Just War Vs. Means Justifying the Ends

  • Thread starter Thread starter CA3891
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CA3891

Guest
Could someone help me out with 3 things I am either confusing or conflating?

If the ends never justifies the means, then how can a just war be possible, as the means (that is, whether to bear arms or not) is disregarded, since the end ( to achieve reconciliation and peace) is the final goal?

Is it because just war falls under the double effect principle? That is, one should only go to war because of self-defense?

I need clarification on this matter.

Thanks,

CA3891
 
Also,

another question. Is Capital Punishment ever necessary in modern day situations? Like with Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden?

Thanks
 
My understanding about a Just War, is that it is permissible when it is a matter of self defense, or when helping to protect some weaker country who is being attacked. Sort of like resisting a buly, or helping a kid who is being picked on by someone bigger or stronger.

I don’t believe Capital Punishment is either necessary or justified in this day and age.
 
Every person has a right to life. It is allowable to defend oneself, or to defend others when attacked.

Any such sin resides with the attacker and their decision to attack, not with the defender.

God Himself indicated that there are times where war is an appropriate action, both when He commanded the Isrealites to go to war and in Ecclesiastes 3:8
A time to love,
And a time to hate;
A time of war,
And a time of peace.
Click to expand...
So, if God commands something, that, by definition, means that there are times when it is Just.

As far as Capital Punishment, the same it true, God also commanded that it be done at times, so it too can be an act of Justice.

As for modern times, the only acceptable reason is when the ability of the State to protect others is not effectively possible. (Others also including other inmates in prison or the prison guards)

Thus it’s use would not be based on the henious nature of the crime (like Saddam), but rather on how violent the criminal would be to other inmates.

Saddam posed little danger to others in prison, so his execution is most likely unjust.

Modern penology allows for much greater monitoring of inmates, so the potential that they may harm others is greatly reduced, so the use of the Death Penalty would be appropriate only in very extreme cases.
 
Brendan said:
Every person has a right to life. It is allowable to defend oneself, or to defend others when attacked.

Any such sin resides with the attacker and their decision to attack, not with the defender.

God Himself indicated that there are times where war is an appropriate action, both when He commanded the Isrealites to go to war and in Ecclesiastes 3:8

So, if God commands something, that, by definition, means that there are times when it is Just.

As far as Capital Punishment, the same it true, God also commanded that it be done at times, so it too can be an act of Justice.

As for modern times, the only acceptable reason is when the ability of the State to protect others is not effectively possible. (Others also including other inmates in prison or the prison guards)

Thus it’s use would not be based on the henious nature of the crime (like Saddam), but rather on how violent the criminal would be to other inmates.

Saddam posed little danger to others in prison, so his execution is most likely unjust.

Modern penology allows for much greater monitoring of inmates, so the potential that they may harm others is greatly reduced, so the use of the Death Penalty would be appropriate only in very extreme cases.
Click to expand...
Absolutely correct. The right to self-defense is inherent in the right to life. The Church recognizes this – circumstances may arise in which one can defend oneself (or one’s family or country) only with lethal force. Not only is the use of leathal force licit if the conditions require it, but it can actually be a duty. Fathers cannot stand by and see their children massacred. Persons in authority cannot stand by and see their citizens massacred.

The Church’s position in these matters is couched in an “if-then” statement; that is, **if **certain conditions exist, then the moral course is . . .

The Kharisma of Infallibility does not extend to the first part of the statement. The Church cannot say that you are not in danger, or your nation is not in danger, or that a certain criminal is not so dangerous that he must face the extreme penalty. That decision is left to those who have a duty to make such decisions.
 
vern_humphrey said:
The Kharisma of Infallibility does not extend to the first part of the statement. The Church cannot say that you are not in danger, or your nation is not in danger, or that a certain criminal is not so dangerous that he must face the extreme penalty. That decision is left to those who have a duty to make such decisions.
Click to expand...
The charism of infallibility does not extend to those who’s responsibility it is to make such decisions either. If leaders decide to launch a war with inadequate justification then they will have failed in their duty and can expect to be judged accordingly. Especially if they show no subsequent repentance for their original criminal misjudgment.
 
Catholic_Action said:
The charism of infallibility does not extend to those who’s responsibility it is to make such decisions either.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what you mean here. No one ever claimed the Kharisma of Infallibility applies to anyone but the Church.

But the responsibility to care for and protect others does fall on us all. The care and dilligence with which we discharge that responsibility is the standard by which we are judged. Government officials, with access to more information than the rest of us, have the authority for deciding issues of war and peace. Along with it, they have responsibility to make responsible and moral decisions.
Catholic_Action said:
If leaders decide to launch a war with inadequate justification then they will have failed in their duty and can expect to be judged accordingly. Especially if they show no subsequent repentance for their original criminal misjudgment.
Click to expand...
I cannot imagine how anyone would think it would be otherwise.
 
Catholic_Action said:
The charism of infallibility does not extend to those who’s responsibility it is to make such decisions either. If leaders decide to launch a war with inadequate justification then they will have failed in their duty and can expect to be judged accordingly. Especially if they show no subsequent repentance for their original criminal misjudgment.
Click to expand...
There would be no need for repentance if it was truely misjudgement. The fact that your judgment was incorrect does not make you culpable. The sin would lie in if you decided to initiate a conflict when your judgement indicated there were other, better paths that may yield a more just result OR if you failed to aquire the necessary and available information to make a proper judgement.
 
