Just War Doctrine

[itinerant1]

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

I’m sorry, but I have no idea what your posts are about then. I discussed three different wars and it was you who singled out the Gulf War, for some inexplicable reason, to make your strange comment.

Thorough speculation on your part.

A rather unwarranted and rude comment you have made. I have studied the Vatican closely for years in regard to its commentary and position on international affairs. Do you even subscribe the Vatican’s official weekly newspaper, “L’Osservatore Romano”, or any other journals that represent the Vatican? Apparently not.

In sum, I find your disingenuous responses problematic.

 

[minder_bender]

God Bless Your Lola!! Your fundamental points seem to be ignored? Sometimes our “intellect” gets in the way of truth. Jesus was very direct in telling us how to deal with conflict. “LOVE you enemies” (does this equate to - attack whether verbal or physical?) “Do GOOD to those who harm you” (I suppose this is interpreted as - shoot back whether with our mouths, scripture, pious attitudes or guns?). Even when Jesus was arrested and an apostles cut off the ear of a roman soldier, Jesus showed how we are to deal when attacked. HEAL THEM! (another interpretation is BLESS them) and He continued to instruct us that “those who live by the sword, die by the sword”. By even suggesting that there can ever be or ever was a “just war” is not TRUTH. We may not understand how blessing a murder or pedefile or any other such sinner can do any good but Jesus said otherwise. Maybe He knew more of the dynamics of God & how things REALLY work than us mere man. War only leads to more War. I wonder if we will ever have the courage to try Jesus’ way instead.

 

[diggerdomer]

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.

Not true. While government leaders make the decision to go to war, that does not mean the Church does not have the capacity to determine that a given decision is just or unjust according to just war theory.

 

[sidbrown]

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.

I don;t think it is morally justified to drop nuclear bombs on civilians and kill children and other non-combatants in order to get the other side to give up.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Not true. While government leaders make the decision to go to war, that does not mean the Church does not have the capacity to determine that a given decision is just or unjust according to just war theory.

If they have all the information. My point is that governments are privy to information that the church may not have. My point is the chuch can only speculate as a Monday morning quarterback.

 

[iamrefreshed]

I’m sorry, but I have no idea what your posts are about then. I discussed three different wars and it was you who singled out the Gulf War, for some inexplicable reason, to make your strange comment.

My posts are about just war theory. Yours seems to be about picking a fight over a war that you oppose.

A rather unwarranted and rude comment you have made. I have studied the Vatican closely for years in regard to its commentary and position on international affairs. Do you even subscribe the Vatican’s official weekly newspaper, “L’Osservatore Romano”, or any other journals that represent the Vatican? Apparently not.

In sum, I find your disingenuous responses problematic.

I guess reading a newspaper is considered “studying the Vatican closely?” Good luck with that!

And it is total speculation on your part unless of course you can tell me about the Vatican’s spy satellites and underground spy network?

 

[iamrefreshed]

"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

This is your first post on this thread so try and tell someone else you don’t have an agenda; I don’t buy it!

 

[itinerant1]

My posts are about just war theory. Yours seems to be about picking a fight over a war that you oppose.

I guess reading a newspaper is considered “studying the Vatican closely?” Good luck with that!

And it is total speculation on your part unless of course you can tell me about the Vatican’s spy satellites and underground spy network?

Every one of your posts gets more ridiculous than the last. Obviously, you do not have the ability to discuss just war theory, and neither do you understand anything about the Vatican. Why are you even in this thread if you can’t relate to a discussion?

 

[iamrefreshed]

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.

Here is my first post on this thread. See, I discuss just war theory.

"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

This is your first post on this thread. As I said, you brought up the Gulf Wars, not me.

Originally Posted by iamrefreshed forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
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.

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.

Here again, in response to my above post, you bring up the Gulf Wars for the second time, which, to this point I have never mentioned.

As I mentioned earlier, if you want to argue about the Gulf War, find someone else; I’m not really interested.

In fact, since you’ve already called me seriously misinformed, rude and disingenuous, I’d prefer not to discuss this with you at all. I’d suggest to re-read the entire thread if you think you haven’t been uncharitable.

Good day to you.

 

[itinerant1]

Here is my first post on this thread. See, I discuss just war theory.

