Friday, March 16, 2007

Time for a new approach?

I went to see the movie "300" over the weekend. Putting aside a couple of inappropriate scenes, I heartily endorse the modus operandi (kill 'em all) with regards to enemies. Of course, that's somewhat tongue in cheek, and shouldn't be seen as an endorsement of violence to solve problems - at least not all the time. :oD

I wonder if Bill Donohue has seen this movie? Drop him a line and ask


Mickey Jackson said...

Whenever I hear a Catholic talk so enthusiastically about slaughtering the enemy, it always brings to mind the Gospel scene in which Christ rebukes His servant for using violence, even in the defense of God Incarnate: "Those who live by the sword will die by the sword."

I recommend you check out the following article by my bishop, Gerald Kicanas of the Diocese of Tucson (who, as you stated in one of your posts, is one of the best bishops in America):

Make of it what you will.

Lord, have mercy on us, for we know not what we do.

Paul Nichols said...


I know, I know.

Bishop Kicanas' letter is very good. He makes some good points. The problem with Iraq is that we're not so much fighting Iraq anymore (we never really were, since we were liberating them from Hussein), we're fighting those who want to keep Iraq in it's current state of chaos.

I wouldn't even claim to know what the answer is there.

But in fighting terrorism, specifically Muslims (same thing), we must realize that there really is no negotiating with them.

In the movie "300", there was some Greek who stated that they must be "diplomatic" - which exactly the wrong thing to do with an enemy who's looking to run you over.

Between nations, diplomacy must always be the first option. Always. But in this clash of religions, we're on unequal footing. They don't believe in diplomacy except as an opportunity to slit our throats while we're not paying attention.

Anita Moore said...

Mickey, the Bible also says at Romans 13:3-4:

For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer.

There is no moral equivalence between those who deliberately starts a war of aggression without justification (such as our enemy in the present war) and those who defend against the same. We have both the right and the duty to crush evildoers, lest they run rampant and subject the whole world to the tyranny of their predations.

Anthony said...

ή ταν ή επί τας!

and for my thoughts on 300 and the resurgence of interest in Spartan society, may I be a boor and plug my own blog?

Paul Cat said...

I don't think the Spartans had that much hair on their chest. After all it was boarding dang near close to a porn flick.

Anonymous said...

Heretic! I don't think Sean Hannity fits the Church's definition of that by any means. Hardly a discussion between the two either. Sean should have left the points made about scandals and cover ups for another discussion. Looked to me like it was a point made to embarrass and, he's just too good a Catholic to do that. As for Father Tom. Make your point and don't go to extremes on the one hand declaring a person a heretic and on the other, telling someone you won't give them Holy Communion. You just don't have the authority to do that anyway. If Sean was voicing an opinion about artificial birth control Fr.Tom should have simply voiced the teachings of the Church. No more no less.