It seems to me that wars (or, indeed, other types of conflict) soon give rise to debate about ‘who started it?’ If asked by one of the participants, or a supporter of such, the question gives an impression that underlying it is an accusation that ‘the other side’ started it, and a further implication that a combative response to the causation was justified. ‘The other side’ claims, of course, that specified circumstances justified what had been done, and therefore that the victim of it has no moral entitlement to complain or to retaliate. Subsequent events proceed on the basis of “an eye for an eye.” Our Lord rejected it, but seemingly in single person-to-person situations,[1] and the “Catechism of the Catholic Church”[2] (and broader views of moral theology) acknowledges a right of self-defence and a just war.
Opinion about a war probably remains ‘academic’ if the war is remote, but the greater the war’s practical relevance to normal life the greater is the likely interest in it and the need to take a view or to ‘take a side’. That is particularly true for people whose positions involve leading or teaching, or whose opinions are for some other reason publicised. Expression of opinion can carry risk; therefore care should be taken. Some people are so careful that they remain silent or profess neutrality on matters of dispute. President John F. Kennedy used to quote Dante: “the hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who, in a time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.”[3]
Do you agree with my judgment that some great moral crises exist today? Do you agree that the Catholic Church has “the right always and everywhere to announce moral principles, including those pertaining to the social order, and to make judgements on any human affairs to the extent that they are required by the fundamental rights of the human person or the salvation of souls”[4] (a very important statement, well worth memorising)? Has your experience (like mine) been that the almost-invariable practice of priests and bishops is to refrain from unpopularity-risking “announce[ments of] moral principles” and candid “judgements”? The rarity of such utterances seems typical also of the laity who have absorbed that uninspiring example. It is as if the shepherds and the sheep live in a fantasy-world in which contentment with one’s own carefully-cultivated pasture of peace is the essence of a Christian life, based on St. Paul’s exhortation to “[l]ive in harmony with one another” and “[i]f possible, so far as it depends upon you, live peaceably with all.”[5] A likely result of doing so is the smothering of unpleasant thoughts that what we are supposed to uphold has enemies. ‘Enemies? Oh, you mean Satan and sin? Oh yes, well, they have always been around. We can’t do anything about that. Anyway, who is to say what is right and wrong? ‘There but for the grace of God go I,’ and all that.’
World War II ended eighty years ago. Max Hastings, a journalist and military historian, described it in a radio-interview as “the defining event of the twentieth century,” and (in one of his books) as “the largest event in human history”[6] and “this greatest and most terrible of all human experiences which never fails to inspire humility in its modern students, [and] gratitude that we have been spared anything comparable.”[7] Although it has prompted a vast quantity of analysis and literature, there seems to have been no-one who has considered similarities and differences between it and the veritable, but non-military, war in modern times against Christianity-based culture. Possibly this article will lead to an in-depth project of that sort being undertaken by someone who has the time required for it.
If you do agree with my above-stated judgment that “some great moral crises exist today,” you may see both similarity and difference between the 1930s and the 1960s.
In the ’30s, the German National Socialist Workers’ Party capitalised on economic difficulties and social disorder and built up their strength to take counter-action which changed the country. In the ’60s, consumerism, revolutionary communism, and a rapidly-growing appetite for generally casting aside restraint combined to launch a social transformation, but there was no building-up of strength to take counter-action against that. Christians in general, many of whom bore the handicap (inherent in Protestantism) of rejecting objective authority by which to distinguish truth from error, were ill-equipped for even recognition of the challenge, far less for a will to fight it. Contrast the ’30s, when German re-armament and territorial expansion were (slowly) recognised as a danger and ultimately led Britain to issue a ‘stop, or it’s war’ warning which was ignored.
Soon there was war not only in Europe but in much of the world, because Japan attacked Pearl Harbour, destroying ships and many people. The U.S. Congress accepted President Roosevelt’s request for a declaration that since the attack a state of war had existed between the United States and Japan.
Rhetorical question: was it the Nazis or Britain who started the war in Europe, and was it Japan or the U.S. Congress who started the one in the Pacific?
World War II ‘brought to life’ Dante’s reference to “a great moral crisis.” Millions of people’s lives were changed dramatically, mostly adversely. It is reasonable to assume that they had to form opinions about the over-all situation and, in so far as they had any control over the matter, how they were going to react to it. The British and French Governments reacted by ‘mobilising’ their troops and sending them to various places, but there was no actual battle; they waited to see what the Germans would do. There was fear that to attack them would provoke retaliation. In the early 1960s, just when Christian ‘mobilisation’ was needed, Pope St. John XXIII’s speech opening ‘Vatican II’ acknowledged the existence of “fallacious teaching, opinions, and dangerous concepts to be guarded against and dissipated,” but made clear his (calamitously-mistaken) impression that the errors were so obvious that most people were “inclined to condemn them” anyway. In other words, Christians need not be significantly alarmed or spurred to action; as has become clear beyond doubt, they were not. Nor were all of their ‘leaders,’ such as the one who advised a group of Catholic medical students that support for legal abortion would be likely to increase if Catholics opposed it too energetically,[8] and that the medical profession would not allow it to happen.[9] So in the 1930s and in the 1960s there was psychological unpreparedness to fight the enemy.
