Assassination during the war

  • Thread starter Thread starter Babinicz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Babinicz

Guest
I have a question. For example there was II world war and Nazis occupied Poland territory. And I have seen many times in films or read in books that partisans were preparing to assassinate one of Nazi commandant, general or similar rank. They created an ambush and then they killed one of Nazis.
And I want to know whether it was good or not? I mean, I think the partisans had some vengeance thoughts while preparing that. Nazis were doing terrifying deeds like genocide, concentration camps, public executions. It had been a war and people wanted to stop that deadly machine by assassinating one of their leaders.
 
That is a good question. Even in a just war, there are moral military acts (eg targeting a military ship) and immoral military acts (targeting a city).

It is my opinion, that in a just war, it would be ok to target military leaders with assassination. It is really not an assassination, but rather an attack on a specific military target. There is no difference between attacking a military person vs a military base, is there?
One cannot target a civilian, regardless of government position, excepting of course civilians who are above the chain of command of the military (e.g. a commander-in-chief).
 
tafan2 said:
One cannot target a civilian, regardless of government position, excepting of course civilians who are above the chain of command of the military (e.g. a commander-in-chief).
Click to expand...
Didnt work out so well in Hiroshima and Nagasaki…so maybe “,just war” is a unicorn.
 
You pick the two most extraordinary acts of war in human history to attempt to make your point that a just war does not exist?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
I guess to some, if they or their loved ones are not killed, the war is more just.
 
vz71 said:
Do you suggest the second world war was an unjust war?
Click to expand...
I suggest no war is just, which should not be taken to mean i think any war is not necessary…however, justifying the death of one innocent soul with war, is in my mind, akin to justfying abortion for any reason.
 
Last edited:
FOG said:
I suggest no war is just, which should not be taken to mean i think any war is not necessary…however, justifying the death of one innocent soul with war, is in my mind, akin to justfying abortion for any reason.
Click to expand...
This runs contrary to Catholic doctrine.
 
Here is the periment from the Catechism:
2307 The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war.105

2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.

However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."106

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
  • the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
  • all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
  • there must be serious prospects of success;
  • the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
 
vz71 said:
Really?
Please quote the pertinent statements.
I am curious how doctrine and dogma could be contrary to each other.
Click to expand...
Doctrine and dogma are not contrary. Doctrine (although admittedly it does not happen often), can be changed. Dogmata are non-negotiable statements that a Catholic is obligated to believe to remain in full communion with the Church.

Don’t hold me to this number, but I there are 255 infallible dogmatic statements of the Church.

For example, belief in the Virgin Birth is dogmatic. Priests not being allowed to be married is doctrine. The dogma is infallible, but the Pope could lift the restriction on priests being married.

So “just war” might be legitimized in doctrine (I believe the CCC addressed the issue), but it does not have to be blindly accepted by the faithful…Notice that recently, even the doctrine (as codified in the CCC) on the permissibility of Capital Punishment justifies Capital Punishment in some cases, but the Pope has stated he does not feel that today there is an absolute justification for Capital Punishment…and by stating such opinion, he is not committing heresy, because he is not going against dogma.
 
Last edited:
Priests not being allowed to be married needs to be nuanced a bit.

It is a 2,000 year old tradition that Priests may not marry.

On the other hand, the Catholic Church has had married men who are subsequently ordained. The eastern rites, in union with Rome, have that history.

Currently in the Roman rite, married men may not be ordained, but there are exceptions within the Protestant clergy who have joined the Church; some have been ordained.

The issue is not doctrine; it is discipline, and therefore subject to change.
 
vz71 said:
So we are free to ignore the catechism if there is no infallible statement on it?
Click to expand...
Understanding that the CCC is not a law book, or exclusively a list of Church Dogma, but is a reference book presenting Church beliefs (both dogmatic and doctrinal, defined in my earlier post) in an organized manner as an aid to catechesis, I’m not sure why one would “ignore” it.

If you question is, is everything in the Catechism dogmatic, the answer is no, so to use the discussion on capital punishment or just war as an example, even though the Church might justify the two doctrinally, one does not jeopardize their salvation or communion with the Church for not being in full agreement, because these teachings are not infallible.
 
I really struggle with morality and War. I am what one might term “pro war” I do think things can be solved with war. Though it surely is something that sin begets. Moral or not it has always baffled me why assassinations are not more common.
 
FOG said:
, I’m not sure why one would “ignore” it.
Click to expand...
Isn’t that precisely what you are doing when you hold to beliefs that are contrary to the Catechism and defend the position by pointing out the difference between dogma and doctrine?
 
Hoosier-Daddy said:
Moral or not it has always baffled me why assassinations are not more common.
Click to expand...
For one thing, one can never be certain the outcome will be greater then whatever atrocity you wish to stop.
Another problem is that without an active declaration of war, one cannot justify the action.
 
No you misunderstand. I know why it’s wrong. I know why the ensuing chaos may be less preferable. I just wonder why it doesn’t happen more often.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top