Is the war in Iraq an unjust war?

[Shoshana]

Why do you blame only Bush when Sadaam himself said that he worked hard to make others believe that he had an ongoing WMD program?

Was he not posturing to protect himself from Iran? Do not bullies do the same thing?

 

[dmelosi]

Was he not posturing to protect himself from Iran? Do not bullies do the same thing?

Yes, that is the reason he gave. Was just making the point that he did everything he could to make the world believe he had them.

But not sure if you were making a point to me or not.

 

[Ender]

Do you have any evidence to support your assertion, or is this just another case of your making stuff up?

You provided no evidence for your claim so there was no need for me to provide evidence for my rebuttal.

Those who have experienced the real thing, including a presidential hopeful have publicly objected to these tactics.

The person you refer to has called waterboarding torture. He did not apply that term to pushing, slapping, and being kept up late.

Those, like yourself, who are generally dismissive of them tend to be draft dodging cowards like Rush and Cheney.

These comments are inappropriate. If you have no intelligent argument to make at least don’t stoop to this.

Notice even here that only one of us has served the US in combat, but you are lecturing me about what real soldiers think.

You know nothing of me or my past, whether I earned the silver star or whether I ran away to Canada. It’s a bit arrogant to assume only you have served.

But in a Catholic forum it seems reasonable to insist that the definition of ‘just war’ be the formal, written, Catholic one, not the GOP’s.

I agree, and if Bishop Botean’s comment had been made by the Pope I would accept that the war was unjust. But it wasn’t and I don’t.

Ender

 

[bobzills]

I agree, and if Bishop Botean’s comment had been made by the Pope I would accept that the war was unjust. But it wasn’t and I don’t.

Ender

The Pope just gave a talk at the United Nations. According to the news reports: “Countries that act unilaterally on the world stage undermine the authority of the United Nations and weaken the broad consensus needed to confront global problems, Pope Benedict said on Friday.” AND
"While Benedict did not mention any country, this appeared to refer to the United States, which led the 2003 invasion of Iraq despite a Security Council refusal to approve it.

The Vatican strongly opposed the recourse to war.

Benedict, who met U.S. President George W. Bush during his Washington visit, called for “a deeper search for ways of pre-empting and managing conflicts by exploring every possible diplomatic avenue, and giving attention and encouragement to even the faintest sign of dialogue or desire for reconciliation.”"

 

[Exalt]

Benedict, who met U.S. President George W. Bush during his Washington visit, called for “a deeper search for ways of pre-empting and managing conflicts by exploring every possible diplomatic avenue, and giving attention and encouragement to even the faintest sign of dialogue or desire for reconciliation.”"

Wow, something that Ratzinger said that I actually agree with. Maybe he isn’t such a bad guy after all.

 

[fhansen]

Wow, something that Ratzinger said that I actually agree with. Maybe he isn’t such a bad guy after all.

Read more of him. He’ll surprise you -for the better.

 

[Ender]

The Pope just gave a talk at the United Nations. According to the news reports: "Countries that act unilaterally on the world stage undermine the authority of the United Nations and weaken the broad consensus needed to confront global problems, Pope Benedict said on Friday.

Given that there were about 40 nations supporting the invasion of Iraq the term “unilateral” in that context is questionable, but aside from that there is a structural problem at the UN that renders it totally ineffective in addressing problems that are the least bit controversial.

The Vatican strongly opposed the recourse to war.

You find it notable that the Church dislikes war?

In response to the question asked by this thread, the answer is that it is not definitively answerable. It is a prudential question to which an individual can at best say “I believe it to be so (or not so).” I think the Church recognizes this as well.

*33. “Prudential judgment is also needed in applying moral principles to specific policy choices in areas such as the war in Iraq …” *(Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship - 2007)

Ender

 

[aithorette]

“Unjust war” = kind of an oxymoron.

We have one son fighting in Iraq and another who will be sent there next year.

Just or unjust, I just pray for their safe return.

Julie

 

[dmelosi]

Unjust war or Just war decided by

= the sum total of some formula that includes

a. Primary reasons
(souls saved) + (souls lost)

b. Next level of reasons
(Lives lost) + (Lives saved)

c. Next level of reasons
(quality of life improved) + (quality of life worse)

d. Next level of reasons
(long term affect within the country)

e. Next level of reasons
(personal sacrifice)

f. Next level of reasons
party loyalty

I think most move the party affiliation up to the top of the list, when it should be at the bottom…

I know I am somewhat guilty of that and believe more of what the republican party says because as a party they do not promote abortion on demand.
To judge the war just or unjust only God knows on my reason “a” and it is certainly too early to tell on reasons “b”, “c” and “d”.

What I have as reason “e” could understandbly move way up for those individuals…

 

[SoCalRC]

Unjust war or Just war decided by

It is important to distinguish between a belief that a war is “justified” and an actual application of Just War doctrine.

