Church Teaching on War

[MysticMissMisty]

Salvete, omnes!

I was just wondering what (ifany) infallible teaching the Church has on war – how it’s fought, when it’s fought, etc.

I understand that there are theories of “just war” out there and that there is some teaching that, for instance, war should only be used as a last resort. However, has there ever been any iron-clad teaching on war from the Church that must be accepted because of its infallibility?

Gratias vobis.

 

[pianistclare]

ewtn.com/expert/answers/just_war.htm

 

[MysticMissMisty]

ewtn.com/expert/answers/just_war.htm

Thanks for the info.

However, how much of this information from the Catechism has been put forth as infallible doctrine? Has, for instance, war as a last resort been declared infallibly?

Also, if one nation attacks another, does the latter nation have the right to declare war as a just response without necessary recourse to diplomatic means first?

Thanks.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

OK, nevermind. I see now that the Magisterium has embraced Just War Doctrine, so, I, therefore, assume that all of it has been infallibly determined.

But, does this mean that every part of the ETWN document cited above falls under the infallible Just War Doctrine adopted by the Magisterium? Or, does this just mean Augustine’s Just War Doctrine as he stated it?

Also, a few questions about some ofthe points:

One point states that widespread destruction of a city with its inhabitants is iillicit. So, would this eliminate the destruction in Japan that led to the conclusion of WWII? Would this also eliminate air strikes on certain cities? Why is the word “indiscriminate” even used here? What does it mean? How is this distinguished from simply “destruction” of cities, etc.?

 

[MysticMissMisty]

OK, once again, on closer reading, I see that the Magisterium is said to have “embraced” the Just War Doctrine. Does that mean that it expresses thsi doctrine as an infallible teaching? Does this mean that it does so for all aspects of it expressed in the Catechism?

 

[djames99]

Thanks for the info.

However, how much of this information from the Catechism has been put forth as infallible doctrine? Has, for instance, war as a last resort been declared infallibly?

Also, if one nation attacks another, does the latter nation have the right to declare war as a just response without necessary recourse to diplomatic means first?

Thanks.

Yes. The Catechism is part of the Deposit of the Faith. It is De Fide and must be believed.

A declaration of war is pretty much a final decision. The declaration comes after all the options of diplomacy and dialogue have run their course. There is no rule for the defending nation, other than the rules of the Church(CC). It will focus only on survival using whatever means possible. It is interesting to note that as far as the war goes, the defending nation so far has not committed “evils and disorders” greater than the aggressor, which is the aim of the rule. The aggressor nation has nuclear arms, technological weapons, and delivery systems, whereas the defender has none of these. The latter is also allowed to exact “occult compensation” in kind for the degree of aggression over and above the necessary, which it perpetrated against it. Since the one with the most power in this regard is always better armed, that puts him dogmatically in the wrong, until such time they are equal in capability and arms.

 

[dmar198]

As far as I’m aware, infallible teaching can come from three sources:

(1) Ecumenical Councils
(2) Ex Cathedra Papal decrees
(3) The Ordinary Magisterium

I am not aware of any papal decree touching just war doctrine that would satisfy the criteria for being ex cathedra.

As for ecumenical councils, their texts can all be found here: historyandapologetics.com/p/ecumenical-councils.html

It appears to me that many of the ecumenical Councils have something to say about the Church’s just war doctrine. For example:

21st Ecumenical Council - “As long as the danger of war remains and there is no competent and sufficiently powerful authority at the international level, governments cannot be denied the right to legitimate defense once every means of peaceful settlement has been exhausted. State authorities and others who share public responsibility have the duty to conduct such grave matters soberly and to protect the welfare of the people entrusted to their care.” source

18th Ecumenical Council - “Our aim is also to crush the Turks and other infidels standing firm in the eastern and southern regions. … Strengthened by defences not only spiritual but also temporal, we may be able, under God’s guidance and favour, to oppose the bitter and frequent sallies by which, in wild rage, they move savagely amidst christian blood.” source

