Cardinal Turkson backs call for reconsideration of just-war tradition [CC]

[jeffrey_erwin]

Brendan:
One thing that God cannot Do is act unjustly, so you are correct that we cannot question His acts, but rather, we are to learn from them, and emulate them in any way possible.

**Humanity cannot dictate to YHWH what He can and cannot do. Nor may we judge whether or not His acts are just or unjust.
The most unjust act to ever occur on the face of the earth was the false indictment, arrest, and execution by torture of the Messiah.
But YHWH allowed this to happen because it suited his Divine purpose.

You say that we must learn from our Creator’s actions. I agree, and I have been trying to get agreement about this idea.
Our Creator came to us in human form and graphically demonstrated just how to follow His two most important laws.
The is the act that humanity should be striving to emulate: loving our fellow man and trusting in YHWH for our well-being.
Instead we betray Jesus with our refusal to “present the other cheek” as He did and with our refusal to love and trust our Creator completely… **

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

Sir, the essence of war is murderous violence.
Cloaking that truth in a nice phrase such as “justified self-defense” does not cancel that reality.

 

[Yeoman]

**According to the Just War Theory a 1st century Jewish revolt against the Roman occupation of Israel would have been allowed.
**

I’m looking a this thread rather late, but I don’t think that’s correct. The just war theory entails recognizing that governments exist and have a valid purpose and that war is something that can only be declared and waged by the state. In more modern times that’s been expanded to be pretty much limited to defense wars.

I’m not a moral theologian, but rebellions would almost never, if ever, be excused under the just war theory. Indeed its notable that at one point in the Irish Civil War the church declared the Irish Republicans to be acting immorally against a legitimate government and at least threatened excommunication.

Anyhow, before a person would to too far condemning or supporting the theory (and I think it squires with the Faith quite well), a person has to be aware that wars that qualify as legitimate under it are relatively few, in all probability, and that it imposes a very heavy moral obligation on how such wars are waged.

 

[Yeoman]

First, as the Catechism points out, the just war doctrine is a doctrine, not just a theory. Second, I don’t think it’s accurate that the conditions of the just war doctrine allow what you say. CCC 2243 says that a revolt is only justified when there is good hope of success, the resistance won’t cause worse disorders, and all other means of redress have been tried. I don’t think those conditions were met in 1st century Judea. The doctrine is present in the New Testament and in the pre-Nicene Fathers. source Some of Jesus’s disciples served in the military and St. Cornelius the Centurion is one of the earliest saints who served in an army. Jesus taught the right to armed defense in Luke 22:35-38 and St. Paul used that right to defend himself in Acts 23:12-31. The New Testament teaches that the state has the right to use the sword to defend its people against evildoers in Romans 13:4 and the Book of Revelation mentions that Jesus will “wage war justly” in Rev. 19:11. Pre-Nicene Catholics served in the military in the Theban Legion and the Thundering Legion, and there were Catholic soldiers in service in Alexandria including St. Maurice. Moreover, the pre-Nicene Church Fathers taught that some wars are just and that Catholics can serve in the military. source

Nine ecumenical councils have spoken in favor of the Church’s just war doctrine, including the Second Ecumenical Council.

I don’t think the Church can give up the just war doctrine because I think it is clearly a part of Church teaching as handed down to us by Jesus, the Apostles, the ecumenical councils, the Fathers of the Church, and the Doctors of the Church. That doesn’t make the just war doctrine flawed. People will always use good things to justify bad things and that doesn’t mean the good things are flawed. People will use the name of God to justify bad things and that doesn’t mean the name of God is flawed, and people will use the Church’s just war doctrine to justify bad things and that doesn’t mean the just war doctrine is flawed. In fact, an explicit part of the Church’s doctrine is that we reject Mutually Assured Destruction. This appears in the encyclical Pacem in Terris paragraphs 110-111 and in Gaudium et Spes paragraph 81. Therefore, those who use the just war doctrine to justify those things are contradicting themselves.

As usual, I should have read all the replies before I replied, as you’d already detailed what I attempted to.

We must consider that Christ did say that he who didn’t own a swords should go out and buy one. One of the challenges that Christians have is apply what Christ said and meant, which no Christian does perfectly. Personal pacifism is admirable to some extent, but it doesn’t seem to be a societal mandate from Christ at least in all circumstances.

 

[Brendan]

Interesting reply to my statement

Human criteria I could not care less about, it is the Divine criteria on what constitutes a just war that counts. And that is where the doctrine of Just War comes into play. It is not human in origin, but rather looks at the wars that were fought with Divine approval and looks it the common points.

