Just War Doctrine

[Corruich]

In discussing the Just War doctrine, the question arose as to whether the Church has a record of declarations regarding past wars. In other words, has the Catholic Church come out and said “this war” was just and “that war” was unjust as per the Just War doctrine?

I think that would be helpful in looking at current and future conflicts and being able to apply the Just War Doctrine to them.

Thanks.

 

[Ron_Conte]

In discussing the Just War doctrine, the question arose as to whether the Church has a record of declarations regarding past wars. In other words, has the Catholic Church come out and said “this war” was just and “that war” was unjust as per the Just War doctrine?

I think that would be helpful in looking at current and future conflicts and being able to apply the Just War Doctrine to them.

Just war theory is a set of ideas in moral theology pertaining to war. Some of these points have been taught at least non-infallibly by the Magisterium. But generally this set of ideas is theology, not doctrine. Expressions of just war theory vary from one theologian to another.

Even if each point in a particular expression of just war theory is correct, the application of these ideas to any particular war is not doctrine, but prudential judgment. The spiritual authority of the Church (Magisterium) can teach the truths of faith, morals, and salvation, but decisions of prudential judgement fall under the fallible temporal authority of the Church.

Faithful and reasonable Catholics might disagree with a judgment of the Pope as to whether or not a particular war is just.

 

[phoage]

I do not believe the Church has ever declared a war as unjust and from the statements of just war theory, I do not believe they can. Much of the information for determining whether a war is just or not is likely unknown and unknowable and is most likely based on intelligence estimates. As an example, the information about the German Enigma code was not even available to many British Government and military officials until over 20 yrs after the War was over yet it had a significant impact on the war and would have been critical to just war determination. Even knowing about it before hand, how would one determine its effect on the future of the war.

As for the other, I think the first crusade at least was touted as a just war. Certainly it was instigated and supported by the Pope and, one assumes, the Curia at the time.

 

[kimmielittle]

Hiyas

IMHO there are just wars. They just don’t get the media coverage.

Abortion
Euthanasia
Eugenics
Slavery
Poverty
Oppression

Are all just wars

As always, just my thoughts

 

[iamrefreshed]

I do not believe the Church has ever declared a war as unjust and from the statements of just war theory, I do not believe they can. .

I believe this is correct. Just War theory states that it is the government leaders who are to decide on the act of going to war. The church does not have the required information to make a decision regarding a war.

 

[Corruich]

I understand that the Church would rarely, if ever, take a position on a current military conflict in reference to whether it is just or unjust based upon Just War Doctrine.

However, what I really meant were wars from the past.

These are the points of the Just War Doctrine:

• 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.

For example, let’s take the American Revolutionary War. (Mainly because it is politically safer to discuss and not as divisive.)

Would it pass these tests? If a Roman Catholic was going to honestly examine the American Revolution, would it be “Just” for the Americans? What about for the British?

Was the matter lasting, grave and certain? For the colonists, it was a matter of lack of representation in the government as well as what they viewed as excessive taxation. These are definitely certain and lasting, but are either of these conditions grave? For Britain, was America declaring independence a grave action? Did the potential loss of tax revenue and resources threaten to cause a worse condition than currently existed?

The second point speaks to attempting non-violent means of solving the issue before going to war. I have no idea to what degree either side attempted diplomacy, sanctions, international pressure, etc. Did either side make adequate attempts at solving this without war?

From the Colonists points of view, clearly point three was met. It had a serious prospect of success because they won. But also, from England’s point of view as well, it must have been considered reasonable to believe that they should have won. They were the major super-power of the day against basically farmers in militias.

The final question asks if the war was worse than the evil they were combating. Was the death and destruction worse than staying under British control? For England, was it worse than allowing the colonies to become independent? Would winning the war prevent more evil than allowing the situation to continue from either point of view?

These are the kind of questions I am wondering about. I wonder about them about current wars, but I feel ill-equipped to answer them about current or future issues if I can not even answer them about wars of the past first.

Any comments are appreciated.

Kind regards,
-Corruich

 

[itinerant1]

"There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a ‘just war’." ~Cardinal Ratzinger

 

[itinerant1]

I understand that the Church would rarely, if ever, take a position on a current military conflict in reference to whether it is just or unjust based upon Just War Doctrine.

However, what I really meant were wars from the past.

These are the points of the Just War Doctrine:

• 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.

For example, let’s take the American Revolutionary War. (Mainly because it is politically safer to discuss and not as divisive.)

Would it pass these tests? If a Roman Catholic was going to honestly examine the American Revolution, would it be “Just” for the Americans? What about for the British?

Was the matter lasting, grave and certain? For the colonists, it was a matter of lack of representation in the government as well as what they viewed as excessive taxation. These are definitely certain and lasting, but are either of these conditions grave? For Britain, was America declaring independence a grave action? Did the potential loss of tax revenue and resources threaten to cause a worse condition than currently existed?

The second point speaks to attempting non-violent means of solving the issue before going to war. I have no idea to what degree either side attempted diplomacy, sanctions, international pressure, etc. Did either side make adequate attempts at solving this without war?

