One of the advantages of the Anglican Communion versus, say, the Catholic Church, is that the hierarchy and centralization only goes so far. So when the Pope says something, Catholics are obliged to at least consider it (it’s only considered really infallible if he formally speaks ex cathedra), and are similarly obliged to at least feel a little guilty about then ignoring it. On the other hand, when the Archbishop of Canterbury says something, Anglican types like myself can simply nod, say, “That’s nice,” and go on with their lives.
For example, yesterday the AoC, the Right Reverend Rowan Williams, was speaking before the Royal Institute for International Affairs. Some of his comments:
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, yesterday urged America to recognise that terrorists can “have serious moral goals”.
Well, I take them seriously. Deadly seriously.
No, I’m aware that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter, and all that. I think the unnuanced “They hate us and hate freedom” line from the Administration is oversimplifying things. I don’t know if that oversimplification is the actual depth of Administration understanding of the situation, or just what can fit into sound bites. Neither, I suspect, does Dr. Williams.
And, for what it’s worth, looking at the actual rhetoric and socio-political goals of folks like al Qa’eda, one could certainly sum it up as, simply, as “They hate us and hate freedom.” And when someone’s shooting a gun at you, trying to delve too deeply into their motivations is usually less urgent than trying to stop them.
He said that while terrorism must always be condemned, it was wrong to assume its perpetrators were devoid of political rationality.
No, just devoid of a morality that I care to recognize as defensible.
“It is possible to use unspeakably wicked means to pursue an aim that is shared by those who would not dream of acting in the same way, an aim that is intelligible or desirable.”
Yes, it certainly is. It’s also possible that the shared aim is neither intelligible nor desirable.
He said that in ignoring this, in its criticism of al-Qa’eda, America “loses the power of self-criticism and becomes trapped in a self-referential morality.”
Which certainly seems to be the problem with most terrorist groups. And their supporters.
Dr Williams made his comments in a lecture to the Royal Institute for International Affairs, in which he said he wanted to challenge violence “as the tool of private interest or private redress”.
Dr Williams said that no government should act as its own judge on whether to launch military action against a rogue state.
Williams opposed the war on Iraq, of course, urging, instead, more inspections. It’s not clear, though, who actually then should have the authority to act as such a judge. Oh, wait, here it comes …
“Violence is not to be undertaken by private persons,” he said.
Actually, there are times when, legally and morally, a private person may act violently. Though, of course, that seems far less true in British jurisprudence than in the US.
“If a state or administration acts without due and visible attention to agreed international process, …
… Like, say, over a decade of UN security council resolutions, and lengthy discussions, consultations, and negotiations for something like a year beforehand …
… it acts in a way analogous to a private person. It purports to be judge of its own interest.”
Well, yes. It purports to be judge of its own interest. That does seem to be how most states act, as well as most individuals. I’m not sure what the alternative is, since I’m not sure anyone else is better qualified to judge such an interest. And, ultimately, the responsibility and consequences have to be held by that individual (or state).
Dr Williams said that he recognised there were weaknesses in the current international legal institutions and called for reforms in the United Nations to deal with the problems.
Ah. Well, thank heavens we’ll be coming up with a way for the UN to more effectively —
A new panel of legal experts should be introduced to advise where military intervention was necessary, rather than relying entirely on the UN Security Council, he said.
Oh. Right. We’ll add another layer of (unaccountable) bureaucracy to the UN process. That will certainly add to its moral fiber, as well as its ability to act forthrightly in pursuit of its chartered principles.
I can certainly agree with the Right Rev. Williams that demonizing one’s foes rarely provides moral clarity to one’s actions. I can agree that there are dangers in simply acting without consideration of other, and that violence is to be avoided when possible in such actions.
But it’s times like these when I’m glad I can simply nod, say, “That’s nice,” and go about my business without being obliged to feel guilty for thinking Dr. Williams is something of a goofball.