This is your first post on this thread. As I said, you brought up the Gulf Wars, not me.

Originally Posted by iamrefreshed forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
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.

Here again, in response to my above post, you bring up the Gulf Wars for the second time, which, to this point I have never mentioned.

As I mentioned earlier, if you want to argue about the Gulf War, find someone else; I’m not really interested.

In fact, since you’ve already called me seriously misinformed, rude and disingenuous, I’d prefer not to discuss this with you at all. I’d suggest to re-read the entire thread if you think you haven’t been uncharitable.

Good day to you.

You are catching on. Your misinformed and irrelevant comments served only to create obstacles to real discussion, and hence you should not attempt to argue with me, as you have resolved, finally, not to do. Good plan!

 

[diggerdomer]

If they have all the information. My point is that governments are privy to information that the church may not have. My point is the chuch can only speculate as a Monday morning quarterback.

No, the Church is not reduced to Monday morning quarterbacking or speculation.

It depends to some extent on what information a government may have that is not public, but that government’s information (which may or may not be reliable, as we’ve unfortunately learned!) is not the basis for Catholic moral teaching.

The Church teaches up front and publicly in this regard. Not in hindsight.

 

[ProVobis]

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.

The problem I would have with your example is that, given that abortion and euthanasia are evil, then so must be the “collateral damage” that includes enemy pregnant women, infants, and enemy elderly. There cannot be any pawns in a just war.

 

[sidbrown]

The problem I would have with your example is that, given that abortion and euthanasia are evil, then so must be the “collateral damage” that includes enemy pregnant women, infants, and enemy elderly. There cannot be any pawns in a just war.

A war may start out as a possibly just war, but as time goes on, almost invariably, innocent people and children are killed and horribly hurt, so that more and more questions will be raised about the justice of continuing the slaughtrer of innocent children and others.

 

[Evenprimes]

The problem I would have with your example is that, given that abortion and euthanasia are evil, then so must be the “collateral damage” that includes enemy pregnant women, infants, and enemy elderly. There cannot be any pawns in a just war.

In war, we intend to avoid killing innocent civilians.

 

[sidbrown]

In war, we intend to avoid killing innocent civilians.

What about the bombing of the city of Dresden?

 

[itinerant1]

What about the bombing of the city of Dresden?

The deliberate targeting of civilian life is a common though morally unjustified practice in modern wars. The during the Civil War, or War Between the States, General Sherman conducted total war on civilian life in the South. All the generals, North and South had been through West Point and learned the rules of Just War. In a letter to his wife, General Sherman mentioned that if the South were to win the war he would be hung as a war criminal.

During World War I there was Ottoman Empire’s extermination of the Armenians. This genocide resulted in an estimated one and a half million deaths. Ottoman Empire’s mass killing of Assyrians and Greeks are also added by many scholars to this same situation.

The illegal and unethical blockade of Germany, which continued for months after the Armistice, targeted civilian life. Some 800,000 German men, women, and children are estimated to have perished from starvation.

During World War II, the fire bombing of Dresden and Tokyo, plus the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were violations of Just War. See also, Allied War Crimes. Nazi war crimes are too well-known to need mentioning.

See Korean War Attrocities

During Gulf War I, the U.S. in violation of Geneva Conventions and just war doctrine targeted civilian infrastructure in Iraq, such as the water treatment plants, the power grid, hospitals, etc.

Furthermore, the U.S. led embargo on Iraq was a war measure that targeted civilian life. Pope Paul II called the embargo “pitiless”. 567,000 Iraqi children under the age of five had died as a result of the sanctions (1995 U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report). Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said the deaths of 500,000 children was worth it: In addition, other casualty estimates.

Much can be listed about war crimes committed against the Iraqi population. I will mention here only that each planned bombing by the U.S. required a collateral damage estimate, which had to be pre-approved. Donald Rumsfeld signed off on the deaths of countless Iraqi civilians, whom the Administration merely considered to be “collateral damage.”

 

[sidbrown]

The deliberate targeting of civilian life is a common though morally unjustified practice in modern wars. The during the Civil War, or War Between the States, General Sherman conducted total war on civilian life in the South. All the generals, North and South had been through West Point and learned the rules of Just War. In a letter to his wife, General Sherman mentioned that if the South were to win the war he would be hung as a war criminal.

