C
ckasl
Guest
Has the Catholic Church ever declared any past wars to be a “just war” anywhere in the world, but especially in the United States? If so, which one(s)?
- Status
A
Aragorn
Guest
I placed that same question in the forum, and no answer. Even to expand you question, is supporting the Iraq war a sin?
B
Buford
Guest
Answer the question for your self.
Principles of the Just War
· A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
· A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
· A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient–see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with “right” intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
· A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
· The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
· The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
· The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.
Since we were attacked:
Did terrorists exhaust every non-violent option?
Is every Mullah a legitimate authority?
What egregious wrong did they suffer?
Do they have a reasonable chance of success?
Do they try to reestablish peace?
Violence proportional to injury suffered?
Avoid civilian causalities?
I would argue that NONE of these conditions are met. A Saudi, Iranian or Syrian in Iraq kidnapping, torturing and murdering civilians in Iraq is NOT a soldier, thus NOT covered by Geneva accords.
Terrorists, spies and saboteurs have ALLWAYS been subject to summary execution. They forfeit all rights. No lawyer, no phone, no visitors.
Since several terrorists released under mercy from Gitmo have since returned to kidnapping, torturing and murdering I don’t expect ANY of them to be released in the future.
Principles of the Just War
· A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
· A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
· A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient–see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with “right” intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
· A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
· The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
· The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
· The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.
Since we were attacked:
Did terrorists exhaust every non-violent option?
Is every Mullah a legitimate authority?
What egregious wrong did they suffer?
Do they have a reasonable chance of success?
Do they try to reestablish peace?
Violence proportional to injury suffered?
Avoid civilian causalities?
I would argue that NONE of these conditions are met. A Saudi, Iranian or Syrian in Iraq kidnapping, torturing and murdering civilians in Iraq is NOT a soldier, thus NOT covered by Geneva accords.
Terrorists, spies and saboteurs have ALLWAYS been subject to summary execution. They forfeit all rights. No lawyer, no phone, no visitors.
Since several terrorists released under mercy from Gitmo have since returned to kidnapping, torturing and murdering I don’t expect ANY of them to be released in the future.
D
Dr.Colossus
Guest
I think that any war that has been waged on America (i.e. where we were not the aggressors) such as the second World War would be considered just, as it was necessary for self-defense. Though that does not mean that the Church approved all of the methods employed in any particular war.
B
Buford
Guest
RE: Methods of conducting war.
There are moral and ethical norms, and USA follows those norms not only because we are a moral and ethical nation of laws, but also because it is in our own self interest.
For example we do not mistreat or abuse prisoners of war because we expect the same. When other nations choose to ignore the moral and ethical norms those same laws and treaties are ignored existing consequences are already codified.
When anyone uses schools, mosques or hospitals for military use the structures loose their protected status.
If they shun uniformed military response for a rear guard action and they will be treated as spies or saboteurs.
Use WMD against civilians or target civilians and you risk the same in answer.
Remember Germany was the one to start: bombing civilian centers, unrestricted warfare on the high seas, shooting POW. Japan & N Vietnam intentionally dispersed military production in civilian centers.
To the best of my understanding terrorists are following NONE of the accepted rules of war. They do so at their own peril.
There are moral and ethical norms, and USA follows those norms not only because we are a moral and ethical nation of laws, but also because it is in our own self interest.
For example we do not mistreat or abuse prisoners of war because we expect the same. When other nations choose to ignore the moral and ethical norms those same laws and treaties are ignored existing consequences are already codified.
When anyone uses schools, mosques or hospitals for military use the structures loose their protected status.
If they shun uniformed military response for a rear guard action and they will be treated as spies or saboteurs.
Use WMD against civilians or target civilians and you risk the same in answer.
Remember Germany was the one to start: bombing civilian centers, unrestricted warfare on the high seas, shooting POW. Japan & N Vietnam intentionally dispersed military production in civilian centers.
To the best of my understanding terrorists are following NONE of the accepted rules of war. They do so at their own peril.
P
PaulDupre
Guest
It is not the Church’s role to declare any particular war to be just or not, therefore no, the Church has never declared a war to be just. The Church’s Just War Doctrine, as detailed in paragraph 2309 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, states that the government is burdened with the responsibility of evaluating the relative merits of any war:
Hope this helps,
Paul
P
Pinklady
Guest
Ask the Jews that were liberated before the Nazis could gas them. I’ll bet they think WWII was just.
7
777
Guest
Why only america? Why not the rest of the world?
B
Buford
Guest
Why only America what? It is difficult to read your mind.
B
BayCityRickL
Guest
Certainly the U.S. has not waged a just war, by these lofty standards. As programs aired on the History Channel attest, the U.S. has committed atrocities in every war.
Just war theory is fine, for white knights on horse. How do we “right a wrong” for 6 million Americans dead in Chicago, for example? Or, do we have a right to “avenge” this killing? Where does just war theory draw the line? Be specific.
Just war theory is fine, for white knights on horse. How do we “right a wrong” for 6 million Americans dead in Chicago, for example? Or, do we have a right to “avenge” this killing? Where does just war theory draw the line? Be specific.
A
Augustine
Guest
If I’m not mistaken, the war against Afganistan was considered just.
I’m pretty sure that WWII was a just war as well, in spite of the attrocities the Allies commited in bombings of civilians.
B
Buford
Guest
Certainly the current war in Afganistan & the war in Iraq ARE just.
