voice be heard,” said Bryce Fisher, a young Catholic Worker from Half Moon Bay, Calif.
“In this critical year for nuclear disarmament, it’s important that people in the U.S. show the world that we want to disarm the nuclear arsenal,” said Felice Cohen-Joppa of Tucson, Ariz., (director of www.nuclearresister.org). “So I’m here today to take personal responsibility for protesting and resisting my country’s nuclear weapons. We have to disarm now.”
“I’m here because it doesn’t make sense to invest four and a half billion dollars in a new nuclear weapons building [the CMRR] when we have so many other needs, such as healthcare, schools, jobs, housing and renewal energy and efficiency,” said Joni Arends, director of Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety (see: www.nuclearactive.org)
“I think it’s about time we got serious about reducing our nuclear weapons and working for nuclear disarmament,” said Ellie Voutselas of Santa Fe. “As a member of Pax Christi, it’s part of our mission to advocate for nuclear disarmament.”
“Here at Los Alamos, they’re preparing to obliterate the planet with no conscious knowledge of what they’re doing,” said Dominican Sr. Jackie Hudson of Poulsbo, Wash. “Every aspect of the nuclear issue means death to the planet. We must find a better way. We must put our money to life-giving activities.”
As we concluded our vigil, we stood in a large circle, held hands and for some 15 minutes prayed in silence. The snow grew heavier, but our hearts kept warm. The gathering, the gesture, the hope we derived from it -- it was all blessing.
Afterwards, 17 friends walked toward the area where the new CMRR bomb factory will be built. They wanted simply to say a prayer for disarmament, but they had crossed a line and faced arrest. This time, the head of security let them pass, and they offered their illegal prayer for peace.
Each Lent, we hear Jesus call us to repentance and conversion, and we try to follow him anew on the path of Gospel nonviolence. This year, in these terrible times, may the peace vigils continue, as well as the peace prayers and the peace actions. Undoubtedly, our prayers will be answered, our hearts will be disarmed, one day our weapons will be dismantled. And the blessings of peace will fall upon us all like mountain snow.
******
To contribute to Catholic Relief Services’ “Fr. John Dear Haiti Fund,” go to: http://donate.crs.org/goto/fatherjohn. On March 4, John will speak in Lexington, Ky., and on March 5-6, lead a retreat, “The Road to Peace,” in Atlanta, Ga., (see: www.paxchrististjude.webs.com He will also lead “The Gospel According to John,” April 30-May 2, near Stroudsburg, PA, see www.kirkridge.org; and“Gandhi, King, Day and Merton,” at Ghost Ranch Center, Abiquiu, NM, see www.ghostranch.org. John’s latest book, Daniel Berrigan: Essential Writings (Orbis), along with other recent books, A Persistent Peace and Put Down Your Sword, as well as Patricia Normile’s John Dear On Peace, are available from www.amazon.com. For further information, or to schedule a lecture, go to www.johndear.org
America's nuclear weapons
America's nuclear weapons provide a consequence to those who would destroy the world. Their evil is outweighed only by their necessity. The reality is that we're in a Mexican standoff, with more banditos joining evey day (Iran, North Korea et al.). Abolition of nuclear weapons will only happen if and when all nuclear states can simultaneously lay down their arms. Or--more likely--when a star wars systems renders them obsolete.
The world certainly would have been better off had they never been developed. Unfortunately, we are stuck with them for the foreseeable future.
I'm sorry for appearing so
I'm sorry for appearing so down.
It seems that both religion and government have failed to help us.
I've been feeling that Constantine the "Great" did Christianity a dis-service by getting involved. Theology or church indoctrination, can weave a myths that replace other myths in order to try to get people to toe the line.
John has mentioned in one of his books that Jesus was civilly disobedient, both to Rome, and to Jerusalem. The only way that Constantine could reconcile Jesus' actions of civil disobedience would be to demand followers of Jesus to believe that Jesus was the son of God and therefore had the authority to break civilian based laws. This has allowed the church to tone down the teachings of Jesus so that its members would not become as extreme as Jesus was, or the Spirit might lead.
I feel alone in the church and in my community. People who call themselves appear to look for some other evils to make themselves look better. Well "abortion" is the ultimate evil so all other sins that I could commit are milder, therefore my involvement in wasting the world's resources as a deterrence must be good. That is like saying, "if my chidren die before they commit sin, they will go to Heaven and I will have done a good thing by....(fill in the blank).
