Has there ever been a just war?

[catholictiger]

moving this discussion from the pro life thread on the world news forum.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=716137&page=4

It’s more about having a stable society for a stable Christian faith.

The Just War Criteria came into existence once Christianity became mainstream in the religion of old empires and states because they had a duty (also Catholic teaching) to protect their citizens and this is probably an obligation. That’s a big thing in our faith.

The Just War Criteria help preserve individual freedom, so that innocents can still be protected while those who feel a cause is worth dying for may fight for it.

Can you name a just war.

we will start the discussion here.

 

[catholictiger]

to continue my own disucssion on this

the grounds that hitler was bringing grave evil to the world, that if hitler would be left unchecked all of the european jews would be slaves or dead. Japan attacked our country our actions against them were legitimate self defense. Push back the aggressor to protect your own homeland

I’m no expert on just war theory but it would seem that the ideas of Hitler were so evil only war could stop him, and the United States had a defensive reason to attack japan. Now was every decision made in that war just, no. But the overall goal of the war was.

 

[LaMusicaSenior]

Yes, there has been a just war.

The Catholic Church declared that the Crusades were just wars fought to preserve and protect the Holy Land and Catholics visiting the Holy Land - the land sanctified by Our Lord’s own footsteps.

Catholic pilgrims who were visiting the Holy Land were being persecuted and slaughtered. Thus, the Crusades were fought to defend the great place of heritage and Christendom, and to protect Catholic pilgrims.

 

[triumphguy]

The war of 1812 when the USA invaded Canada

 

[Dubay]

Defeating Hitler was just.

 

[A_G]

Yes, there has been a just war.

The Catholic Church declared that the Crusades were just wars fought to preserve and protect the Holy Land and Catholics visiting the Holy Land - the land sanctified by Our Lord’s own footsteps.

Catholic pilgrims who were visiting the Holy Land were being persecuted and slaughtered. Thus, the Crusades were fought to defend the great place of heritage and Christendom, and to protect Catholic pilgrims.

Yes, there has been a just war.

I agree with this post.

Also, the following link from Catholic Answers Forums further discusses this:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=174696

Yes, the Holy Crusades were a just war. They were a justified defensive / counterattack war. They were a response to muslim aggression on Christendom.

 

[TimothyH]

622,000 men gave their lives in the US Civil War so that 4.5 million human beings could be released from slavery.

-Tim-

 

[JIB]

622,000 men gave their lives in the US Civil War so that 4.5 million human beings could be released from slavery.

-Tim-

False on so many levels.

First, 622,000 was the total number of deaths. I don’t think the Southerners were giving their lives to end slavery.

The war was fought to keep the South in the union. Lincoln said himself in his inaugural address that he’d support an amendment keeping slavery. He just wanted the Southerners to keep paying their taxes. Lincoln only used slavery as a political tool to gain support when he needed it. The Emancipation Proclamation was primarily issued to keep European powers out of the war. The end of slavery was a by product of the war, not the justification for starting it.

 

[sedonaman]

I don’t think the question can be answered with certitude because the definition of “just war” has changed over time. The tendency is to judge the past by current standards … for not only war but anything. Plus, few make the distinction between jus ad bellum and jus in bello.

 

[Dubay]

False on so many levels.

First, 622,000 was the total number of deaths. I don’t think the Southerners were giving their lives to end slavery.

The war was fought to keep the South in the union. Lincoln said himself in his inaugural address that he’d support an amendment keeping slavery. He just wanted the Southerners to keep paying their taxes. Lincoln only used slavery as a political tool to gain support when he needed it. The Emancipation Proclamation was primarily issued to keep European powers out of the war. The end of slavery was a by product of the war, not the justification for starting it.

All conspiracy.

 

[TimothyH]

False on so many levels.

First, 622,000 was the total number of deaths. I don’t think the Southerners were giving their lives to end slavery.

The war was fought to keep the South in the union. Lincoln said himself in his inaugural address that he’d support an amendment keeping slavery. He just wanted the Southerners to keep paying their taxes. Lincoln only used slavery as a political tool to gain support when he needed it. The Emancipation Proclamation was primarily issued to keep European powers out of the war. The end of slavery was a by product of the war, not the justification for starting it.

Ending slavery was God’s purpose. Lincoln understood that.

Lincoln’s comments about using slavery as a political tool are quoted out of the context of his entire view on the topic. He knew slavery had to end, that it was unsustainable. You mention his innaugural address and I presume you mean his first. Read his second.

Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. “Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.” If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”

Judge for yourself.

-Tim-

 

[catholictiger]

Defeating Hitler was just.

I would say so if the goal is to remove him from power not kill him

 

[austenbosten]

False on so many levels.

First, 622,000 was the total number of deaths. I don’t think the Southerners were giving their lives to end slavery.

