Catholics and the Ukraine

I'm old enough to remember a few wars that I do not think the US should have been involved in. Nation-building as foreign policy has not be successful for us or for others. As a person of Arab descent (my father was Egyptian, a Moslem -- as we wrote it back then), I also remember a Middle East that, precarious as it was, was not as divided and devastated as it is now.

So I welcome Fr. Jerry Pokorsky's careful analysis of the situation in the Ukraine: Propaganda and the Ukraine War. I admit that one of the red flags for me early on, warning me that we were in propaganda territory, was... flags -- Ukraine flags popping up immediately in people's avatars, on the heels of Covid propaganda emoji, as if people couldn't wait to jump on the bandwagon offered by a state-media conglomerate that had certainly not been transparent until that point. 

Catholics hear a lot from our leaders on the subject of this conflict, just as we heard a lot about viruses and lockdowns. But most of it is unwarranted retailing of talking points from parts unknown and unexamined. We can't trust sources that so blatantly demonstrated their inability to separate fact from propaganda in the previous two years, not to mention decades. 

And that readiness of churchmen to pass along untrustworthy information is an issue that relates to the delicate nature of obedience and authority, something that is so precious in our Church that it must never be abused. Yet it has been. One important point that Fr. Pokorsky touches upon is that sometimes we just don't know what is going on or what our response should be, and we shouldn't act as if we do.

It's good to see a priest offering correction to his confreres.

The meaning of propaganda has evolved from simple advertising to promoting biased and misleading information. The art of gleaning facts from various propaganda outlets has become increasingly difficult. Indeed, the mainstream media have mostly become organs of institutional (primarily liberal) propaganda.

Catholic priests, especially in their official capacities, must not distort the Gospel message by repeating propaganda and stay in their lane when enunciating Christian principles. But as Americans, the clergy also have a right to political views, provided they make clear distinctions separating their religious office from their secular opinions. This article is written by an American (call me “Jerry”) and concludes with a brief priestly exhortation (call me “Father”).

After a detailed and helpful characterization of the various points of view about the conflict (which should also be informed by something my husband wrote regarding the religious background, here -- part one is embedded), Fr. Pokorsky criticizes another priest for his undue pressure on conscience:

Exercising priestly authority, the clerics must dutifully decry the carnage and encourage a just solution. The laity has the responsibility to address the mess. As Americans – distinctly and consciously apart from their official religious duties – priests have a right to express political views, careful to avoid violating the consciences of those with opposing views.

The Dominican chaplain of the Knights of Columbus recently wrote that the Knights of Columbus Ukraine Solidarity Fund financially supports Ukraine war refugees. As long as the funds do not line the pockets of Ukraine politicians and oligarchs, the fund sounds like a noble enterprise.

However, the priest violated the boundaries separating the religious from the secular spheres when he writes — as the appointed chaplain of the Knight of Columbus: “In the face of the ongoing tragedy of war, injustice and humanitarian disaster inflicted by Russia on Ukraine, no one can remain indifferent. As the world continues to witness the steadfast struggle for freedom that the people of Ukraine endure….” 

Read it all. 

10 comments:

  1. That article has almost no factual basis, especially for the priest’s own conclusions about the results of the war. For one thing, Russia’s behavior is alienating the Russian speakers. Please do not let your pre-existing unreasonable hatred of Democrats color your opinion about Russia’s aggression or Putin’s megalomania.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since both Democrats and Republicans are thirsting for war in the region, your comment doesn't make sense.

      Delete
    2. I'm new to this. Father Pokorsky responding to several folks herein.

      Isn't it better to argue substance rather than reverting to ad hominem attacks? I expect few to agree with me, but I'm not attacking anyone who disagrees. It's not particularly pleasant expressing honest views.

      Do I delight in the Russian invasion? Am I insensitive to the plight of Ukrainians? I despise the carnage. The months ahead will validate our fears or hopes. I hope my worries are dead wrong.