I think that you are listing criteria for the former, not the latter. That said, I would agree that it is likely swapped for many people. Remember, the actual burden of our two current wars is born by a very, very, small segment of the population. Even the cost has almost been entirely deferred onto future generations.

When a person has, literally, nothing at stake it is easy to substitute partisan loyalty for civic duty. If you think about it, it is actually quite sad that party affiliation makes your list at all. If one looks at our Christian obligations and our civic ones, it is hard to imagine a situation where it is ever proper to factor the fortune’s of one’s ‘club’ into a question of war. Blood and treasure are supposed to be collective and should morally only be spent for the common good.

 

[dmelosi]

It is important to distinguish between a belief that a war is “justified” and an actual application of Just War doctrine.

I think that you are listing criteria for the former, not the latter. That said, I would agree that it is likely swapped for many people. Remember, the actual burden of our two current wars is born by a very, very, small segment of the population. Even the cost has almost been entirely deferred onto future generations.

When a person has, literally, nothing at stake it is easy to substitute partisan loyalty for civic duty. If you think about it, it is actually quite sad that party affiliation makes your list at all. If one looks at our Christian obligations and our civic ones, it is hard to imagine a situation where it is ever proper to factor the fortune’s of one’s ‘club’ into a question of war. Blood and treasure are supposed to be collective and should morally only be spent for the common good.

I agree it is sad that political affiliation is on there, but in reality, it is the most important factor for many if not most.

 

[Sham7]

Yes, the war in Iraq is unjustifiable. I have it on good authority. Both our pope now and before, Pope Paul II condemned this war from the start and that’s good enough for me. You think they know their faith? yep

Bush is an embarrassment to our country! Most educated folks would agree here and around the world. I pray for him, but more importantly, those who followed him like lambs to slaughter. I am glad we have the Good Shepard to protect our lambs in Faith in spite of their politics.

No brainer on this one,
sham7

 

[fhansen]

I agree it is sad that political affiliation is on there, but in reality, it is the most important factor for many if not most.

I think those of us who equated a political party with Christianity-especially with Catholicism- should’ve gotten a wake-up call on this one.

 

[dmelosi]

Yes, the war in Iraq is unjustifiable. I have it on good authority. Both our pope now and before, Pope Paul II condemned this war from the start and that’s good enough for me. You think they know their faith? yep

Bush is an embarrassment to our country! Most educated folks would agree here and around the world. I pray for him, but more importantly, those who followed him like lambs to slaughter. I am glad we have the Good Shepard to protect our lambs in Faith in spite of their politics.

No brainer on this one,
sham7

I am guessing the abortion issue is not a big one to you?

 

[bobzills]

Yes, the war in Iraq is unjustifiable. I have it on good authority. Both our pope now and before, Pope Paul II condemned this war from the start and that’s good enough for me. You think they know their faith? yep
…

No brainer on this one,
sham7

And in addition, we have the clear statement of Bishop John Botean.

 

[SoCalRC]

I am guessing the abortion issue is not a big one to you?

Actually, it is a big issue for me. But the underlying teaching is, itself, dogmatic and non negotiable.

If you compromise on stem cell research (as President Bush has), the death penalty, torture, and war, are you really ‘pro life’ in a true Catholic sense?

What I find amazing is that I live in the highest density of self described Christians in human history. But people tell me that I must compromise on issues that Rome has described as “the essence of moral law” or else my vote will be ‘wasted’. I thought that one of the central tenants of Christianity was that we are supposed to trust in God and do what is right, not what is expedient.

The problem I have with labelling any party the ‘God’ party is that it tends to direct our attention to the perceived unworthiness of others, rather than our own unworthiness in the eyes of the Lord.

 

[rlg94086]

Actually, it is a big issue for me. But the underlying teaching is, itself, dogmatic and non negotiable.

If you compromise on stem cell research (as President Bush has), the death penalty, torture, and war, are you really ‘pro life’ in a true Catholic sense?

I’ll answer that. Yes. When it comes to voting for a president, there is nothing about voting for the least worst pro-life candidate that makes the voter less “‘pro life’ in a true Catholic sense.” Especially, since you threw in issues that Catholics can disagree on - war and the death penalty. Regarding the president’s stem cell research compromise, he has done more to limit embryonic stem cell research than any other politician. BTW…no politician is pushing to make embryonic stem cell research illegal (they only talk about “federally funded” research), so in that aspect everyone is compromising.

SoCalRC:

What I find amazing is that I live in the highest density of self described Christians in human history. **But people tell me that I must compromise on issues that Rome has described as “the essence of moral law” or else my vote will be ‘wasted’. **I thought that one of the central tenants of Christianity was that we are supposed to trust in God and do what is right, not what is expedient.