17th Ecumenical Council - “[T]he said ambassadors of the sacred council who are to travel on the galleys will arrange that ten thousand ducats are at hand to be expended, if necessary, on the defense of the city of Constantinople against any danger that the Turks might cause the city during the lord emperor’s absence… Also, the said ambassadors of the sacred council will pay the cost of two light galleys and three hundred crossbowmen for the defense of the city…” source

15th Ecumenical Council - “These brothers and knights are to labour effectively and strive to win the holy Land and keep it, as far as God grants. … The young and the strong, who are able to fight, shall be required to go and stay overseas so that the holy Land may have its needs met. The order will thus pursue the purpose for which it was instituted, as is only right and fitting.” source

14th Ecumenical Council - “[A]ll who glory in the name of Christian…should rise vigorously and openly in defence of the holy Land and support for God’s cause. …[T]he liberation of the holy Land should concern all who profess the catholic faith… [We] rightly commend [the] resolutions and praiseworthy enthusiasm for the liberation of that Land. … We therefore…do grant…unto all those who [go] to aid the holy Land…full pardon for their sins about which they are truly and heartily contrite and have spoken in confession…[and] this dutiful and holy general synod imparts…[its] blessings to all who piously set out on this enterprise…” source

13th Ecumenical Council - “[In] the name of [God]…those who do not go in person to the aid of the holy Land should contribute…fighting men…” source

12th Ecumenical Council - “[In] the name of [God]…those who do not go in person to the aid of the holy Land should contribute…fighting men…” source

9th Ecumenical Council - “[We] command [Crusaders] by our apostolic authority…to complete the journey between this Easter and the following Easter. Otherwise, from that moment we cut them off from entry into church and forbid divine services in all their lands…” source

6th Ecumenical Council - “[T]he living tradition of the Apostles of Christ…gives far-reaching victories to [the emperor] from the Lord of heaven…accompanies you in battle, and defeats your foes…[and] protects [the empire] on every side…[and] throws terror into opposing nations, and smites them with the divine wrath, which also in wars celestially gives triumphal palms over the downfall and subjection of the enemy, and ever guards your most faithful sovereignty secure and joyful in peace.” source

As for the Ordinary Magisterium, it appears to me that it supports the Just War doctrine, as can be seen in many of the following documents from the Church Fathers: historyandapologetics.com/p/catholic-military-history.html

I hope all that info is useful. God bless!

 

[dmar198]

Yes. The Catechism is part of the Deposit of the Faith. It is De Fide and must be believed.

If I’m understanding you correctly, you are saying the Catechism is infallible. Is that right? Because I don’t think that’s accurate. It contains some infallible material, mainly what it quotes from various infallible sources, but I don’t think the Church has put the stamp of infallibility upon it.

 

[mikekle]

OK, nevermind. I see now that the Magisterium has embraced Just War Doctrine, so, I, therefore, assume that all of it has been infallibly determined.

But, does this mean that every part of the ETWN document cited above falls under the infallible Just War Doctrine adopted by the Magisterium? Or, does this just mean Augustine’s Just War Doctrine as he stated it?

Also, a few questions about some ofthe points:

One point states that widespread destruction of a city with its inhabitants is iillicit. So, would this eliminate the destruction in Japan that led to the conclusion of WWII? Would this also eliminate air strikes on certain cities? Why is the word “indiscriminate” even used here? What does it mean? How is this distinguished from simply “destruction” of cities, etc.?

The problem I dont get about ‘just war’ is, what about when a nation tells its soldiers/ public one reason, but the real reason for going to war is not the same or not true, example would be when Bush used the WMDs as excuse for invading Iraq, but later, it was found to be a lie…so, biblically, that war was not just, which would imply all those soldiers fighting, were fighting an UNJUST war. Other lies/ excuses for going to war could be oil rights, land grabs, mineral rights, etc, it would be in a Govts best interest to make up something else rather than telling everyone the real reason. I guess this could be a grey area.

I assume God takes all this into consideration when a soldier dies, I mean, if you are lied to about something and truly do not know the truth, you cant really be held accountable for taking part…right?