Does the same apply to today’s ‘culture war(s)’?
The form of conflict is different: World War II was primarily a military war, but ‘culture war’ is a philosophical one.
Participation also is different: in World War II, most able-bodied people between specified ages were compelled to join the armed forces or to do something else which was useful to the war-effort, but participation in modern ‘culture-wars’ has always been optional.
Participation in optional activities depends on aptitude, opportunity, and inclination.
People have talent for different things, not for everything, but everyone has talent for something.
Opportunity is, for various reasons, less widespread than talent, so some people are regretfully unable to participate in some things; for example, a veteran ‘pro-lifer’ said to me that ‘anti-life’ activists are able to devote more time to their campaigns because they tend to have fewer children than pro-lifers, or no children at all. Even if that very ‘sweeping’ theory were true it is ironic that participation in ‘family life’ (compounded by the demands of employment) prevents participation in counteracting opposition to it.
Inclination can be defeated by inability, but must come before it. The root of inclination is desire for the foreseen benefit of participation (does that seem too complicated?). A simple example: people play games because they derive amusement or other enjoyment from doing so. A serious example: people participate in political activity because they desire implementation of the relevant philosophy and the defeat of the contrary.
In 1930s Germany, there was not unanimous support for Hitler. Some people certainly had an inclination to resist him, but discovered their inability to succeed. It has been said that during his travels across Europe there were over forty attempts to kill him.[10] Seemingly the only armed forces officer who came close to succeeding was Colonel Claus Schenk von Stauffenberg, by a bomb in a briefcase in July 1944. Opponents of Nazism who had ‘the right connections’ made secret efforts through diplomatic channels to thwart it, but Hitler’s policies had improved living-conditions for many people and at first his military activities were successful. When people believe, however misguidedly, that new directions are advantageous, the halting and reversal of those directions is extremely difficult. If, in the comparatively-early stages of the post-1950s ‘culture-war,’ there were behind-the-scenes discussions in high places about ‘nipping it in the bud,’ there seems no evidence of them. The late-1930s conspiracy, mainly among the military, to stop the Nazis would probably have been jeopardised by insufficient support from the public (whose living-conditions had improved considerably), and lack of support would probably have defeated a counter-revolution in Western countries in the 1960s and subsequently. As in 1939 and early 1940 there had been hesitation in Britain and France while waiting to see whether things would become as bad as feared, in the 1960s no substantial counter-revolutionary action materialised.
In each case, subsequent events have illustrated well – positively’ and ‘by default’ – (a) the importance of whether the opposing sides in ostensibly-separate (but often connected) battles are enthusiastic for their philosophies, and (b) the fact that non-participation helps the side which the non-participant(s) might have opposed. (Think about it.)
Neutrality is, therefore, rather illusory; in a ‘culture-war,’ or any war, people decide which side they are going to help, actively or by inactivity. A participant in the 1944 ‘D-Day’ invasion of Normandy asked, rhetorically, at the 80th commemoration of that event, “If you love your country, and someone wants to take it, do you just sit back?” The same applies to ‘culture’. Collectively they amount to a matter of who wants their philosophy to be in control of a country, a continent, or the world. A major difference between World War II and the over-all ‘culture war’ today is that in the 1940s the difference between the sides was recognised clearly and each side had a general desire to win, whereas today such vision or desire is evident in abundance among the proponents of contra-Christian conduct but comparatively-sparsely among Christians themselves.
[1] Matt. 5:38-39.
[2] Paragraphs 2308 and 2309.
[3] Robert F. Kennedy, in the Foreword to “Profiles in Courage,” John F. Kennedy; Hamish Hamilton, Ltd., London, 1965.
[4] “Catechism of the Catholic Church,” paragraph 2032.
[5] Rom. 12:16 & 18.
[6] “All Hell Let Loose: The World at War 1939-45,” HarperPress, 2011, p.xvi.
[7] Ibid., p.xx; yes, indeed.
[8] cf. “Christian Counter-Attack,” Arnold Lunn & Garth Lean,” Blandford Press, Ltd., 1969; Catholic Book Club edition, 1970, p.1: “[M]any Christians [seem to believe] that the only case which is better for not being stated is the case for Christianity. … Christianity itself conquered the Roman world because its missionaries were not only prepared to die, if necessary, for their faith but were passionately anxious to persuade men that Jesus of Nazareth had proved His deity by rising from the dead; and in our own day, Communists have conquered much of the globe because the majority of Communists all over the world welcome the opportunity to state the case for Communism. The theory that you actually damage your case by stating it was left to Christians to develop.”
[9] “Calx Mariae” magazine, Issue 13, 2021, p.29.
[10] “Hitler’s Bodyguard – Kill Hitler Before War Starts,” Nugus/Martin Productions, Ltd., 2008.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.