Evan said:
There would be no need for repentance if it was truely misjudgement. The fact that your judgment was incorrect does not make you culpable. The sin would lie in if you decided to initiate a conflict when your judgement indicated there were other, better paths that may yield a more just result OR if you failed to aquire the necessary and available information to make a proper judgement.
Click to expand...
It is also a sin to fail to do one’s duty. That sin can be laid at the door of he leaders of European nations who failed to take decisive action to stop Hitler, for example.

One can kill by omission as well as by comission.
 
CA3891 said:
Also,

another question. Is Capital Punishment ever necessary in modern day situations? Like with Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden?

Thanks
Click to expand...
By necessary I assume you mean “necessary to protect society from the person being punished” Saddam, Osama, Charles Manson or whoever.

Prisons used to be considered to have two purposes; to keep bad people away from the rest of us and to punish the bad people. The second purpose has been forgotten and “correctional facilities” [hah!] are now basically warehouses where we stash dangerous people.

Recent Popes have said that if society has the means to protect society from dangerous offenders without killing them (say, high-security prisons) then there is no legitimate purpose to the death penalty. It would be allowable if your country is too poor to build prisons, I suppose, according to this line of reasoning.

This ignores punishment. Even if we manage to capture Osama bin Laden locking for life is insufficient. He deserves to be punished. He owes a debt that can only be paid with his life.
 
didymus said:
This ignores punishment. Even if we manage to capture Osama bin Laden locking for life is insufficient. He deserves to be punished. He owes a debt that can only be paid with his life.
Click to expand...
Who of us would survive a merit and sin based judgement anyway? Not to mention that an eye for an eye and the world goes blind.

Punishment to correct the person could be helpful to him for sure, locking away from the society is reasonable. But vengeance let’s leave to the Lord. “Mine is vengeance,” and all.

Now, war may be morally right as collective self-defence. Self-defence with appropriate means is not wrong. Death penalty is not really punishment, there isn’t that much room for correction, so it looks like pure retribution. Elimination from the society if necessary can be achieved through other means. If not then well, his pity.
 
Quick question: I am not entirely clear on how the relationship of the charisma of infallibility would apply to the Church’s stance on just-war. I know what papal infallibility is, but are you discussing something different when speaking of the charisma of infallibility, or do you mean that before the separation of Church and state, the Pope would have to act as the legitimate authority for the nation and declare self-defense and hence just-war? There technically speaking could be instances where this could occur today as well, correct?

Also, on another note, the main reason for my post is to understand whether Catholic pacifism is acceptable, given that the Catechism states (paraphrasing) “we can defend either by bearing arms, or NOT bearing arms” and yet, if the obligation under the principle of the right to life is the duty to defend life, aren’t there instances where NOT bearing arms would pose a greater risk to life and thus not fulfill the duty to defend life to the fullest extent possible?

How can the one defending themselves not also be seen as an attacker if, in the process of attacking, are harming innocent citizens (given that we now have nuclear arms, etc.)?
 
Didymus,

The death penalty as a means for punishment is not in principle with Catholic teaching and first and foremost, Scripture. I think you are confusing punishment with “penance” because prisons were called penitentiaries for the sake of reforming the person and giving them the opportunity for repentance.

We cannot kill people as a punishment, moreover, because we ought to recall that though we were deserving of death and punishment (of the eternal kind!), God was merciful enough to send his son to show us forgiveness, GRATUITOUSLY. Yes, some people seem to “deserve” death, but are we not also deserving of greater punishment for offending God who is completely pure and innocent?

If we look at John 8, with the adulterous woman, Jesus shows us that even though the law stated that the woman was deserving of death, God’s law seeks forgiveness. With Cain and Abel, God preserved Cain from death, because only God is the true judger of our deeds. We cannot determine when life should be taken away unnaturally.

What function does killing do to someone anyhow? Don’t you think a lifetime of thinking over your deeds is a greater punishment than immediate death?
 
didymus said:
By necessary I assume you mean “necessary to protect society from the person being punished” Saddam, Osama, Charles Manson or whoever.

Prisons used to be considered to have two purposes; to keep bad people away from the rest of us and to punish the bad people. The second purpose has been forgotten and “correctional facilities” [hah!] are now basically warehouses where we stash dangerous people.

Recent Popes have said that if society has the means to protect society from dangerous offenders without killing them (say, high-security prisons) then there is no legitimate purpose to the death penalty. It would be allowable if your country is too poor to build prisons, I suppose, according to this line of reasoning.

This ignores punishment. Even if we manage to capture Osama bin Laden locking for life is insufficient. He deserves to be punished. He owes a debt that can only be paid with his life.
Click to expand...
The only possible reason for executing Osama or Saddam Hussein might be to protect the stability of the country. Whatever jail Saddam had been kept at would have become a target for terrorists trying to release him in order to re-instate him or use his authority to threaten/humiliate America and the Iraqi government.

Also, it would be impossible for America to ensure the welfare of Osama Bin Laden in jail. Every prisoner and 99% of the guards would be out to maltreat and kill him. It would perhaps be more dignified for the state to put him to death than to admit that it couldn’t guarantee his safety and have him die in jail.
 
Genesis 3 and also the Catechism of the Catholic Church on Captial Punishment.

The USCCB also has a statement on their website which shows how they examine the 3 common arguments for the death penalty.

usccb.org
 
The bishops themselves have said

“how can we show that killing is wrong by killing”?
 
CA3891 said:
…"?
Click to expand...
It seems there is an absence of “immanent danger” in the comments made. Killing others involves immanent danger whether it is a warring action or a capital punishment. It is hard to imagine a scenario today in which a prison is inadequate or not available. Similarly to go to war there must be an action current or reasonably certain that death and/or great suffering are present.

The end is not used to justify the means, the elimination of *current *danger is the justificaion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top