 

[dmar198]

The problem I dont get about ‘just war’ is, what about when a nation tells its soldiers/ public one reason, but the real reason for going to war is not the same or not true, example would be when Bush used the WMDs as excuse for invading Iraq, but later, it was found to be a lie…so, biblically, that war was not just, which would imply all those soldiers fighting, were fighting an UNJUST war. Other lies/ excuses for going to war could be oil rights, land grabs, mineral rights, etc, it would be in a Govts best interest to make up something else rather than telling everyone the real reason. I guess this could be a grey area.

I assume God takes all this into consideration when a soldier dies, I mean, if you are lied to about something and truly do not know the truth, you cant really be held accountable for taking part…right?

St. Augustine had a thought on this that I think is helpful:

“[A] righteous man, serving it may be under an ungodly king, may do the duty belonging to his position in the State in fighting by the order of his sovereign—for in some cases it is plainly the will of God that he should fight, and in others, where this is not so plain, it may be an unrighteous command on the part of the king, while the soldier is innocent, because his position makes obedience a duty… [But] how much more must the man be blameless who carries on war on the authority of God, of whom every one who serves Him knows that He can never require what is wrong?” (Contra Faustum Book 22 Paragraph 75)

It appears from this that, at least according to St. Augustine, the warriors do not need to work out the morality of the reasons for the war. I suppose they would need to be conscientious objectors if there was a war that was obviously evil, or if the Church stepped in and made a judgement, but in most cases I think they are safe to believe their commanders. The Catechism even says: “The evaluation of [the] conditions for moral legitimacy [of a war] belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.” CCC 2309

I hope that helps. God bless!

 

[thistle]

Yes. The Catechism is part of the Deposit of the Faith. It is De Fide and must be believed.

A declaration of war is pretty much a final decision. The declaration comes after all the options of diplomacy and dialogue have run their course. There is no rule for the defending nation, other than the rules of the Church(CC). It will focus only on survival using whatever means possible. It is interesting to note that as far as the war goes, the defending nation so far has not committed “evils and disorders” greater than the aggressor, which is the aim of the rule. The aggressor nation has nuclear arms, technological weapons, and delivery systems, whereas the defender has none of these. The latter is also allowed to exact “occult compensation” in kind for the degree of aggression over and above the necessary, which it perpetrated against it. Since the one with the most power in this regard is always better armed, that puts him dogmatically in the wrong, until such time they are equal in capability and arms.

The Catechism per se is not infallible. However it contains a summary of both infallible and non-infallible teachings. Catholics are bound by both.

 

[djames99]

If I’m understanding you correctly, you are saying the Catechism is infallible. Is that right? Because I don’t think that’s accurate. It contains some infallible material, mainly what it quotes from various infallible sources, but I don’t think the Church has put the stamp of infallibility upon it.

Yes. Fides Ecclesiastica

From: The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott.

"De Fide - The highest degree of certainty appertains to immediately revealed truths, due on the Authority of God revealing. If these truths are solemnly defined by the Magisterium, they are “de defide definita”. (Example: The Dogma of the Trinity)

Fides Ecclesiastica - Catholic truths or Church doctrines, on which the infallible Teaching Authority of the Church has finally decided, are to be accepted with a faith which is based on the sole authority of the Church (fides ecclesiatica). These truths are as infallibly certain as dogmas proper. (Example: Anglican Order are invalid.)"

 

[dmar198]

Yes. Fides Ecclesiastica

From: The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott.

"De Fide - The highest degree of certainty appertains to immediately revealed truths, due on the Authority of God revealing. If these truths are solemnly defined by the Magisterium, they are “de defide definita”. (Example: The Dogma of the Trinity)

Fides Ecclesiastica - Catholic truths or Church doctrines, on which the infallible Teaching Authority of the Church has finally decided, are to be accepted with a faith which is based on the sole authority of the Church (fides ecclesiatica). These truths are as infallibly certain as dogmas proper. (Example: Anglican Order are invalid.)"

First, thank you for that quotation. I think I will use that when people challenge the authority of the Catechism.

Second, it looks like “De Fide” is less accurate as a classification for the Catechism than Fides Ecclesiastica.