.

Then you stated

**By this logic the Jews would be justified in waging a war of extermination against Palestinians. **

Do you consider the extermination of the Palestinians to be a Divine Good?

**

Also (and more correctly) by this logic we should look at wars that were not fought: case in point (as I have mentioned) the refusal by the Messiah to wage a war of liberation **

Who says that we do not. Yes, I agree that Christ did not set Himself up as a temporal king.

His view of being a Messiah was larger that that. But likewise, we do not consider our political leaders to be Messiah’s, rather they are the authorities that God declared to be servants when they inflict wrath on those who do evil.

 

[Yeoman]

I wonder if the larger story is that Cardinal Turkson may actually be in error. It might not be so much the case that people are misusing the Just War Doctrine so much as ignoring it.

In the case of the US, I think the Just War theory doesn’t even enter debates about peace and war save for those of us who are dedicated Catholics and a few people who like to theorize about such things. Otherwise, the country makes these decisions almost without reference to the Just War Doctrine and, I dare say, without it having any direct influence on our decisions at all, on a national level. I doubt that any American politician at that decision making level has pondered this. . . ever.

And I doubt things are any different in Europe. Or anywhere else.

So, like it or not, isn’t the truth of this not so much that the Just War Doctrine is abused so much as ignored.

And if that’s the case, perhaps the answer isn’t to modify the doctrine to clarify against the risk of abuse but rather to actually start arguing with political entities about whether or not their actions comply with the Doctrine.

But if we are to do that, and I think we should, we must acknowledge that means that we are going to have to say when we feel some war is a Just War. In modern times, we’d rather not do that, and indeed, in the US we’re so chicken about that the body that is supposed to Declare War doesn’t. And hasn’t since 1941.

So, that’s what I think the case is. Cardinal Turkson is in error. Politicians are misapplying the Just War Doctrine. Most don’t know what it is, some have never heard of it, and we’re basically wholly ignored on this issue.

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

It is truly amazing that Jews have chosen to walk in the footsteps of Jesus, while Christians refuse to do so.

 

[Emperor_Markus]

Under what authority would they abandon the doctrine?

 

[jimcav]

**
Just War Doctrine implies that society has the right to take the place of YHWH in making decisions about war. I cannot agree with that idea.**

Jesus left us a Church, the Catholic Church, to deal with such things as war, abortion, euthanasia, and a myriad of other social issues, and we trust that our Church is guided by the Holy Spirit to come up with doctrines on such critical issues. We don’t believe that our Church makes these decisions easily and without considerable thought and prayer.

Jesus did not leave us to our own devices.

 

[dmar198]

In the case of the US, I think the Just War theory doesn’t even enter debates about peace and war… And I doubt things are any different in Europe. Or anywhere else.

Several of the principles of the Church’s just war doctrine have been incorporated into the United Nations Charter. For example, Article 33 says that nations must not go to war unless they have tried all other means of redress. Article 51 bases the right to go to war on the right of self-defense. It uses a conditional clause: “if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations,” then they may go to war and petition the UN for assistance. Anyone can see that that condition excludes wars of aggression, and that is similar to the Church’s just war doctrine. Chapters 6-7 of the Charter are also all about the need for member nations to first discuss their grievances against each other at the UN meetings, and the UN collectively judges what means are appropriate to resolve it, including military ones. That is similar to what the Church’s doctrine suggests concerning the use of an international authority on war and the need for leaders rather than individuals to declare war.

These issues are frequently debated not just among Catholics but among diplomats at all the UN gatherings and in countries who grumble against it, including the United States. One of the problems with the UN is that it has often been ineffective at enforcing its policies on war prevention, leading to countries that simply don’t declare war when they start fighting. That helps them get around the just war restrictions. On the other hand, a case could be made that the Cold War avoided escalation in part due to discussions by the US and Russia at the UN, and the War on Terror was begun in line with the UN Charter if I remember correctly. Several nations even joined the US war at that time, and they later dropped out when its justice became more controversial. France and Australia have joined again now that the coalition is fighting ISIS, and Italy recently indicated that they might join.

Anyway, the principles of just war are considered diplomatically because some of them were adopted by the UN. They have real-world effects as seen in the limited escalation of the Cold War, the US coalition against terrorism after 9/11, the way many countries dropped out of that war for reasons related to its perceived injustice, and the way some are joining back in now that the threat of ISIS is recognized as a genocide.

I hope that helps. Please let me know. God bless!

