So everybody who releases classified war info are to be judged as heroes if they state it was in accordance with their moral conscience and claim that the war was unjust; sounds like dangerous nonsense. Did you ever say The Pledge of Allegiance?That is silly. Non-Catholics are bound by the moral law just as much as Catholics are. They are not bound by Canon Law, but since the issue in question here is not at all canonical, that doesn’t really matter.
The current and most recent wars the United States has been engaged in clearly do not meet the just war criteria. Manning released evidence that clearly demonstrated that to the world. The moral law that requires those in a position to help stop murder (which is what many of the actions of the US military in Afghanistan and Pakistan amount to) if at all possible trumps the oath that he took to the U.S. government. His efforts, and the efforts of others, have helped to shift public opinion against many of the atrocities that are going on in the Middle East now in the name of “national security”. I think that is a good thing.
I pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.
I think we can objectively state that the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan are not just wars (do some reading on drone strikes…) I wouldn’t call him a hero, but I would say that his actions have helped to form the public conscience of the United States. So, yes, when the actions of a war are objectively evil, then a person can violate civil positive laws with a clean conscience so long as the violation of the law is not a violation of the moral law.So everybody who releases classified war info are to be judged as heroes if they state it was in accordance with their moral conscience and claim that the war was unjust; sounds like dangerous nonsense. Did you ever say The Pledge of Allegiance?
I don’t think teaching patriotism is a bad thing. But that’s just me.I think we can objectively state that the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan are not just wars (do some reading on drone strikes…) I wouldn’t call him a hero, but I would say that his actions have helped to form the public conscience of the United States. So, yes, when the actions of a war are objectively evil, then a person can violate civil positive laws with a clean conscience so long as the violation of the law is not a violation of the moral law.
I don’t really think the pledge question has anything to do with this. The way it is used today is more like propaganda for school children than an actual oath.
That is fair. My main point was that the way it is used in the United States can hardly be compared to an actual oath.I don’t think teaching patriotism is a bad thing. But that’s just me.
Yes, military personnel can indeed release classified info, but they must be brought to justice and face the consequences. What Bradley Manning did was not the least bit moral. To the best of my knowledge, no leaders in the Western world have officially declared that the wars are morally unjust. The morally unjust part was from Bradley Manning’s perspective only; objectively evil from whose perspective?I think we can objectively state that the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan are not just wars (do some reading on drone strikes…) I wouldn’t call him a hero, but I would say that his actions have helped to form the public conscience of the United States. So, yes, when the actions of a war are objectively evil, then a person can violate civil positive laws with a clean conscience so long as the violation of the law is not a violation of the moral law.
I don’t really think the pledge question has anything to do with this. The way it is used today is more like propaganda for school children than an actual oath.
It doesn’t matter. Nobody is required to follow an oath when it asks them to do something they find morally objectionable. And as has already been pointed out, Pope John Paul II did call the Iraq war unjust, so your argument falls apart there as well.Yes, military personnel can indeed release classified info, but they must be brought to justice and face the consequences. What Bradley Manning did was not the least bit moral. To the best of my knowledge, no leaders in the Western world have officially declared that the wars are morally unjust. The morally unjust part was from Bradley Manning’s perspective only; objectively evil from whose perspective?
The Vatican never came out with an official statement saying that any of the US wars were unjust. Morally objectionable from whose perspective? Did any of our leaders officially say that the war was morally objectionable? Where do do come up with your loose statements? I’m glad our judicial system does not think that way. What chaos would ensue if they did.It doesn’t matter. Nobody is required to follow an oath when it asks them to do something they find morally objectionable. And as has already been pointed out, Pope John Paul II did call the Iraq war unjust, so your argument falls apart there as well.
The Pope Himself told President Bush that it was not a just war. You’re denying the obvious if you think they didn’t find the war morally objectionable. We already showed you where the statements come from, they are anything but “loose” You can keep quoting romans all you want it isn’t helping you.The Vatican never came out with an official statement saying that any of the US wars were unjust. Morally objectionable from whose perspective? Did any of our leaders officially say that the war was morally objectionable? Where do do come up with your loose statements? I’m glad our judicial system does not think that way. What chaos would ensue if they did.