Abortion is not something that most Christians want to deal with. Abstinence is one solution, but it is like Noah telling the rabbits on the Ark "ony 2".
Conception is an automatic biological (logical) occurance. God may not chose each soul to inhabit every life. Why do we exterminate insects? Don't they have souls?
Before I close, I am not trying to legalize abortion. Abortion is an individual or couple's decision, not the governments'.
Peace!
"The only way that
"The only way that Constantine could reconcile Jesus' actions of civil disobedience would be to demand followers of Jesus to believe that Jesus was the son of God and therefore had the authority to break civilian based laws."
- I'm confused, Rev Hinckley. Are you saying you DON'T think jesus was the Son of God?
First I'm not Rev, my name is
First I'm not Rev, my name is Rey (Y).
Some Christians believe, without knowing 100% whether Jesus is God or not. It is easier to say that one believes that Jesus was God's son than believe that Jesus could have done what he apprently expected his followers to do as a man.
I believe that Jesus may not have been God and by believing that he was God makes it much easier to say that there is no way that we could follow Jesus.
If Jesus was a civil disobedient seeing him as God would be a way of providing Jesus a loop hole and a loop hole for his followers not following his call.
Peace!
This is basically
This is basically Aryanism.
Jesus claimed to be Divine. Saying that He was simply a really good guy, even the best guy ever, is a position that can't be logically held by any thinking person who has even skimmed through the Gospels.
Jesus didn't claim simply to be a protester. He claimed to be Divine. He claimed to be God. That was the charge that the high priest condemned Him on. (Matt 26: 63-66)
You have three choices when it comes to Jesus:
1. He was either a despicable liar. (He claimed to be divine and was not and His claim later got MANY people killed.)
2. He was insane. (Someone who TRULY thinks he is God, and is not, is usually wearing a very long sleeved white coat and/or heavily medicated now)
3. He was divine, the Son of God. (He was what He claimed to be.)
Those are your choices. Cheapening Him to some kind of civil protester shows you haven't even read the Gospels.
"If Jesus was a civil disobedient seeing him as God would be a way of providing Jesus a loop hole and a loop hole for his followers not following his call."
- Again, you have not only NOT read the Gospels, you haven't even read what the Church teaches on this. Jesus Christ IS God, the second Person of the Trinity. He said that we must daily take up our cross and follow Him. Knowing He is God is not a loophole to get out of that, but gives His command Divine force in the way some simple protester could NEVER have.
You have a very disordered view of Christianity, Rey. I'm not trying to insult you, I'm simply stating a fact. You need to study it more. Do you have any idea what denying the Divinity of Christ means for Salvation?
Perhaps you need to pause in your work, Martha, and instead sit at Jesus' feet like Mary and listen to Him.
Currently no one is being
Currently no one is being "obliterated" by nuclear weapons, yet, every day thousands of babies are killed with abortion. Which is the higher priority?
moral theology is not
moral theology is not quantified; moreover I fail to find your apples and oranges here.
The three hundred pound gorilla in the room holds a terrorist shotgun to each one of our heads and you find this not a priority?
Oddly, to tackle the issue of
Oddly, to tackle the issue of abortion and to convert harden hearts who readily condone the killing of kids in the womb, may the first and right step toward peace in our world.
Praying from here...Crete,
Praying from here...Crete, Illinois, that the blessing of peace fall upon all of us like the mountain snow. Our God keeps promises. Soon and very soon.
Keep those words of peace flowing from your pen John Dear. They give us all encouragement to keep speaking up for nuclear disarmament.
The Reverend Father John Dear
The Reverend Father John Dear SJ shares: "All sacramental actions are, first and foremost, life-changing, disarming and healing for those who participate."
By this, his generous and open writing we, too, participate within this sacramental reality; we also are reawakened, recentered, reanimated, renewed in our Baptismal Vow to follow the Risen Christ upon this Road to Peace.
I profoundly, painfully, bitterly, selfishly, regret missing the Pacific pro-Life Retreat in Jemez Pueblo, and the ensuing action for Peace in Los Alamos, my absence from this action opening thus within me this past weekend greater solitude in this most southern and snowless New Mexican desert, opening thus greater and stronger temptation and opportunity to our spiritual adversary, greater distraction from our persistent trek for Peace.