The war was fought to keep the South in the union. Lincoln said himself in his inaugural address that he’d support an amendment keeping slavery. He just wanted the Southerners to keep paying their taxes. Lincoln only used slavery as a political tool to gain support when he needed it. The Emancipation Proclamation was primarily issued to keep European powers out of the war. The end of slavery was a by product of the war, not the justification for starting it.

Oh Lord not another one of these Pat Buchanan-esque, League of the South talking points, historical revisionism with no facts to back it up.

Pretty hard to back up that claim when the entire Republican party platform was the abolition of slavery. Also do you think as racist the North was at the time, Lincoln could get America to go with a war by just saying “I’m gonna free the slaves!” you know how badly support for the Iraq War was lost when no major WMDs were found and the war was all about freeing the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein.

 

[Dubay]

I would say so if the goal is to remove him from power not kill him

In war you can’t pick and choose like salad at the grocery store as to living and death.

Having Adolf and German army defeated in WW2 was the right thing to do. Sometimes war is the answer.

 

[catholictiger]

In war you can’t pick and choose like salad at the grocery store as to living and death.

Having Adolf and German army defeated in WW2 was the right thing to do. Sometimes war is the answer.

did I say that we should kill them it was a typo if I did.

 

[JIB]

Oh Lord not another one of these Pat Buchanan-esque, League of the South talking points, historical revisionism with no facts to back it up.

Pretty hard to back up that claim when the entire Republican party platform was the abolition of slavery. Also do you think as racist the North was at the time, Lincoln could get America to go with a war by just saying “I’m gonna free the slaves!” you know how badly support for the Iraq War was lost when no major WMDs were found and the war was all about freeing the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein.

So many logical fallacies, so little time.

Here are quotes by Abraham Lincoln when he was inaugurated

“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

“I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”

Doesn’t sound like a guy who started the war to free slaves to me.

Do you have any facts/quotes that show Lincoln started the war to end slavery?

 

[St_Francis]

The justice of a war is similar to the justice of self-defense: one has the right to defend against an aggressor.

Take WW2: on the Nazi side, this was not a just war: they were the aggressors. On the side of those whom the Nazis invaded, it was a just war, because they were being aggressed against.

For the US to come to the aid of those who were aggressed against was a good thing to do.

If you look at it from the point of view of individuals and self-defense, then it comes out more clearly: Bob is walking down the street when Joe comes up to him and starts pounding on him. Bob has the right to hit Joe back because Joe is hitting him.

Those around Bob may see that he is in need of help and step in, and that is a good thing to do.

However, once Joe stops fighting, everyone else needs to stop fighting also (albeit cautiously). They do *not *get to keep pounding on him just because he *was *pounding on Bob.

 

[TimothyH]

So many logical fallacies, so little time.

Here are quotes by Abraham Lincoln when he was inaugurated

“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

“I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”

Doesn’t sound like a guy who started the war to free slaves to me.

Do you have any facts/quotes that show Lincoln started the war to end slavery?

Lincoln didn’t start the war. He tried to prevent it, and waited patiently, but was forced to respond when the militia of a state fired on the armed forces of the federal government at Ft. Sumpter. That was inssurection, and it demanded a military response. One does not fire on a federal military facility and not expect a commensurate response.

It was God’s will that the slaves be freed. Lincoln understood that. Lincoln didn’t start the war but he knew that one way or another, if and when there was war, that it would eventually result in the ending of slavery in the United States.

You keep speaking of Lincoln’s first innagural address. His second innagural address cannot then be ignored and the relevant parts have already been quoted on this thread. Scroll back.

The war was just. Lincoln clearly unerstood that.

-Tim-

 

[austenbosten]

So many logical fallacies, so little time.

Here are quotes by Abraham Lincoln when he was inaugurated

“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

“I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”

Doesn’t sound like a guy who started the war to free slaves to me.

Do you have any facts/quotes that show Lincoln started the war to end slavery?

Funny cause you keep bringing back “Lincoln started the war”

I’m sorry who was it the fired the first shots on Fort Sumter?

 

[Rich_C]

Tim, he was a politician who had just been re-elected by abolitionists, what did you expect?*

*I am very glad Lincoln pushed through the abolition of slavery, but I have read enough about him to know he stated in his own hand that he fully considered maintaining it and letting it die out on its own if that would preserve the Union, and he also looked into the possibility of deporting all the freedman to Africa, like the Indians were deported to reservations. He had weak, if evolving, convictions on slavery.

To the OP, I would also consider the Allied response in WWII to have be just (albiet, tainted by heinous war crimes) and the first Crusade (also tainted by war crimes). I might include Napoleon’s wars of 1805 and 1809, the Holy Father’s defense of the Vatican in the 1870s, and various small national wars of liberation and uprisings in defends of the Faith over the centuries.

Ending slavery was God’s purpose. Lincoln understood that.

Lincoln’s comments about using slavery as a political tool are quoted out of the context of his entire view on the topic. He knew slavery had to end, that it was unsustainable. You mention his innaugural address and I presume you mean his first. Read his second.

Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. “Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.” If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”

Judge for yourself.

-Tim-