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

[Ridgerunner]

**According to the Just War Theory a 1st century Jewish revolt against the Roman occupation of Israel would have been allowed.
But the Jewish Messiah did not consent to lead such a war against the brutal Romans.
Instead He advised His followers to obey Rome’s orders and to go the extra mile in doing so.

This Theory was not a part of original Christian theology, but only came about after Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire.
I think that it is deeply flawed. I notice posters using it in an attempt to justify such insanity as the Mutual Assured Destruction doctrine of nuclear weapons.

It is time for Just War Protocols to be either revised or thrown out altogether.**

ncronline.org/news/peace-justice/catholics-press-nuclear-weapons-ban-un-treaty-review-conference

I don’t think a Jewish revolt at the time of Christ would have been justified at all without Jesus leading it, which He didn’t.

There were two legions in Syria at the time, composed mostly of Teutons, and some of the toughest fighters the world ever saw. A Jewish revolt had no chance, as subsequent events demonstrated.

 

[Vouthon]

I think God Did stop the Holocaust by using the Allies. His law doesn’t forbid war in all cases.

6 million Jews perished in the heart of Europe, with no one to save them and in fact with a goodly number - save heroic souls - indirectly or directly collaborating with the Nazis in their annihilation and not merely Germans. Do you call that “stopping”?

The only thing that could have prevented this from happening was if Hitler had never been allowed to illegally annex parts of Eastern Europe in the first place in pursuit of lebensraum. Prevention is the only true cure.

Yes, when the West had lain silent for too long and the crocodile had finally come for us after devouring uncountable other innocent victims with our appeasing gaze, yes at that hour the Allied war - even that of the Soviets, not counting their unjustified occupation of Eastern Europe afterwards - was “necessary” and “justified”. And indisputably, the right side won.

But the war should never have been allowed to occur in the first place. The international system created after WWI failed the 6 million Jews that were to perish as well as the 70 million total innocents who lost their lives. We didn’t stop it - we made a terrible situation better, made light come out of the darkness, some limited good from the evil. But we didn’t “stop” it from happening when we could have.

"Nothing is lost by peace. Everything may be lost by war. " Pope Pius XII (August 24, 1939), on the eve of WWII

 

[Brendan]

**I believe that the Jews are YHWH’s chosen people.
Now if our Creator did not Himself stop the holocaust then why were we obligated to violate His Law by killing people in order to do that?
Our only just means of obstructing the holocaust were prayer and the wearing of our own yellow stars.

The idea of “Just War” denies the Power of the Almighty. **

No, it came about because of the Scriptural evidence.

For example, the war between the Israelites and the Amalekites. The war was clearly Just, as God have assistance to the Israelites. (Exodus 17)

Likewise in the war between the Philistines and the Israelites. Was it not God who guided David’s rock?

Clearly, such wars are not contrary to the plan of God, as God Himself took part ( God cannot engage in an unjust act, it is contrary to His Nature).

Ergo, there is such a thing as a Just War.

 

[Vouthon]

No, it came about because of the Scriptural evidence.

For example, the war between the Israelites and the Amalekites. The war was clearly Just, as God have assistance to the Israelites. (Exodus 17)

Likewise in the war between the Philistines and the Israelites. Was it not God who guided David’s rock?

Clearly, such wars are not contrary to the plan of God, as God Himself took part ( God cannot engage in an unjust act, it is contrary to His Nature).

Ergo, there is such a thing as a Just War.

But that’s not what Cardinal Turkson was saying. God can do what He wills and those wars of scripture obviously fulfilled a specific purpose in the divine economy. Note that God had to make use of sinful, primitive men and work through them.

Simply put, the question that sits before us concerns the morality of “modern” 21st century warfare. Not according to God in His inscrutable wisdom but war as prosecuted by sinful man.

War then and war now cannot be seen as equivalent. The world has changed, the international system has changed, the weapons have changed:

**“The development of armaments by modern science has immeasurably magnified the horrors and wickedness of war. Warfare conducted with these weapons can inflict immense and indiscriminate havoc which goes far beyond the bounds of legitimate defense” (“Gaudium et Spes,” #80). **

"To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a ‘just war’." - Pope Benedict XVI (then Cardinal Ratzinger), 2003, Zenit

Pope Francis may (or may not) decide to write an encyclical answering this question, or at least revamp/up-date the just war tradition somewhat in line with the needs of the present.

 

[dmar198]

6 million Jews perished in the heart of Europe, with no one to save them and in fact with a goodly number - save heroic souls - indirectly or directly collaborating with the Nazis in their annihilation and not merely Germans. Do you call that “stopping”?

No, I call the later victory of the Allies “stopping.” Even that wasn’t quick enough though. I think they should have bombed the railways that led to the death camps. That would have been stopping too.

War then and war now cannot be seen as equivalent. The world has changed, the international system has changed, the weapons have changed…

Thank you for bringing up this important point. I agree that the just war tradition allows for circumstances to arise where all wars involve injustice at the practical level – at least all wars that use weapons of mass destruction, which is probably all of them anymore.