If not for the books of the late and Reverend Father Anthony De Mello SJ Sadhanna, Ligero de Equipaje, and the recently published Seek God Always anxiously urging me to take and read, in all places and all times, and above all to pray always, I would now know no hope.
I am thus profoundly grateful for the Reverend Father John Dear SJ inviting us now into this sacramental grace, making us here part, participate, calling us onwards, altogether, to the hard and lonesome work for peace whose fruit being peace we cannot see with these present eyes, but whose fruit, the fruit of the Reverend Father John Dear's retreat and actions this weekend, which bears fruit within a greater commitment and centering, refreshment and relief within my small heart and weakest mind, and this fruit heals all pain, planting deepest hope.
We will now see here voices which believe they know better than peace, better than the Reverend Father John Dear SJ, and who will try to tear these blessed and for me healing and sacramental words violently to shreds.
I for one, on the other hand, am profoundly grateful for this column from the Reverend Father John Dear SJ, as for each one of his columns, and books, "life-changing, disarming and healing," and for his highly effective actions for God's Peace, for Life, within this, our great state, within our Church and within our weary world.
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
Dear Rev hinkley Abortion is
Dear Rev hinkley
Abortion is a couple's decison, not the government's, you say. I assume you say the same about infanticde? If not why not? I'm curious to hear progressives thinking on this
First let make the statement
First let make the statement to clear up something that happens from time to time. My name is Rey, it i short for Reynaud. I am not trying to misrepresent mysef as a Rev(erand).
IF we we want to say that an early term abortion is equavalent to infanticide I have to ask when does a fertilized egg become life? If conception is accomplished the moment that the egg is fertilized then doesn't every fertilized egg include a soul? What happens to the soul when it is frozen.
Does the government see to it that those eggs are protected and guarantee that the birthing process continues at some point in time.
Infanticide could be considered a subset of other actions. Aren't we committing infanticide when we are dropping bombs on cities where pregnant women are residing?
My point is simply this. Not everytime that a man and a woman do what causes a child to be conceived are they doing it to have a child. Sometimes a man an or woman isn't prepared to have children. Not everyone feels blessed and should not be forced by the government to chose an unsafe method to abort a life that they aren't ready willing and able to support. If God wants the child to be born why can't God prevent abortion?
I didn't mean to hijack John's article but I wanted to offer an opinion that might give some one another option.
In the 1983 Pastoral the U.S. Catholic bishops offered the notion that nuclear deterence might be acceptable for an interim period. In order for a deterent to work someone would have to have the ability to carry out the threat. Maybe it is time for the U.S to say that we will never use nuclear weapons because it is crime against humanity and the mere act of possession is a Crime and no country has the right to possess them. This should be an international law and the United State should be the nation to initiate it.
I don't know why Christians still like to believe that Jesus was sacrificed by God to atone for our sins. If that is the case we have no need to change our ways and become the kind of human who loves one another.
I hope that I have said something useful for someone. These are my humble opinions based on what I feel. Do not take them as criticizm, or gospel.
Greetings! As a truth
Greetings! As a truth bringer, I would like to debunk a few things about this article.
"On Sunday, 50 of us stood an hour in the snow, rain and hail for a simple peace vigil at the Los Alamos National Labs in New Mexico."
This is very over-exaggerated, since it only snowed this day.
"Protests at Los Alamos are rare, even though, in my opinion, it is the most evil place on earth. Nuclear weapons inflict the greatest terrorism; they are the ultimate terrorist threat. It follows like an Aristotelian syllogism: Los Alamos, therefore, is the ultimate terrorist training camp."
This part is very biased. What happened in Los Alamos to make it so popular was in the 1940s, is not what makes Los Alamos today. In this day and age many people do not have jobs, so it is a blessing the labs is still running, supporting families who need it.
That war was unpredictable due to the new technology that was arising. It was based off a lot of mis-communications. But saying Los Alamos is the most evil place on earth seems to come from ignorance.
Also, it is said in the 6th paragraph "On Sunday, going to Los Alamos felt particularly dangerous -- not just because were under hot police and FBI surveillance, but because of the ice and snow. It made for treacherous driving up the mountainous road, on the teetering edge of staggering cliffs. I confess to an excess amount of worry as my jeep made it up the incline, my knuckles white and pulse racing. But once at the summit, I found it a blessing to be among friends in prayer."