      Did our guys always know Russia would make that land grab in eastern Ukraine and win the war by the end of 2022 (but not earlier and without cost)? Did the U.S. want to make it as difficult as possible to prevent Russia from getting greedy and making life difficult for the State Department? Instead of negotiating a settlement early in the game -- land concessions and a Ukraine buffer zone -- did we provoke Zelensky into an extended war with a promise of sending in the Special Forces and air support? Will we go to round two and send in NATO forces?

      The war decimated Ukraine's army, effectively neutralizing them as a military threat to Russia. They are already a demonstrable buffer state without a massive infusion of outside military forces. U.S. half-measures of money and arms were costly to the Russians (deterring them from further expansions down the road). The war was also costly to the Europeans (redirecting them to the U.S. for a financial lifeline), propping up the dollar (paying for our inflation and propping the stock market), and was costly to the U.S. (but we still have superpower political and economic status).

      What was the cost? $60-$100 billion, the blood of working-class Ukrainian soldiers, and the Ukraine infrastructure. General David Petraeus has sent a trial balloon suggesting a direct U.S. intervention. WWIII?

      How do you see the endgame? The unconditional surrender of the Russians? U.S. victory and the humiliation of the Russians? My position is simple. The propaganda machine of the West has underestimated Russian strength. They will consolidate their gains, and they will be brutal. I'm arguing for a negotiated settlement to stop the carnage. I pray for a happier ending.

      (Agree or disagree, there's not a darn thing we can do about it.)

      Delete
    3. 🙄 Yeah, when someone is seen being assaulted in public, who (i.e., other than amoral?) wouldn’t “thirst” to call 911? 😖😠Who wouldn’t “thirst” to see the cops arrive to rescue the victim and/or deal with the criminal?…

      Delete
  2. I am shocked, but sadly not surprised, that yet another Latin cleric managed to completely omit any reference to the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.

    Is he even vaguely aware of the existence of the largest Eastern Catholic Church? If he were, he might understand why Western Ukrainians (who are overwhelmingly Eastern Catholics) have quite understandable hostility towards Russian aggression. Which has invariably been followed by brutal persecution.

    With that glaring omission in mind, I am left wondering what other critical facts the Reverend Father Pokorsky is unaware of. And that is a shame, because a fully-informed critique of America's actions would be valuable, indeed. Alas, this clearly is not that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I linked to the articles by my husband on the subject of the religious situation.

      Delete
    2. Your husband's articles were,as is usually the case, helpful, but have been sadly overtaken by events. The fine Russian Orthodox Metropolitan Alfeyev, whose books I have profited from, has since been stripped of his previous office and demoted back to overseeing the tiny Orthodox community in Hungary. He was deemed insufficiently supportive of Putin's aggression.

      In any event, the deficiencies of Fr. Pokorny's analysis remain. It is dispiriting to see perpetual blind spot of Latin Catholics for their Eastern brethren recur over and over again. One is left with the impression that the Father here is more solicitous of Kirill's sensibilities than those who share his communion with Rome.

      Delete
  3. I remember Gulf War 1 well as I was working for the Defense Department at the time. It was a straight forward operation based on the aggression of Saddam interfering with world oil markets. It was successful despite not having removed Saddam in the process. Gulf 2 was essentially a nation building operation as was the concurrent adventure in Afghanistan, both of which failed. Ukraine is an odd admixture that promises a lot of destruction but no clear objective or ending. Since it is the Ukrainian choice to fight, giving them the means seems appropriate but to supply personnel outside our borders, quite inappropriate. Putin is 70 years old and under a good bit of stress. His accounting will come in due time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gulf 1 was not straightforward at all. Kuwait was "drinking Saddam's milkshake", got slapped down by Iraq and the US government-media hydra had to cook up fake stories to get the American public to support intervention (Iraqi soldiers throwing babies out of incinerators is the famous one).

      Delete
  4. Some helpful resources:

    https://youtu.be/v7Tt5JmeATc

    https://qr.ae/pG0acB

    https://twitter.com/DarthPutinKGB/status/1485597185492328449?lang=en

    If anyone takes issue with anything(s) in these, please feel free to point them out.

    Otherwise—when I’m corrected for being misinformed, I change my mind.
    🤨What do you guys do?

    ReplyDelete