From the Colonists points of view, clearly point three was met. It had a serious prospect of success because they won. But also, from England’s point of view as well, it must have been considered reasonable to believe that they should have won. They were the major super-power of the day against basically farmers in militias.

The final question asks if the war was worse than the evil they were combating. Was the death and destruction worse than staying under British control? For England, was it worse than allowing the colonies to become independent? Would winning the war prevent more evil than allowing the situation to continue from either point of view?

These are the kind of questions I am wondering about. I wonder about them about current wars, but I feel ill-equipped to answer them about current or future issues if I can not even answer them about wars of the past first.

Any comments are appreciated.

Kind regards,
-Corruich

The colonists were bucking for independence for quite some time and the British merely tightened their control over the colonies in response. However, the colonies had a legal right to secede from Britain. That legal right is based in natural law. The Americans made their case with natural law arguments, arguments one finds reflected in the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration contains a list of abuses by Britain, though some scholars claim there has been some hyperbole in regard to certain of the complaints articulated in that document.

One question, then is whether Britain had any right to use force and deny the colonists the exercise of their natural right to secede. The Brits were notorious for their imposition on natural rights. For example, the first battles of the Revolution were at Concord and Lexington. The British marched from Boston to confiscate from the colonists at Concord and Lexington all ammunition, powder, and canon stores. This was an imposition on the natural right to keep and bear arms. As we know, it didn’t go so well for the British.

Had Britain allowed the colonies to secede then the economic competition would have been difficult for Britain at first, but I wonder if the economic cost of war constituted a greater impact on Britain, not to mention the more important factor of the loss of lives, and ruined lives. With secession, though, America and Britain would have eventually come to workable trade agreements, just as they did after the war.

 

[iamrefreshed]

These are the points of the Just War Doctrine:

• 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.

There is also the requirement of just cause and the fact that it must be determined by a legitimate authority…namely the secular government.

That second part is what disqualifies the church.

 

[Evenprimes]

"There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a ‘just war’." ~Cardinal Ratzinger

For a bit of context, check out this other quote by Cardinal Ratzinger:

For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion… There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

This document is primarily about politicians receiving Communion, but I think the principle is clear: Even if a pope renders an opinion on a particular war, there may still be a legitimate diversity of opinion about that war. Some of the reasons (eg, intelligence information available only to the leaders of a country) have been well articulated on this thread.

 

[Corruich]

Thank you all for your comments. I appreciate your time.

 

[itinerant1]

There is also the requirement of just cause and the fact that it must be determined by a legitimate authority…namely the secular government.

That second part is what disqualifies the church.

Legitimate authority in just war doctrine includes the judgment of the international cummunity with considerations for international humanitarian law. Ultimately, then the responsibility for going to war rests with the legitimate authority of the state, but the above criterion must be met. And that authority is bound by strict moral guidelines.

The Church is never “disqualified” since the Church has a moral obligation in these matters to make known the principles of just war doctrine. Hence, the conflict between the U.S. government and the Vatican over the Gulf Wars because the U.S. government advocated its own and perverted version of just war doctrine to include “preventive war.” Therefore, Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope John Paul II and a number of cardinals made it clear that “preventive war” is not part of just war doctrine. In effect, the proper role of the Church was to denounce the American version of just war, and this the Church did on numerous occasions.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Catholic theology on just and unjust war is not entirely settled doctrine. There are some definitive teachings on war from the Magisterium. But there is also a range of sound theological opinions. In general, Catholic thought on any topic will include some infallible teachings, some non-infallible teachings, and some speculative theology.

When the Catechism states: “These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the ‘just war’ doctrine.” this refers to common theological opinion, and does not imply that all these traditional elements are either infallible teachings or non-infallible teachings.

Also, just war theory is very complex, and involves numerous questions and points not covered in the Catechism. Those points that are covered are not exhaustive.

 

[Lola_Hoi]

What did Yeshua teach?
What was one of the ten commandments that Jehovah gave Moses?

Did the original Christians fight with the Jews in the Jewish uprising of 70AD.
The original Christians suffered greatly in the beginning, yet the faith grew. Why?

Be very careful of man made dogmas and decrees. Remember that church leaders are just human like you and me, they are not divinely inspire, church history has proven this to be true. Those that are divinely inspired are the least amount us all.

Read your bible it is good for the soul.

Lola Hoi
Seeker of spiritual truth.

 

[sidbrown]

I do not believe the Church has ever declared a war as unjust and from the statements of just war theory, I do not believe they can. .

I think you are wrong, because if there were in the future an atomic war, where nuclear bombs were dropped on civilian targets of large cities, my guess is that this would be a clear example of a war waged unjustly.

