How does a Catholic support a "war President?"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Taoist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Taoist

Guest
How? How does a Catholic support war funding that could go to much better uses building our own country? Since when did the Catholic church support war?
 
Taoist said:
How? How does a Catholic support war funding that could go to much better uses building our own country? Since when did the Catholic church support war?
Click to expand...
read history a bit and you will find the church its self was involved in and funded wars. rememeber something called the crusades? we have to remember that peace is not the mere absence of war. before our revolutionary war, there may have not been a war, but there was no peace either by any stretch of the imagination.
 
Taoist said:
Since when did the Catholic church support war?
Click to expand...
Just War Teaching [my bolding]:
Avoiding war
2307 The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war.105
[2308](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/2308.htm’)😉 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.
However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."106
[2309](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/2309.htm’)😉 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
  • the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
  • all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
  • there must be serious prospects of success;
  • the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
    These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.
    The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
Click to expand...
 
Scottgun said:
Just War Teaching [my bolding]:
Click to expand...
The Catechism makes it clear that the responsibility for judging if the conditions for Just War are met falls on the government – and that government has a duty to defend society, and the people have a duty to defend government.

Traditionally, even when the Roman Army was the instrument of oppression against Catholics, Catholics regularly prayed for the success of the Emperor’s armies against the barbarians.

James Dunnigan in “Myths of the Viet Nam War” tackles the myth that most casualties were minorities – and in the process points out that one minority was in fact over-represented amongst the casualties, and it was the same minority that has been over-represented since the Civil War, Catholics.
 
Taoist said:
How? How does a Catholic support war funding that could go to much better uses building our own country? Since when did the Catholic church support war?
Click to expand...
Since there was evil in the world.
 
Taoist said:
This is good. So do Catholics universally reject support for the war in Iraq? If no, then how do the ones who support the war and the president justify it?
Click to expand...
This looks like a job for gilliam! 😃

Scott
 
Taoist said:
This is good. So do Catholics universally reject support for the war in Iraq? If no, then how do the ones who support the war and the president justify it?
Click to expand...
First of all, we follow the Catechism:
2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
Click to expand...
  • the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
Click to expand...
  • all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
Click to expand...
  • there must be serious prospects of success;
Click to expand...
  • the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
Click to expand...
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.
Click to expand...
**The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good. **
Click to expand...
(My emphasis)

Note that Cardinal Ratzinger said that it is permissible to differ with the Holy Father on matters of war and capital punishment, but not on abortion.

Extra credit question: Who wrote the catechism, or headed up the team which wrote it?😉
 
Taoist said:
Why the Catecism and not Jesus?
Click to expand...
I take it you’re not a Catholic.

First, read the title to the thread, "How does a Catholic support a “war President?”

Next, study the concept of the Magisterium. The Church is entrusted with the Word of Christ, and has the power to interpret it – without error.

We Catholics do not sit around and decide for ourselves on issues of doctrine – if we did, we’d come up with hundreds or even thousands of different conflicting definitions and doctrinal pronouncements – which explains why the Catholic Church is able to teach a consistent message for 2,000 years, and Protestantism has split into tens of thousands of quarreling sects on less than a quarter of the time.
Taoist said:
Why is it permissible? Didn’t Jesus speak against killing in any circumstance? If no, then what are the excpetions and why?
Click to expand...
If you say Jesus spoke against “killing in any circumstances,” it’s up to you to prove it.

The Church has, from the earliest days recognized the right of self-defense, both individually and collectively.
 
Taoist said:
Why the Catecism and not Jesus?

Why is it permissible? Didn’t Jesus speak against killing in any circumstance? If no, then what are the excpetions and why?
Click to expand...
Where? I

f we are going to use Scripture to decide the issue who’s interpertation do we use? I would suggest that as found in the cathecism of the One True Church.
 
vern_humphrey said:
I take it you’re not a Catholic.
Click to expand...
I follow the way of the Tao as described by Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu.
vern_humphrey said:
First, read the title to the thread, "How does a Catholic support a “war President?”
Click to expand...
Please tone down the patronizing. I wrote the title.
vern_humphrey said:
Next, study the concept of the Magisterium. The Church is entrusted with the Word of Christ, and has the power to interpret it – without error.
Click to expand...
Maybe you can give me the short answer to the title then.
vern_humphrey said:
If you say Jesus spoke against “killing in any circumstances,” it’s up to you to prove it.
Click to expand...
My aren’t you defensive. Why are you asking me to prove my question? If I knew the answer I wouldn’t ask it.
vern_humphrey said:
The Church has, from the earliest days recognized the right of self-defense, both individually and collectively.
Click to expand...
So are you saying the war in Iraq is in self-defense, and therefore Catholics are justified in supporting the war?

I’m still waiting for your answer to my question on:
Note that Cardinal Ratzinger said that it is permissible to differ with the Holy Father on matters of war and capital punishment, but not on abortion.
 
Yes Taoist… that is about what he is saying. But rather than just say it, he was showing you how we are called to discern what is right and wrong/just or unjust. He was just going over the steps one would take.