Very detailed, only to be followed by 2 more paragraphs bashing the local Catholic church. *by the way, there was police and FBI? I really doubt FBI, but that's fine. Police should be there at any protest, because people get out of hand a lot. They were protecting the protest, not making it unsafe.*
"Along the way, I drove pass the Church of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, which always breaks my own heart. There, out front, she stands -- Mary in bronze holding her heart in her hand. Near the entranceway burbles a little pool for peace, worth thousands, a tribute to St. Francis. In honor of Mother Teresa nearby sits a beautiful stone bench. Etched on the side: “The greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion.”
and
"Every Sunday the parishioners pass by and eye the monuments they’ve erected and complaisantly regard themselves as pro-lifers. But come Monday, back to work they go, back to the Labs, oblivious of the deadly work they do. A staggering incongruity. The Labs are staffed by vast numbers of Christians, church-goers of all sorts, a goodly number of them Catholic, yet their work blasphemes the God who calls us to make peace."
This is pure slander. It should not have been added into the article since the article was about a protest, and not about the people at the local church.
Also in saying that people think they are prolife until work the next day is ignorant, because pro-life has to do with abortion. Los Alamos, to my knowledge is neither pro-life or pro-choice. That is the person's decision, not the facility. There is no need to insult people one doesn't even know's character. It just shows the person making the allegation true-colors.
"More, things are so tightly arranged -- tasks and knowledge -- as to create a sense of diffusion. No one feels accountable for the Bomb; the work is carefully and finely divided up, responsibility spread thin. And that’s why we come. Our modest presence, we hope, breaks the veneer, sheds a light, names the work as evil. We come to call everyone to accept responsibility for this evil work -- beginning with ourselves."
Really? There is a famous quote that says
“As the bomb fell over Hiroshima and exploded, we saw an entire city disappear. I wrote in my log the words: "My God, what have we done?"”
-Capt Robert Lewis
"Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds."
-J. Robert Oppenheimer
"It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity."
-Albert Einstein
And finally, the concluding paragraph:
"Each Lent, we hear Jesus call us to repentance and conversion, and we try to follow him anew on the path of Gospel nonviolence. This year, in these terrible times, may the peace vigils continue, as well as the peace prayers and the peace actions. Undoubtedly, our prayers will be answered, our hearts will be disarmed, one day our weapons will be dismantled. And the blessings of peace will fall upon us all like mountain snow."
violence is not only with a physical realm, but a mental one, too. Words can be just as violent as actions. The person who wrote the article used very strong and violent words, towards people whom he probably doesn't know for the most part. Also, if it is peace you after, look within and realize that a parish that had nothing to do with the protest was slandered. How is the "enemy" going to lose, when the resistance is dismantled due to prejudices within itself. No matter where someone lives or does for a living, they are still human. It is not anyone's place to judge anybody but oneself.
That is all I have to say on this matter.
Brianna, I urge you to read
Brianna,
I urge you to read what the Church has to say on this matter, perhaps starting with the USCCB statement, as it references a good bit of the associated church writings as well and deals extensivly with the problem of nuclear weapons.
Brianna betrays: "Los Alamos,
Brianna betrays: "Los Alamos, to my knowledge is neither pro-life or pro-choice. That is the person's decision, not the facility."
Dude, or dudette, the entire purpose of the "facility" is to create the greatest incineration of living beings ever let loose upon the planet earth, whether or not they happen at that apocalyptic instant to bear a viable fetus.
The people who work there, like us who pay the taxes which fund their infernal labors, who vote for the politicians which plan it, collaborate in the greatest evil in the history of the race.
"That is all I have to say on this matter." It is now our active duty to stop it.
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
"because pro-life has to do
"because pro-life has to do with abortion."
This is precisely what our secret multi trillion dollar Military Industrial Complex, whose only business is death, wants us to believe. You go girl.
It very much involves
It very much involves abortion, that is true. But it goes even further than that, but I think that was your point, colkoch1? Here's what the doc I referenced above says about that, paragraph 285:
"No society can live in peace with itself, or with the world, without a full awareness of the worth and dignity of every human person, and of the sacredness of all human life (Jas. 4:1-2). When we accept violence in any form as commonplace, our sensitivities become dulled. When we accept violence, war itself can be taken for granted. Violence has many faces: oppression of the poor, deprivation of basic human rights, economic exploitation, sexual exploitation and pornography, neglect or abuse of the aged and the helpless, and innumerable other acts of inhumanity. Abortion in particular blunts a sense of the sacredness of human life. In a society where the innocent unborn are killed wantonly, how can we expect people to feel righteous revulsion at the act or threat of killing noncombatants in war?"