Romans
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
The Vatican doesn’t need to come out with a statement saying something is unjust. Catholics are able to form their conscience on their own and look at the facts to see if an action is morally acceptable.The Vatican never came out with an official statement saying that any of the US wars were unjust. Morally objectionable from whose perspective? Did any of our leaders officially say that the war was morally objectionable? Where do do come up with your loose statements? I’m glad our judicial system does not think that way. What chaos would ensue if they did.
Romans
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
My point again, is from whose perspective is it an unjust war? Bradley Manning’s? Why hasn’t the Vatican come out with an official statement saying that the war is unjust?The Vatican doesn’t need to come out with a statement saying something is unjust. Catholics are able to form their conscience on their own and look at the facts to see if an action is morally acceptable.
Targeting aid workers and funerals is murder and an objective evil. It is a known strategy of the United States to fire into the remains of a bombed house while aid workers are trying to save the wounded. It is also a reported strategy of the U.S. to target the funerals of victims of drone strikes. The United States has supported torture both in its own prisons and in the prisons of our allies. These actions are objectively evil. Since these are not one time things but an actual part of U.S. strategy in this war effort, it is can be stated objectively that the U.S. War on Terrorism does not meet the just war criteria.
Since the War on Terrorism is not a just war, a person can with clean conscience violate civil positive laws in order to fulfill the moral law that is binding on his conscience.
This is willful ignorance if I’ve ever seen it. We’ve answered this question more than once. But you refuse to listen.My point again, is from whose perspective is it an unjust war? Bradley Manning’s? Why hasn’t the Vatican come out with an official statement saying that the war is unjust?
*
Romans
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.*
You sound upset that I provided my opinion on the matter. Just because it does not sit well with you does not mean it’s incorrect.This is willful ignorance if I’ve ever seen it. We’ve answered this question more than once. But you refuse to listen.
Source?Targeting aid workers and funerals is murder and an objective evil. It is a known strategy of the United States to fire into the remains of a bombed house while aid workers are trying to save the wounded. It is also a reported strategy of the U.S. to target the funerals of victims of drone strikes.
Passages that support what others say have also been provided. The above passage is not in the bible to support blind obedience.You sound upset that I provided my opinion on the matter. Just because it does not sit well with you does not mean it’s incorrect.
*
Romans
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.*
Why completely ignore the Word of God? The above passage is in the bible for a reason.
In support of your statement-Passages that support what others say have also been provided. The above passage is not in the bible to support blind obedience.
What is it doing in the Holy Bible then? It’s there because God wants us to obey it.Passages that support what others say have also been provided. The above passage is not in the bible to support blind obedience.
You are correct in saying that the early Christians were disobeying the law for moral reasons, but they did not take an oath as did Bradley Manning. In today’s world, disobeying your superiors because of perceived moral reasons ought to not be condoned. We do, however, have the moral responsibility as Catholics to obey the the great nation of the Vatican, which is above all other nations. This is basically what the early Christians were doing, obeying the teachings of Christ and the early Church. For this reason, I still consider the two passages to be incomparable; apples vs oranges.
God also wants us to obey our conscience. No oath can ever force us to do something we believe to be wrong, and you can not use an oath as an excuse to commit immoral actions. The passage is about loyalty, yes. But not about blindly doing whatever a superior tells you too, even against your own morals.What is it doing in the Holy Bible then? It’s there because God wants us to obey it.
If Bradley Manning thought that what was going on was wrong, he should have simply discussed it with his superiors and left things there. But no, he had to play the judge and jury by revealing classified info to the public. He’s a traitor in the eyes of the law, and rightfully so.God also wants us to obey our conscience. No oath can ever force us to do something we believe to be wrong, and you can not use an oath as an excuse to commit immoral actions. The passage is about loyalty, yes. But not about blindly doing whatever a superior tells you too, even against your own morals.
Do you honestly think that his superiors would have done anything? Risk the military looking bad? I would not be surprised if his report ended up “lost” or the people who were looking at it reassigned. He wasn’t going to take that chance.If Bradley Manning thought that what was going on was wrong, he should have simply discussed it with his superiors and left things there. But no, he had to play the judge and jury by revealing classified info to the public. He’s a traitor in the eyes of the law, and rightfully so.