During World War I there was Ottoman Empire’s extermination of the Armenians. This genocide resulted in an estimated one and a half million deaths. Ottoman Empire’s mass killing of Assyrians and Greeks are also added by many scholars to this same situation.

The illegal and unethical blockade of Germany, which continued for months after the Armistice, targeted civilian life. Some 800,000 German men, women, and children are estimated to have perished from starvation.

During World War II, the fire bombing of Dresden and Tokyo, plus the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were violations of Just War. See also, Allied War Crimes. Nazi war crimes are too well-known to need mentioning.

See Korean War Attrocities

During Gulf War I, the U.S. in violation of Geneva Conventions and just war doctrine targeted civilian infrastructure in Iraq, such as the water treatment plants, the power grid, hospitals, etc.

Furthermore, the U.S. led embargo on Iraq was a war measure that targeted civilian life. Pope Paul II called the embargo “pitiless”. 567,000 Iraqi children under the age of five had died as a result of the sanctions (1995 U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report). Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said the deaths of 500,000 children was worth it: In addition, other casualty estimates.

Much can be listed about war crimes committed against the Iraqi population. I will mention here only that each planned bombing by the U.S. required a collateral damage estimate, which had to be pre-approved. Donald Rumsfeld signed off on the deaths of countless Iraqi civilians, whom the Administration merely considered to be “collateral damage.”

In my personal opinion, it is wrong to consider the killing of children as collarteral damage. I don;t see the possibility of a just war in the real world. It might be an interesting theological speculation or exerciss to go into discussions about what constituutes a just war, but I see this as a futile exercise divorced from reality. The reality of war is that innocent children are being killed, and in my personal opinion this is morally wrong.

 

[phoage]

Years ago, in a land far, far away (Prussia), a man named Frederick (II) said, “Neither the burghers in the towns nor the farmers in the fields should know or care when the state is at war.” In those days, it was still just theoretically possible for that to happen if everyone did everything just right and no one made any mistakes. Was was the game of Kings.

Since that time, nations and indeed the world, has become too integrated to separate military and civilian; either people or resources. In any war now, and indeed even back in the existent century and before, civilians are going to be effected by military operations. It is unavoidable and inevitable. It is acknowledged in Just War doctrine.

To minder bender who quoted Jesus, “Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword.” so what. Maybe I am misunderstanding this but this say to me that if I take up the soldiers trade, there is a very good chance I will die in a war. This in and of itself does not bother me as I have to die sometime of something, and I have no problem giving up my life if the cause is right.

What bothers me much more is the other quotes:

… “LOVE you enemies” … “Do GOOD to those who harm you” …

… and the rest of Matthew 5:43. I spent a good part of my adult life in the military training to do unto others (predominantly the Soviet Union) before they could do unto the rest of the world. Those who are too young or who have never been outside this country may not believe it but the Soviets were a great evil in the world and I am proud to this day that I opposed them with more than words; BUT did I sin? reading that part of the Bible troubles me.

To those who believe that nuclear weapons are always evil…Balderdash. They are weapons like any others and can be used or misused. I agree that they were probably unnecessary in Japan and on a different thread, I would be willing to argue that point with data to support it however, one misuse does not invalidate the previous statement.

As to declaring a war unjust after it has started or ended, that is Monday Morning Quarterbacking. The National leaders that must make the decisions do not have all the information and in fact know they do not have it all. As with many human decisions, it must be made with the best information available and a lot of guess work. The Church is in no position to judge, only God can; and He will.

 

[Evenprimes]

In my personal opinion, it is wrong to consider the killing of children as collarteral damage. I don;t see the possibility of a just war in the real world. It might be an interesting theological speculation or exerciss to go into discussions about what constituutes a just war, but I see this as a futile exercise divorced from reality. The reality of war is that innocent children are being killed, and in my personal opinion this is morally wrong.

In our national highway system innocent children are being killed–accidents happen. We should take steps to prevent accidents, but we don’t conclude that the building and use of highways is immoral even when accidents do occur.