Third, I don’t think Everything in the Catechism fits into the category of Fides Ecclesiastica. Some parts of the Catechism cite Canon Law, which can change, and other parts appear to discuss prudential judgments.

 

[thistle]

Yes. Fides Ecclesiastica

From: The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott.

"De Fide - The highest degree of certainty appertains to immediately revealed truths, due on the Authority of God revealing. If these truths are solemnly defined by the Magisterium, they are “de defide definita”. (Example: The Dogma of the Trinity)

Fides Ecclesiastica - Catholic truths or Church doctrines, on which the infallible Teaching Authority of the Church has finally decided, are to be accepted with a faith which is based on the sole authority of the Church (fides ecclesiatica). These truths are as infallibly certain as dogmas proper. (Example: Anglican Order are invalid.)"

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is not an infallible document but as I said it contains infallible teachings as well as non-infallible teachings plus disciplines.

 

[djames99]

The Catechism per se is not infallible. However it contains a summary of both infallible and non-infallible teachings. Catholics are bound by both.

That is only apparent. We are witnessing snapshots of time where God chooses special moments of temporal time when a teaching needs to be revealed. What is a ‘good’ for one generation may not be so for another.

Fides Ecclesiastica - Catholic truths or Church doctrines, on which the infallible Teaching Authority of the Church has finally decided,* are to be accepted with a faith which is based on the sole authority of the Church (fides ecclesiatica). These truths are as infallibly certain as dogmas proper**.*

The conglomerate then is infallible, and is to believed De Fide.

 

[djames99]

also : Card. Ratzinger and Schoenberg

“The weight of the Catechism itself lies in the whole. Since it transmits what the Church teaches, whoever rejects it as a whole separates himself beyond question from the faith and teaching of the Church.” (Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, pp.26-27, emphasis added)"

 

[thistle]

That is only apparent. We are witnessing snapshots of time where God chooses special moments of temporal time when a teaching needs to be revealed. What is a ‘good’ for one generation may not be so for another.

Fides Ecclesiastica - Catholic truths or Church doctrines, on which the infallible Teaching Authority of the Church has finally decided,* are to be accepted with a faith which is based on the sole authority of the Church (fides ecclesiatica). These truths are as infallibly certain as dogmas proper***.

The conglomerate then is infallible, and is to believed De Fide.

That is not correct. The CCC is not an infallible document per se. It contains a summary of infallible teachings, non-infallible teachings, and disciplines.

 

[djames99]

I’ll use “Conscience in Conflict” Ken R. Overberg, S.J. for my reference. (An excellent household companion by the way. )

"Infallibility is that the power of Divine grace (not the human strengths of it’s members) cannot allow the Church to fall away from the truth of God.

Non infallible, authoritative teachings of the Church are presumed to be true. The presumption is based on the faith-conviction that the Spirit is present in the magisterium, guiding it so that its teaching will be accurate. When an official teaching is given, the theoretically expected response of the Roman Catholic is: "This is a true teaching.

Two modern councils - Vatican I and II - specified the conditions necessary for an expression of an infallible doctrinal pronouncement. These are:

 1/ It must be a collegial act dealing with a revealed truth concerning faith and morals. 2/ there must be an explicit call for absolute assent, 3/the pronouncement must be the unanimous teaching of all bishops. 

 Thus, infallibility means the Holy Spirit so assists the megisterium that it solemnly obliges the faithful to believe only what is contained in God's word."

I think it injures our Church by our “splitting hairs” approach to following our dogma, if every lay individual subjects every gift of teaching to scrutiny. Along with a duplication of effort this would be, on a moral ground, what is the point if we go on in our faith with an aire of suspicion in all that is taught, forever sieving out for unwanted teaching if it does not suite our plan. I think this attitude infuriates the Holy Spirit by it’s effect of truncating his plans prematurely, potentially throwing a wrench in the sequence of events that would arrive at his future goal. There are other religions that already accommodate for pick and choose attitudes.

A good practice for all is to examine one’s conscience to determine the motive of our cynicism. There may be reason to put into question our disloyal attitudes.

Catholicism is The true belief system, and is one that needs to be practiced.