It seems to me we could maybe
It seems to me we could maybe flip this around a little bit and ask the question if forced birth actually encourages any real respect for life. The statistics would seem to say the in areas where birth is legally forced we also have the least amount done on issues of "poverty, oppression, deprivation of basic human rights, and innumerable other acts of inhumanity". So it seems that forcing birth does not necessarily promote a higher respect for innocent human life but in too many respects cheapens it.
"forced birth actually
"forced birth actually encourages any real respect for life."
- life is preferrable over death and killing, is it not? You seem to say that the killing of children is to be preferred if certain criteria regarding poverty, etc are not met.
It is not realistic, or SANE, to think that a society that would have no problems with killing the most defenseless and innocent in our midst should have a true Christian outlook for other life issues. That is the point of the statement.
The life of the innocent is ALWAYS to be sought over their death. We must 'let the children come to Him.' Trying to apologize for the killing of children because certain criteria regarding quality of life or poverty may not meet your standards is not sane, nor is it even remotely Christian.
To Colkoch1 Heh, right on. I
To Colkoch1
Heh, right on. I appreciate the mockery, but my statement was against hypocrisy and slander, not pro-life or pro-choice. Also a question: what exactly do they want us to believe and how to do you know? Also, how can you personalize it towards me, when
in the article is says "In honor of Mother Teresa nearby sits a beautiful stone bench. Etched on the side: “The greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion.”
Every Sunday the parishioners pass by and eye the monuments they’ve erected and complaisantly regard themselves as pro-lifers."
So what he did in this perfect example of introducing a slander is he made it seem like every person who works at the labs is pro-life and their job is to kill people and blasphemous. Which is incorrect. Like I said before, and I will say again "What happened in Los Alamos to make it so popular was in the 1940s, is not what makes Los Alamos today."
I'm not writing this to win points, or lose points. I'm writing this to correct a lot of statements that were incorrect, and personalized. I believe regardless of religious beliefs that you should seek the truth, and not just take what you want out of information you're getting.
Does a nuclear weapon ask its
Does a nuclear weapon ask its victims in the hundreds of thousands whether or not they are carrying at that instant a viable embryo or fetus?
It sounds like that apocalyptic dragon of Revelations astride the woman suffering in labor, waiting oh so patiently for the birth of her baby before devouring it.
Is this really a pro-life stance? The dragon waits for the full term birth, after all, before taking and eating the baby alive.
I have been an avid reader of
I have been an avid reader of The Berrigans and Father John Dear from a very young age, 20 I believe, and I'm 27 now.
I try to live in the spirit of pacifism--that is, I pray for a peaceful heart and am completely non confrontational (except, of course, when I am being regrettably human).
Intellectually, however, it is difficult for me to get around a few questions.
Wrestling with the angel of Pacifism is not easy--for instance, what would Father Daniel Berrigan have done if he were needed to fight Hitler in WWII (Father Philip Berrigan, RIP, did) and there wasn't much chance of victory if he didn't? And to get right to the root of it--John Howard Yoder does little but evade these questions in a beautiful, verbose way--are we really moral people if we do not prevent real evil from happening even if it means violence, or at least a slight display of physical force? And though the violence crazed media exaggerates these things so as to sate the American public's desire for "justified violence", etc, there have been historical situations in which violence was needed to stop seriously pathological and evil people. My questions are never addressed by Father John Dear, though I have the greatest respect for him and the Berrigans. I would like an answer to these questions before I completely commit myself to pacifism.
Pax Christi
You should read the USCCB's
You should read the USCCB's document "The Challenge of Peace". It's on their website for free download. It will address these questions for you.
Take care!
Like you, I have my own
Like you, I have my own stumbling blocks to fully embracing pacifism for many of the reasons you state. None-the-less, I am grateful that there is the witness of the pacifist.
Given my ambivalence over the issues, I know that it is a bit contradictory to say, but I do see them as providing a prophetic roll amist our eagerness to resort to violence and promote the "glory" of war. And I wonder if the depth of their message is much deeper and more powerful than I simply that. Yet I know that regardless of what questions I have, I am certain that I will continue to respect their call, be grateful for their presence and I will pause to listen to what they have to say.
Peace and prayers to all who are on this journey,
John David
Post new comment