Where is it that Jesus said not to kill under any circumstance? Jesus recognized that we were going to fight wars. Yes, it is preferable to not fight, but never is it acceptable to just allow people to be slaughtered or violated by their own government or any other group.

Matthew 10

34 Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword.

Luke 22

36 But they said: Nothing. Then said he unto them: But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a scrip; and he that hath not, let him sell his coat, and buy a sword.

Ecclesiastes
1 All things have their season, and in their times all things pass under heaven. 2 A time to be born and a time to die. A time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted. 3 A time to kill, and a time to heal. A time to destroy, and a time to build. 4 A time to weep, and a time to laugh. A time to mourn, and a time to dance. 5 A time to scatter stones, and a time to gather. A time to embrace, and a time to be far from embraces.
 
The Church has always recognized that self-defense and defending the weak is necessary as a matter of justice. The Church is the Body of Christ. So when the Church teaches a doctrine, it is the same as Jesus teaching it, since they are one in a mystical way. Now that does not mean that each individual Christian is sinnless or infallible. Only the Church, the mystical Body of Christ, is infallible in Her teaching and doctrine and is sinnless.

Pacifism is not a doctrine of the Church.
Just consider whatt an injustice it would be to allow criminals to go about robbing and killing innocents. Force must be used to protect the innocent and keep the thugs from hurting more. Therefore we have police who are armed.The same goes on the scale of nations. We have soldiers. Theirs is an honorable profession. They must of course guard against sinning by hating or enjoying hurting somone as perhaps may occur in fulffilling their duties.

Now as to Iraq, I didn’t and don’t think it was justified, but that is all water under the bridge now. It is pretty useless to rehash all that. History cannot be changed. It was begun whether or not you or I wanted it. Now what is to be done? The Holy Father said that the country should be aided to become stable and independent. It makes sense. So what do you suggest should be done to accomplish that?
 
Also, deliberate abortion is intrinsically evil, always and everywhere, wheras war and capital punishment are not.
The Church’s teaching allows war and the death penalty. Their use is not always wrong, such as is with abortion.
 
Leeta said:
Now as to Iraq, I didn’t and don’t think it was justified, but that is all water under the bridge now. It is pretty useless to rehash all that. History cannot be changed. It was begun whether or not you or I wanted it. Now what is to be done? The Holy Father said that the country should be aided to become stable and independent. It makes sense. So what do you suggest should be done to accomplish that?
Click to expand...
This is the clearest answer I have received so far. But it opens new questions:
  1. Why help Iraq? Does the Church say one must re-build an enemy’s country after it is destroyed?
  2. What does the Church recommend its members do to help?
As for my answer, I have two: Go big or go home.
  1. Leave Iraq ASAP. Leave them to their god to sort out their problems themselves. And if they sincerely desire US help, and if they can prove our people won’t be shot in the process then I will support giving aid.
  2. An all-out military domination of the entire nation WWII-style. Strictly enforce martial law - anyone caught outside their house during certain hours is shot on sight. Rebellious neighborhoods, cities, or provices will be swiftly and harshly destroyed. Then, when pacification is achieved, the process of re-building and healing can begin.
If my suggestions are not acceptable because of either:
  1. Leaving will allow the terrorists to get power in Iraq and use it to stage attacks on the US, then please provide examples of this happening in the past. But I guarantee that the US is very capable of defending itself, and after the last two US military demonstrations I’m pretty sure no country would be likely to tempt a US attack.
  2. Leaving is morally wrong. Then why is it morally right to fix what they don’t want us to fix. We can’t fix problems in the US ghettos no matter how much money, police, teachers, churches, or libraries are thrown at them, what makes you think we can do better fixing an entire nation that doesn’t want our help? How do we know they don’t want our help? Because they shoot at us. (How do I know about ghettos? I live in Oakland, CA. The CA city with the highest crime rate, highest high school drop-out rate, and a huge illegal drug problem. It’s been this way for 30 years, and nothing has worked, and the middle and upper class of the city has stopped trying to fix it, but instead try to contain it.)
  3. A serious promise to leave will force the hands of Iraq’s neighbors to fix a serious problem on their border before it spreads to their country. But if these neighbors don’t care what happens in Iraq, then why should the US?
  4. A large military operation would kill innocents. As all of you stated above, war is justified if in self-defense, and in war innocents always die, that is war’s nature. Just as Jesus died to save the world, so would innocents die to save the country.
Frankly, affecting a stance like Rodney King did as Los Angeles burned in his name, “Can’t we all just get along?” doesn’t work. Although I was living in Africa when this happened I distinctly remember images of Korean shop owners atop their roofs with assault rifles, and LA cops in full riot gear clearing entire neighborhoods. That worked.

Before you answer my questions, ask yourself, “If my city/state had daily car bombings, independent militias, death squads, an ineffectual government, police, and army as Iraq does, what measures would I take to remedy the situation? Would I trust the foreigners who started the whole mess to fix it?”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top