 

[Yeoman]

Several of the principles of the Church’s just war doctrine have been incorporated into the United Nations Charter. For example, Article 33 says that nations must not go to war unless they have tried all other means of redress. Article 51 bases the right to go to war on the right of self-defense. It uses a conditional clause: “if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations,” then they may go to war and petition the UN for assistance. Anyone can see that that condition excludes wars of aggression, and that is similar to the Church’s just war doctrine. Chapters 6-7 of the Charter are also all about the need for member nations to first discuss their grievances against each other at the UN meetings, and the UN collectively judges what means are appropriate to resolve it, including military ones. That is similar to what the Church’s doctrine suggests concerning the use of an international authority on war and the need for leaders rather than individuals to declare war.

These issues are frequently debated not just among Catholics but among diplomats at all the UN gatherings and in countries who grumble against it, including the United States. One of the problems with the UN is that it has often been ineffective at enforcing its policies on war prevention, leading to countries that simply don’t declare war when they start fighting. That helps them get around the just war restrictions. On the other hand, a case could be made that the Cold War avoided escalation in part due to discussions by the US and Russia at the UN, and the War on Terror was begun in line with the UN Charter if I remember correctly. Several nations even joined the US war at that time, and they later dropped out when its justice became more controversial. France and Australia have joined again now that the coalition is fighting ISIS, and Italy recently indicated that they might join.

Anyway, the principles of just war are considered diplomatically because some of them were adopted by the UN. They have real-world effects as seen in the limited escalation of the Cold War, the US coalition against terrorism after 9/11, the way many countries dropped out of that war for reasons related to its perceived injustice, and the way some are joining back in now that the threat of ISIS is recognized as a genocide.

I hope that helps. Please let me know. God bless!

Conceding all of these issues, when nations opt for war, and they still do, I don’t think that we can maintain that they’ve seriously run through all of these first and, more particularly, I can’t think of any examples of nations headed down the road to war and then determining that the war would not be just, and therefore backing off.

A better argument would be, I think, that Christian principals have so infused the world that we are now at the point where debating the morality of a war is part of much of the world’s culture. Indeed, there are many items of global culture that stem directly from the Catholic faith even in an era in which people do not feel that they otherwise need to listen to us. A bigger question may be that now that Western culture is developing in another direction if this will lead to the deterioration of this such that cultures become crueler in various fashions.

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

Jesus left us a Church, the Catholic Church, to deal with such things as war, abortion, euthanasia, and a myriad of other social issues, and we trust that our Church is guided by the Holy Spirit to come up with doctrines on such critical issues. We don’t believe that our Church makes these decisions easily and without considerable thought and prayer.
Jesus did not leave us to our own devices.

**Well spoken.
Our Lord did indeed give St. Peter the keys to the Church.
The thread here is whether or not our Church should edit its Just War Doctrine.
I restate my supposition: no Christian Church should attempt to take the place of our Creator by endorsing any particular war on its own.
The only “just war” is one that is ordered by Him.

The Just War Doctrine ought to be modified to reflect that idea… **

 

[dmar198]

**Well spoken.
Our Lord did indeed give St. Peter the keys to the Church.
The thread here is whether or not our Church should edit its Just War Doctrine.
I restate my supposition: no Christian Church should attempt to take the place of our Creator by endorsing any particular war on its own.
The only “just war” is one that is ordered by Him.

The Just War Doctrine ought to be modified to reflect that idea… **

I’m not exactly sure what you mean by modify and edit. The Church is infallible. What it teaches now and in the past and in the future is definitely true. Any edits or modifications would therefore have to leave intact all that is currently taught because all that is currently taught by the Church is protected by infallibility. Am I missing something?

 

[jimcav]

**
I restate my supposition: no Christian Church should attempt to take the place of our Creator by endorsing any particular war on its own.
The only “just war” is one that is ordered by Him.**

The Pope, as the Vicar of Christ on earth, does have the support of our Creator and can indeed endorse or not endorse war, as he speaks for Him in persona.

Again, we are not left to our own devices and opinions on these weighty matters. We follow, and trust, the authority of the Church just as Jesus wanted us to.

I do respect what you are trying to say, but the Church speaks for us in such matters…

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

I’m not exactly sure what you mean by modify and edit. The Church is infallible. What it teaches now and in the past and in the future is definitely true. Any edits or modifications would therefore have to leave intact all that is currently taught because all that is currently taught by the Church is protected by infallibility. Am I missing something?

It is Cardinal Turkson who is suggesting that the current Just War Doctrine needs to be modified.
I am not a Catholic so I cannot speak as to whether or not that Church has the ability to modify its Catechism, but I would hope that such would be possible.