 

[itinerant1]

Since that time, nations and indeed the world, has become too integrated to separate military and civilian; either people or resources…

Civilians are going to be effected by war. However, that fact does not justify the deliberate targeting of civilian life. Targeting civilian life is prohibited by just war doctrine and Geneva Conventions. For example, the targeting of water treatment plants in Iraq with air strikes in order to spread disease and death amongst the population was a direct violation of the above. This initial violation was followed by the limiting via embargo of chlorine and machinery imports necessary to resume water purification.

The deliberate targeting of civilian life and infrastructure is highly avoidable. If a military action, such as an air strike, or the use of a particular type of weapon will cause too much civilian destruction, albeit indirect and not intended, then such air strikes and weapons cannot be justified.

To minder bender who quoted Jesus, “Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword.” so what. Maybe I am misunderstanding…

“Those who live by the sword…” is a figurative expression. We choose our own destiny. “Living by the sword” speaks more to a life of violence. Jesus did not condemn the soldiers trade. No soldier was commanded to leave the military service. Jesus merely told them not to oppress anyone unjustly. In fact, Jesus even spoke more congenially to those soldiers who were involved in His arrest, torture, and execution than he did with the Scribes and Pharisees.

What bothers me much more is the other quotes:

… and the rest of Matthew 5:43. I spent a good part of my adult life in the military training to do unto others (predominantly the Soviet Union) before they could do unto the rest of the world…

No doubt communism and the Soviet Union represent the great evil of atheism and an atheistic world-view. Mother Mary requested prayers for the conversion of Russia.

However, the U.S. and Soviet Union engaged in unnecessary military conflicts fueled by ideology. The U.S. and Russia believed in the same ideological myth, i.e. that the world would be better off under a single form of government. The U.S. believed that government should be democracy and Russia believed it should be communism.

A couple of the many unnecessary military conflicts:

1. Vietnam; see McNamara and the Gulf of Tonkin
2. Afghanistan: The U.S. intentionally provoked the Soviet Union into invading Afghanistan; created Islamic terrorist groups to antagonize the Soviet Union; put the Taliban in power after the Soviet Union quit the U.S. initiated war, etc. See The CIA’s Intervention in Afghanistan : Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser

To those who believe that nuclear weapons are always evil…Balderdash. They are weapons like any others and can be used or misused. I agree that they were probably unnecessary in Japan and on a different thread, I would be willing to argue that point with data to support it however, one misuse does not invalidate the previous statement.

Nuclear weapons, like all weapons of mass destruction, kill indiscriminately and thus are rarely if ever able to be used with any moral justification. Radioactive fallout and radioactive contamination of the earth doesn’t make us very good stewards of God’ creation, now does it?

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not even military targets. The Prez specifically chose civilian targets. He will have to answer to God for that one.

As to declaring a war unjust after it has started or ended, that is Monday Morning Quarterbacking. The National leaders that must make the decisions do not have all the information and in fact know they do not have it all. As with many human decisions, it must be made with the best information available and a lot of guess work. The Church is in no position to judge, only God can; and He will.

It’s an oft repeated belief that the Church is in no position to judge. Curiously, every prediction the Vatican made about the outcomes of a U.S. attack on Iraq came true, outcomes the Bush Administration originally denied would happen. Did the Vatican know more, or was the Bush Administration in denial?

On another note, many Americans think of WWII as the great war. After all, in hindsight, Hitler had to be stopped. But Americans did not want to get involved in another European war. And Roosevelt said he would send none of our boys to die in their war. Simultaneously, Roosevelt and his administration were working on a plan to pressure the Japanese into attacking the U.S. The result was a seven point plan followed by the Navy brass and the Roosevelt Administration. Historian Robert Stinnett wrote the final chapter on Pearl Harbor, complete with FOIPA requested Navy and White House documents that unveil the whole sordid affair. See Day Of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor

Some pro-Roosevelt historians are now saying it was a necessary strategy because America needed to get into the war. As for myself, I don’t agree with that. Manipulating a foreign power to attack your own people isn’t something anyone has tried, as far as I am aware, to justify according to just war doctrine.

As an aside, it is interesting the original draft of Roosevelt’s famous Day of Infamy speech was found, and it was written before the attack on Pearl Harbor.