“[G]iven the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a ‘just war’.” - Pope Benedict XVI (then Cardinal Ratzinger), 2003, Zenit

Thank you for this quotation. Servant of God Dorothy Day made similar remarks in her newspaper The Catholic Worker in 1940. “Theologians have laid down conditions for a just war (Monsignor Barry O’Toole is writing on these conditions in the last eight issues), and many modern writers, clerical and lay, hold that these conditions are impossible of fulfillment in these present times of bombardment of civilians, open cities, the use of poison gas, etc.” source

 

[Brendan]

But that’s not what Cardinal Turkson was saying. God can do what He wills and those wars of scripture obviously fulfilled a specific purpose in the divine economy. Note that God had to make use of sinful, primitive men and work through them.

Simply put, the question that sits before us concerns the morality of “modern” 21st century warfare. Not according to God in His inscrutable wisdom but war as prosecuted by sinful man.

War then and war now cannot be seen as equivalent. The world has changed, the international system has changed, the weapons have changed:

**“The development of armaments by modern science has immeasurably magnified the horrors and wickedness of war. Warfare conducted with these weapons can inflict immense and indiscriminate havoc which goes far beyond the bounds of legitimate defense” (“Gaudium et Spes,” #80). **

The point being, there is such a thing as a Just War. God participated in in, and even called for war at times ( which is distinct from simply letting it happen). That is active participation by God, ergo war cannot be intrinsically unjust. The justice of a war can this be determined by the conditions God Himself exhibited.

As far as modern armaments, nuclear weapons and chemical weapons against civilians is already prohibited by the moral law.

As for other conventional arms, I see no difference in the wickedness of being killed by a 5.56mm round to the head vs David’s stone.

"To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a ‘just war’." - Pope Benedict XVI (then Cardinal Ratzinger), 2003, Zenit

Pope Francis may (or may not) decide to write an encyclical answering this question, or at least revamp/up-date the just war tradition somewhat in line with the needs of the present.

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

I don’t think a Jewish revolt at the time of Christ would have been justified at all without Jesus leading it, which He didn’t.

There were two legions in Syria at the time, composed mostly of Teutons, and some of the toughest fighters the world ever saw. A Jewish revolt had no chance, as subsequent events demonstrated.

**
Well, that is the point. Jesus declined to lead a revolt even though it would have been permitted by the Just War Doctrine.
My opinion is that His refusal invalidates that Doctrine.

Of course the two subsequent revolts were unsuccessful, but those were not led by the Messiah.
As I have said, with the Messiah leading the fight against Roman oppression, success would have been undeniable. **

 

[otjm]

Why would you accuse me of posting a false profile without evidence?

That was not directed to your profile, as I had not read it; it was directed to your comment.

So I will restate: you were in the military and think the theory should be tossed?

And which war is it you consider illegal?

 

[otjm]

**
Well, that is the point. Jesus declined to lead a revolt even though it would have been permitted by the Just War Doctrine.
My opinion is that His refusal invalidates that Doctrine.

Of course the two subsequent revolts were unsuccessful, but those were not led by the Messiah.
As I have said, with the Messiah leading the fight against Roman oppression, success would have been undeniable. **

Jesus lead a revolt which is still going on. The fact that he did not lead a physical revolt is not evidence that he rejected Just War Theory, as that is not an either/or issue. He did not come to earth to deal with politics, so presuming he rejected Just War Theory is based on the presumption that he came to change society politically - a point he clearly indicated was not why he came.

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

**In 1st century Judaism politics and religion were considered inseparable.
Jewish thinking was very strong that the Messiah would lead a war against the Roman occupation of Israel.
Furthermore all of the criteria of the Just War Doctrine were present in that situation including the assurance of success.

But our Lord preached acceptance of YHWH’s will and trust in Him. Rather than resistance, He preached obedience and even “going the extra mile.”
Jesus provided the perfect example of submission to one’s enemies, and He called on all of us to accept that submission ourselves by “taking up our own cross.”
In modern times it is popular to try to mask that perfect example of submission by branding it as a “sacrifice to YHWH for man’s sins.” That theology is misleading.

The Idea of just war implies that YHWH is not able or willing to moderate issues here on this earth, and, because of that failure, men are obligated to take matters into their own hands through violence against their fellow men.

The Just War doctrine is not correct. If it was, Jesus would have taught it Himself. **

 

[Brendan]

So which Lord was it that spoke to Samuel “Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel did in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, fbut kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey” 1 Samuel 15:2-3

Is there a different Lord that Jesus? Was there a different God who commanded the destruction of the Amalekites, even down to their farm animals?

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

So which Lord was it that spoke to Samuel “Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel did in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, fbut kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey” 1 Samuel 15:2-3

Is there a different Lord that Jesus? Was there a different God who commanded the destruction of the Amalekites, even down to their farm animals?