Well then, don’t listen to them. We’ve gotten pretty good at ignoring you when we want to. As I have said multiple times, both views are acceptable. If you want to be an absolutist on Catholic issues, then you can continue to vote for people who will never be elected and never effect any change on society whatsoever. If you want to call that “trusting in God and doing what is right, not what is expedient,” so be it. Many of us disagree with you…it doesn’t make us any less Catholic.

SoCalRC:

The problem I have with labelling any party the ‘God’ party is that it tends to direct our attention to the perceived unworthiness of others, rather than our own unworthiness in the eyes of the Lord.

Check the mirror buddy. You seem to direct your “attention to the perceived unworthiness of others” fairly often.

 

[dmelosi]

Actually, it is a big issue for me. But the underlying teaching is, itself, dogmatic and non negotiable.

If you compromise on stem cell research (as President Bush has), the death penalty, torture, and war, are you really ‘pro life’ in a true Catholic sense?

What I find amazing is that I live in the highest density of self described Christians in human history. But people tell me that I must compromise on issues that Rome has described as “the essence of moral law” or else my vote will be ‘wasted’. I thought that one of the central tenants of Christianity was that we are supposed to trust in God and do what is right, not what is expedient.

The problem I have with labelling any party the ‘God’ party is that it tends to direct our attention to the perceived unworthiness of others, rather than our own unworthiness in the eyes of the Lord.

I did not label any party the ‘God’ party. I did label the Democratic party ‘the party that promotes abortion on demand.’

 

[Ender]

If you compromise on stem cell research (as President Bush has), the death penalty, torture, and war, are you really ‘pro life’ in a true Catholic sense?

The Church believes that achieving what you can, even if that is less than ideal, is legitimate. So the answer to this question is: yes.

*“In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.” *(Evangelium vitae 73 - JPII)

The key is that limiting evil is better than accomplishing nothing useful whatever.

What I find amazing is that I live in the highest density of self described Christians in human history.

You do??? I thought you lived in California.

I thought that one of the central tenants of Christianity was that we are supposed to trust in God and do what is right, not what is expedient.

As shown above, the Church recognizes the acceptability of achieving less than perfect results.

Ender

 

[SoCalRC]

Yes. When it comes to voting for a president, there is nothing about voting for the least worst pro-life candidate that makes the voter less “‘pro life’ in a true Catholic sense.”

You appear to trying to apply the concept of “limiting the harm”. But, with regards to voting, the Church appears to disagree:

In this context “limiting the harm”], it must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good. Nor can a Catholic think of delegating his Christian responsibility to others; rather, the Gospel of Jesus Christ gives him this task, so that the truth about man and the world might be proclaimed and put into action.

When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person. This is the case with laws concerning…

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

The document lists 9 broad examples. Given that this list is given specific emphasis, after expressly constraining the concept of “limiting the harm”, how could this be interpretted as a list that is ‘open to compromise’?

Especially, since you threw in issues that Catholics can disagree on - war and the death penalty.

As far as I know, that is a myth perpetuated by GOP appologists. The local Catechism for US Catholics is the UNITED STATES CATECHISM FOR ADULTS, published by the USCCB. It cites the US use of the death penalty as a causal factor in our disregard for life and quotes specific statements from the Pope on the matter. This is bolstered by the Universal Catechism and Papal Encyclical (EVANGELIUM VITAE).

Similarly, two Popes have expressed their belief that our war in Iraq is unjust. Rome took steps to directly intercede, and Pope Benedict has chastized the United States for our failure to meet our humanitarian obligations to refugees and for our role in the persecution of Iraqi Christians. On Palm Sunday, Benedict called for an end to the war.

From a Catholic point of view there are not two equivelent views on these issues. I believe that the myth is fed by twisting a letter from then Cardinal Ratzinger to US Bishops. But, even conservative theologican Jimmy Akins seems to understand the actual meaning:

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0503fea2.asp

The Cardinal said yes, Catholics are disagreeing with Rome with regards to Iraq and the death penalty. But, since the theological possibility of just war and licit use of the death penalty exist, that disagreement does not, in of itself, rise to the level of CIC 915.

In other words, the Cardinal did not argue that those positions are equivelent or valid. Just that, in of themselves, they do not equate to the standard required for those holding them to be denied communion.

Regarding the president’s stem cell research compromise, he has done more to limit embryonic stem cell research than any other politician. BTW…no politician is pushing to make embryonic stem cell research illegal (they only talk about “federally funded” research), so in that aspect everyone is compromising.

I’m sorry, that is just flatly false. Two bipartisan bills on fetal tissue research, the use of fetal tissue in vaccines, and human cloning were killed by House GOP leadership under the threat of a Bush veto. Token postering about stem cell research is one thing - cutting into someone’s profits… Not so much.