 

[jimcintosh]

Be careful of what you are saying because this is exactly what happened in WWII, and it was celebrated as ending a war which would have cost countless more lives. For that matter, the fire bombings of Dresden and Tokoyo were similar types of attacks which actually resulted in more deaths than either Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

 

[itinerant1]

Be careful of what you are saying because this is exactly what happened in WWII, and it was celebrated as ending a war which would have cost countless more lives. For that matter, the fire bombings of Dresden and Tokoyo were similar types of attacks which actually resulted in more deaths than either Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

Whether the use of nuclear bombs on Japan actually saved more lives than would have been lost otherwise is debatable at the least. However, let us assume for now that the use of nuclear bombs costs less lives than not using them, since the war would have continued longer. That assumed factor does not morally justify the use of nuclear weapons. The first principle to note is what St. Paul taught, that we can never do evil in order that good may come from it.

Next, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not military targets, the subsequent pretexts given on this matter by the U.S. government notwithstanding. The bombing specifically targeted civilian life. This is a clear and unequivocal violation of just war principles.

The same conclusion holds for the fire bombings of Dresden and Tokoyo. They were atrocious violations of just war principles. Total war, or war on civilian life is never morally justified.

That modern weapons, in which the destructions go beyond the combatants, has raised the question, as posed by Cardinal Ratzinger, whether we can any longer admit the existence of ‘just war’.

This problem with weapons that kill indiscriminately is not limited to nuclear weapons. Cluster munitions kill indiscriminately and were used by the U.S. in Iraq, and the Israeli military dumped a million of them to kill Lebanese civilians and combatants alike.

The use of Depleted Uranium munitions by the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan cannot be morally justified. DU munitions are weapons of mass destruction, and the effects of their radioactive fallout has sickened and killed U.S. soldiers, contaminated the environment, created cancer clusters in the Iraqi region, and resulted in many deformed births and stillbirths of Iraqi and Afghan children. Curiously, studies of D.U. munitions by the U.S. government doubt any carcinogenic effects from exposure to D.U. munitions radiation.

+++
“There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a ‘just war’.” ~Cardinal Ratzinger

 

[iamrefreshed]

Legitimate authority in just war doctrine includes the judgment of the international cummunity with considerations for international humanitarian law. Ultimately, then the responsibility for going to war rests with the legitimate authority of the state, but the above criterion must be met. And that authority is bound by strict moral guidelines.

The Church is never “disqualified” since the Church has a moral obligation in these matters to make known the principles of just war doctrine. Hence, the conflict between the U.S. government and the Vatican over the Gulf Wars because the U.S. government advocated its own and perverted version of just war doctrine to include “preventive war.” Therefore, Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope John Paul II and a number of cardinals made it clear that “preventive war” is not part of just war doctrine. In effect, the proper role of the Church was to denounce the American version of just war, and this the Church did on numerous occasions.

Just war theory states that it is the responsibility of the duly elected government to decide to go to war. They, of course, can be wrong to do so.

The church also recognizes that they are not privy to intelligence information available to secular governments.

Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope John Paul II expressed their opinions on those wars based on knowledge available to them, not government intelligence. They are opinions.

If you want to argue about US involvement in the Guld Wars, I suggest you search the War on Terrorism threads.

 

[itinerant1]

Just war theory states that it is the responsibility of the duly elected government to decide to go to war. They, of course, can be wrong to do so.

The church also recognizes that they are not privy to intelligence information available to secular governments.

Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope John Paul II expressed their opinions on those wars based on knowledge available to them, not government intelligence. They are opinions.

If you want to argue about US involvement in the Guld Wars, I suggest you search the War on Terrorism threads.

Thanks for the offer, but I will stay here. I have argued just war as it applies to the American Revolution, WW II, and the Gulf Wars. I am not surre what your bias in favor of the Gulf Wars is all about.

You are are in a state of serious misinformation if you think modern governments generally know more about the political situation and other factors relevant to the decision to go to war than does the Vatican. The Vatican has people in every country, and while it is not in the spy business, it continually reveals itself to having superior information on political situations than does any government. What is more, the Vatican can be trusted not to skew that facts, which politicians often do to manufacture popular consent to go to war. It’s called propaganda.

“Thomas Jefferson once said: ‘Of course the people don’t want war. But the people can be brought to the bidding of their leader. All you have to do is tell them they’re being attacked and denounce the pacifists for somehow a lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.’ I think that was Jefferson. Oh wait. That was Hermann Goering. Shoot.” --Jon Stewart, hosting the Peabody Awards

 

[iamrefreshed]

Thanks for the offer, but I will stay here. I have argued just war as it applies to the American Revolution, WW II, and the Gulf Wars. I am not surre what your bias in favor of the Gulf Wars is all about.

I don’t have any bias, you brought up the Gulf Wars.

You are are in a state of serious misinformation if you think modern governments generally know more about the political situation and other factors relevant to the decision to go to war than does the Vatican. The Vatican has people in every country, and while it is not in the spy business, it continually reveals itself to having superior information on political situations than does any government.

Thorough speculation on your part.

What is more, the Vatican can be trusted not to skew that facts

If you mean they won’t lie…agreed.

which politicians often do to manufacture popular consent to go to war. It’s called propaganda.

Unfortunately true.