**
Of course it is true that YHWH commanded Israel to attack and destroy various Canaanite cities.
And it is instructive to note that these attacks in no way comply with the requirements of the Just War Doctrine.
They were outright aggression, killing every enemy soldier and murdering the women and children.
But these horrible acts were ordered by YHWH, and “He is not to be questioned about what He does.” (Mirzah Husayn Ali)
**
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.

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

**Whether or not Jesus came to rule as an “earthy king” is irrelevant. We are commanded to "take up our own crosses and follow Him.
And, in fact, I do accept Him as my earthly King, as do others.

As for the fates of the Jewish revolts, these were not led by the true Messiah, and their initiation was contrary to that Messiah’s instructions.
Jewish followers of The Way refused to participate, and, as a result, were ostracized form mainstream Judaism (the beginnings of the separation of The Christian Way.)
If the true Messiah had consented to lead a revolt, you can rest assured that He would have been successful. **

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

**Jesus did use a knotted cord to drive out the money changers. I regard that as an anomaly.
It is a long way from killing another human being, and even further from the deployment of a SSBN.
Of course ancient Israel used violence, and I have addressed that issue.

Yes, I am suggesting that the permitted resistance to the Nazi aggression against the Jewish nation was for all of us to don a yellow star.
In Denmark the King appeared in his garden wearing such a star, and his subjects followed suit. As a result the nazi persecution was not as successful in that country.
The first Nazi holocaust was the systematic murder of the mentally disabled. The Catholic Church leaders in Germany voiced their objections, and the Nazis were forced to end this murderous program.
But when the pogroms against German Jews were initiated no such unified protest occurred. The few Priests who did object ended up as members of the holocaust.
We should be happy to follow their example.

You say that if we follow Jesus’ instructions to the letter, the result will not be “pretty.”
Well, His own “result” of living up to His Teachings was not “pretty.”
So whether or not the result is “pretty” is not the point. The point is to follow YHWH’s Law and trust in Him for the outcome, whether it is good or bad.

Taking matters into our own hands though murderous violence against other people is contrary to our Lord’s teachings.
This idea has lead to the development of ICBMs and SSBNs, and it will come to no good.
The outcome, as you say, will not be pretty.
It’s in our Bibles:**

 

[Brendan]

**
Of course it is true that YHWH commanded Israel to attack and destroy various Canaanite cities.
And it is instructive to note that these attacks in no way comply with the requirements of the Just War Doctrine.
They were outright aggression, killing every enemy soldier and murdering the women and children.
But these horrible acts were ordered by YHWH, and “He is not to be questioned about what He does.” (Mirzah Husayn Ali)
**
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.

So you are willing to claim that the war on the Amaklites was a Just War ( God cannot command otherwise)

As to authoritzation to make war, we can also look to Romans 13:3-4

Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason.They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer"

So when a government ‘bears the sword’ against an evil doer, whose agent are they?

 

[Brendan]

**Jesus did use a knotted cord to drive out the money changers. **

FYI, He also nuked Sodom and Gomorrah.

Just sayin’

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

So you are willing to claim that the war on the Amaklites was a Just War ( God cannot command otherwise)

As to authoritzation to make war, we can also look to Romans 13:3-4

Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason.They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer"

So when a government ‘bears the sword’ against an evil doer, whose agent are they?

**I said that one may not question YHWH’s judgment.
I also said that your noted war did not meet our human criteria of just war.
Our Creator is free to do as He pleases. That does not imply that Christian society is free to make judgment about war in His place.
If YHWH would choose to motivate a leader to wage war, that is His doing, and we may not question Him about it.
.
Romans 13:3-4 could just as easily be applied to Adolf Hitler as to anyone else.
The Catholic leaders of Germany supported that man’s war initiatives.
**

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany#Churches_and_the_war_effort

 

[Brendan]

**I said that one may not question YHWH’s judgment.
I also said that your noted war did not meet our human criteria of just war.
**

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.

**
Our Creator is free to do as He pleases. That does not imply that Christian society is free to make judgment about war in His place. **

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.

**
.
Romans 13:3-4 could just as easily be applied to Adolf Hitler as to anyone else.
The Catholic leaders of Germany supported that man’s war initiatives.
**

Sort of, the determination of what is evil does not reside with the State authority, but rather in God. Hitler could not make his own determination of what is good and what is evil, nor can any other government. A government acts as an agent of God when the evildoer is punished,

So in your sense that might be true, if a country did evil towards Nazi Germany ( as defined by God, not by Hitler), the Nazis would be correct in opposing it.
Now what country did evil to Nazi Germany? Well a case might be made for the firebombing of Dresden. Germany would be within its legitimate rights to use anti aircraft fire to oppose that attack.

 

[Wesrock]

**Thanks for this well documented reply.
All that I can say now is that the conditions in 1st century Israel did meet the requirements of the Just War doctrine.
Does anyone dare deny that a revolt led by Jesus would have been successful? **

Jesus had to re-orient the type of Messianic expectations he was facing. His kingdom was not of this world, and a revolt against Rome would have been counter to this message and general Christian life. That does not rule out that a just war may sometimes be called for, as was the case with the Maccabean Revolt, or other situations throughout Israel’s history

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

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