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

The Pope, as the Vicar of Christ on earth, does have the support of our Creator and can indeed endorse or not endorse war, as he speaks for Him in persona.

Again, we are not left to our own devices and opinions on these weighty matters. We follow, and trust, the authority of the Church just as Jesus wanted us to.

Of course.
But the Just War Doctrine, as it currently stands, does not require any potential belligerent to seek the Bishop of Rome’s endorsement for their proposed war.
Therefore the decision to wage war presently is make by man, not by our Creator.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Of course.
But the Just War Doctrine, as it currently stands, does not require any potential belligerent to seek the Bishop of Rome’s endorsement for their proposed war.
Therefore the decision to wage war presently is make by man, not by our Creator.

Jeffrey, say you were involved in a dangerous situation with an assailant going after you and people around you. Would you defend yourself and those around you, by getting people to a safe area and even removing the assailant’s threat up to death - or would you email the local bishop and the Pope to wait for their take on if it’s just or not?

The Church lays out principles, not detailed exact scenarios. You as an intelligent, baptized and confirmed, member of the Body of Christ need to use reason wisely.

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

Jeffrey, say you were involved in a dangerous situation with an assailant going after you and people around you. Would you defend yourself and those around you, by getting people to a safe area and even removing the assailant’s threat up to death - or would you email the local bishop and the Pope to wait for their take on if it’s just or not?

The Church lays out principles, not detailed exact scenarios. You as an intelligent, baptized and confirmed, member of the Body of Christ need to use reason wisely.

**That is a legitimate question, but no can really say for sure what they would actually do until that situation happens.
Peter said that he would follow Jesus to death, but then, when the time came, he was willing to fight, but not to surrender and so ran away. Subsequently came his famous denials.

The only answer that I can give to your question is that I believe in following the example set by that itinerant Jewish preacher: when He was ambushed by His enemies He refused to defend Himself (He could easily have done so.) Furthermore, He refused to allow His armed associates to defend Him.
Many have lived up to His example, Christians and Jews alike.

Using reason wisely, as you say, would be to remember that our Creator knows all and is fully able to come to our defence.
We are enjoined by His commandments to trust in His providence and protection.
And if we find that such is not immediately forthcoming, we nonetheless must continue in our trust of the One who has the power to make all things right.

**

 

[dmar198]

It is Cardinal Turkson who is suggesting that the current Just War Doctrine needs to be modified.

As I noted earlier, I don’t think that is accurate. The good cardinal merely said that the goal of limiting and ending war needs to be taught. That is Part of the Church’s just war doctrine, not against it.

I am not a Catholic so I cannot speak as to whether or not that Church has the ability to modify its Catechism, but I would hope that such would be possible.

Modifying the Catechism can mean more than one thing. The Catechism is an expression of unchangeable teachings. Expressions can change whenever language changes, but doctrines cannot. There are also changes in Canon Law and in Church disciplines that will need to be made clear to future generations. Those things can change, and in the future I expect that new Catechisms will be issued to reflect ongoing revisions of Canon Law, changing language, and additional insights from the Church. None of that can change doctrine, though. Jesus gave us the Church’s just war doctrine. We have no authority to take away what He has given us.

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

**I could not disagree more with this idea.
Jesus repeatedly enjoined us to take up our own cross and follow Him.
He said that we must “present the other cheek,” and He showed us how to do this in a most dramatic fashion.
Furthermore, we have the teaching that “the perfect disciple is like his Master.”

The idea that Jesus had some kind of “particular special destiny” that would exempt His followers from having to imitate His example is not correct and is a misunderstanding of His surrender to His enemies.
From that misunderstanding we get the erroneous idea that His death was some kind of macabre Jewish sacrifice to YHWH “for the forgiveness of our sins.”
But that idea does not make any sense on two counts:

1. Jewish sacrifice to YHWH never involved the torture of the sacrificed animal, and
2. Jesus repeatedly demonstrated that He had the power of Himself to forgive sins.

Most, if not all, of His immediate followers eventually came to understand that, as His followers, they had to accept surrender to their enemies.
We have the story of St. Peter being persuaded by his disciples to flee Rome after coming under indictment and then encountering none other than Jesus Himself walking towards Rome.
When Peter asked the Lord what He was doing, Jesus replied, “I am going into Rome to be crucified for a second time.”
At that Peter turned back to Rome to accept his fate.

We must all follow the example set by our Teacher and accept our fate.
That is why we pray to YHWH to not “put us to the test.” **