Collateral Damage and War?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fakename
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

fakename

Guest
It’s an old problem but one that continues to nag me, and it is based on this passage:

“And the servants said to him: Will you that we go and gather it up? And he said: No, lest perhaps gathering up the cockle, you root up the wheat also together with it.”

Now the classical interpretation of this is that if you’ll probably injure or kill an innocent person through punishing others, then you shouldn’t punish them.

The problem of this is that the doctrines on war say that collateral damage is okay. But that seems to go against the rule that says even accidental deaths of innocent people is bad. My only solution to this problem is that the rule doesn’t apply to accidental deaths of innocent people but only intentional deaths.

Any solutions?
 
I never heard that interpretation, only the one where the cockles were sinners and the wheat the saints…

The Church teaches that Participants in a war should as much as possible work to avoid harming or killing civilians, but if that is done, then the accidental death of a civilian is not considered wrong.

Western civilkzation developed ways of minimizing harm to civilians over centuries, but war stlll remains hell (in a figurative sense).
 
I too have taken the passage to mean an understanding of why evil is allowed to persist - or even eschatological, that the delay of the Second Coming is to give the saints time.

There are perhaps other verses to better use to demonstrate our Lord’s love of human life.

To your question …

Collateral damage … a terrible thing. On one level, that of the individual soldier or warfighter, murder (the taking of innocent life) is forbidden under pain of mortal sin, while killing is allowed in defense of innocent life. Actions that result unintentionally in death of innocents are slightly grayer. It’s one thing to target a building, but another to know that innocents may be in that building. These aren’t choices to be taken easily or lightly, though in the face of even graver evil - the threat of wider conflict, or of genocide, or of megadeaths from nuclear or other weapons - the sin is perhaps mitigated.

On another level, that of policy, the culpability is greater. You can think that soldiers may find themselves in repeated situations of kill-or-be-killed, perhaps for the purpose of accomplishing some other greater good. The same cannot be said for our politicians, whose decisions affect not a single lifewith a single bullet but millions of lives with incredible destructive power.

Relatedly, where a war is unjust, a soldier may still find himself in the position of fighting justly (say taking life to protect innocent life), but it is far more difficult for a politician ordering the unjust war to do so.

I know that doesn’t help.
 
fakename said:
It’s an old problem but one that continues to nag me, and it is based on this passage:

“And the servants said to him: Will you that we go and gather it up? And he said: No, lest perhaps gathering up the cockle, you root up the wheat also together with it.”

Now the classical interpretation of this is that if you’ll probably injure or kill an innocent person through punishing others, then you shouldn’t punish them.

The problem of this is that the doctrines on war say that collateral damage is okay. But that seems to go against the rule that says even accidental deaths of innocent people is bad. My only solution to this problem is that the rule doesn’t apply to accidental deaths of innocent people but only intentional deaths.

Any solutions?
Click to expand...
who gave you that interpretation?
 
valentino said:
who gave you that interpretation?
Click to expand...
In the interest of “getting-out-the-word” I got it from Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica under his treatises on Vengeance. The same conclusions were also reached by St. John Chrysostom.

But I think that the idea applies to intentional deaths of innocents or else accidental deaths in war would be immoral which is not true. But I sense that I may be wrong so, depending on the law of large numbers, I come to the forums to see what the mainstream of opinions are.
 
I have never heard this interpretation before. This passage has nothing to do with warfare my friend. Be assured, The U.S. military takes great pains NOT to harm civilians, or any non combatant. If an enemy surrenders or is unarmed, we are NOT allowed to engage. We could be charged with murder. Just a side note, before someone goes “OH POOR OSAMA!” on me. Holding up a human shield is NOT surrendering.
 
St_Francis said:
War and punishment are different things.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, and it was my initial solution as well but this is plainly contradicted here:

"The primary title of a state to go to war is:
Code: 
* thirdly, the need of punishing the threatening or infringing power for the security of the
future."

From here:newadvent.org/cathen/15546c.htm

Unless of course, you have a good argument about why war isn’t also punishment?
 
fakename said:
Perhaps, and it was my initial solution as well but this is plainly contradicted here:

"The primary title of a state to go to war is:
Code: 
* thirdly, the need of punishing the threatening or infringing power for the security of the
future."

From here:newadvent.org/cathen/15546c.htm

Unless of course, you have a good argument about why war isn’t also punishment?
Click to expand...
War can punishment, but still falls under the rules of war.

I think that the principle of the parable is one I read about elsewhere, and that is tolerance in its original or Catholic form. It is the idea of tolerating certain evils because doing something about them would be more damaging to society than would ignoring them.

For example, it is a sin to lie. Would a Catholic nation make it a felony to loe? Put everyone who told a lie in jail? No; the evil consequences would outweigh the potential good.

It is also the reason that the Church teaches that if something os not intrinsically wrong but is illegal, but everyone does it and the law is not enforced, it’s ok to do it. So if everyone drives 60 in a 55 zone, and the police don’t bother to stop them, then it would not be wrong to do that.

If however it has been determined that an evil is so great it must be punished, and if it involves something like one nation invading another, then we’re in a different situation to which the parable would not apply.
 
fakename said:
Perhaps, and it was my initial solution as well but this is plainly contradicted here:

"The primary title of a state to go to war is:
Code: 
* thirdly, the need of punishing the threatening or infringing power for the security of the
future."

From here:newadvent.org/cathen/15546c.htm

Unless of course, you have a good argument about why war isn’t also punishment?
Click to expand...
Im gonna let you in on a little secret my friend. Wars are not so much about punishment, as they are about economics. Once in a while there are nice side effects, like we just heard about earlier this month. Its a great way to get rid of some very terrible people. However, America, at least does not go to war, unless there is an economic interest. There may be exceptions to the rule here, such as Somolia, and Yugoslavia, but Those are rare occurances. We do however punish our own, if the rules of engagement are broken. And that is the right thing to do. WE are supposed to be the professionals. Peace 🙂
 
benidict said:
Just a side note, before someone goes “OH POOR OSAMA!” on me. Holding up a human shield is NOT surrendering.
Click to expand...
I have no complaints even if he didn’t hold up a human shield. Taking Osama alive would have caused far greater threat to our fighting force that leaving him in the sea. He got what he deserved.
 
losh14 said:
I have no complaints even if he didn’t hold up a human shield. Taking Osama alive would have caused far greater threat to our fighting force that leaving him in the sea. He got what he deserved.
Click to expand...
🙂 👍
 
The astronomical death toll would make War the deadliest war. It was not only profound with the large number of casualties. It was also known as the most costly war, costing approximately one trillion dollars.

Lebanon Spring Blog
 
Fakename: Are you sure there isn’t more to that quote?Something about lets wait till they are both ripe(ready or something like that)and then gather them?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top