Every war has some atrocities. Since we did not start the war, we were attacked, the question if we started a just war does not apply. The point is was the war directed againt us just?
last resort. NO
legitimate authority NO
redress a wrong suffered NO
reasonable chance of success NO
re-establish peace NO
proportional to the injury suffered NO
discriminate between combatants and non-combatants NO
You must either defend those who attack us, was 9/11 a just attack? or live with it. Because SELF DEFENSE IS ALWAYS JUSTIFIED.
A
Apologia100
Guest
All wars are evil because people die. Anytime a person dies, that is evil. :crying:
B
Buford
Guest
Then you are at odds with Catholic teaching of Just War, which states all wars of self defense are just.
You are a Quaker not a Catholic. I can live with that.
7
777
Guest
You tell them. Just wars suck. Starting a just war when an enemy kills someone won’t bring the dead loved ones back. Fighting produces not a thing. It only leads to destruction. Is intetionally hurting someone, making them feel pain, maiming them and crippling them, even ending the greatest gift known as life with wepons–and all for the name of defense and freedom? It’s costly, which means big taxes till the people resent it. I agree that all wars, they’re evil because people die. Whatever happened to do violence to no one? Whatever happened to “And they shalt beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks, and nation shalt not rise against nation, and study war no more?”
S
Steven_Merten
Guest
Hello 777,You tell them. Just wars suck. Starting a just war when an enemy kills someone won’t bring the dead loved ones back. Fighting produces not a thing. It only leads to destruction. Is intetionally hurting someone, making them feel pain, maiming them and crippling them, even ending the greatest gift known as life with wepons–and all for the name of defense and freedom? It’s costly, which means big taxes till the people resent it. I agree that all wars, they’re evil because people die. Whatever happened to do violence to no one? Whatever happened to “And they shalt beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks, and nation shalt not rise against nation, and study war no more?”
Because killing is not a pleasant thing to look at even if it is for a just cause, we really have to examine a basic kill for the protection of the innocent. The best place to look at a basic kill for the protection of the innocent is when it is under the Popes command that a kill is initiated. Obviously if there is any place on earth where killing would only be done for a God accepted reason, it would be at the Vatican. Once we understand a basic Church kill then it is easier to understand when the world kills. Obviously Church leaders would lay down their lives rather than disobey Jesus. From St. Peter to Pope John Paul II, this is what Jesus demands of of His Apostles. So when do Church leaders see it within Christ’s will to kill? Once we understand when Pope John Paul II would have his guards kill to protect himself and Church possessions, it is easier to understand WWII Allied forces killing to protect the whole world from the atrocities of Hitler. Would you not agree?
Papal guards have on their person the capacity to beat swords into plow shares at the rate of 700 rounds a minuet. As to scriptual beating swords into plow shares that will come when God no longer allows mankind freedom from the control of His will.
I cut this information from another Catholic Answers forum poster.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=13229&highlight=Swiss+guards+guns
All members of the Pope’s Swiss Guard first in the Swiss Army. Their weapons consist of Swords and the Halberd ( a type of spear/battle axe) which may look ceremonial but are actually quite sharp. They also normally pack a Beretta 9mm pistol shown below
AND under the colorful uniforms and if need be can break out the FN Nato 5.56mm rifles which are standard issue to Guardsmen.
FN FNC Assult Rifle
Caliber: 5.56x45mm NATO
Action: Gas operated, rotating bolt
Overall length: standard model 997 mm (776 mm with folded butt); “Para” model 911 mm / 680 mm
Barrel length: 449 mm (363 mm “Para” model)
Weight with empty magazine: 4.06 kgÊ (3.81 kg “Para” model)
Magazine capacity: 30 rounds (accept all STANAG-compatible magazines)
Rate of fire: about 700 rounds per minute
Effective range: 450 meters
As to Jesus will on when to kill to protect the innocent, please visit: Throwing Stones
It is much easier to understand a kill for the protection of the innocent when it is Pope John Paul II who is in command of those who are doing the killing. Then we can move on to study someone in the world who is killing to protect the innocent. Do you agree?
Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com
7
777
Guest
Steven Merten:
War can’t give life; it can only take it away. It wouldn’t be right to play God and Jesus. As for murder in protection, I wouldn’t do that to pro tcet celebs and crooked politictins, not even protect porn stars.
B
Buford
Guest
Your right 100%, the only thing worse than winning a just war is losing a just war.You tell them. Just wars suck. Starting a just war when an enemy kills someone won’t bring the dead loved ones back. Fighting produces not a thing. It only leads to destruction. Is intetionally hurting someone, making them feel pain, maiming them and crippling them, even ending the greatest gift known as life with wepons–and all for the name of defense and freedom? It’s costly, which means big taxes till the people resent it. I agree that all wars, they’re evil because people die. Whatever happened to do violence to no one? Whatever happened to “And they shalt beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks, and nation shalt not rise against nation, and study war no more?”
Y
yallguys
Guest
If we never fought any wars you’d be reading the koran and worshiping the other half truths, nay quarter truths of Islam. Read some history and learn how many times western civilization and Christianity have been under attack by Islam alone, not including the other threats. Even the French used to fight for the faith. Ha ha I said French and fight in the same sentence. Not to mention all the other things in history such as independence, freedom from tyranny, etc… that have resulted from wars. Of course we should all hug like Jesus tells us to do in the Bible. I also have a bone to pick with this Father of His, who was always killing innocent people who were afflicting the Jews. Crushing Egyptians in the Red Sea, leading the Jews to victory in battle, and punishing the other wicked, people died there too. I guess God was evil in letting the Jews fight; only that heresy went out of fashion some centuries ago. So now I’m confused.You tell them. Just wars suck. Starting a just war when an enemy kills someone won’t bring the dead loved ones back. Fighting produces not a thing. It only leads to destruction. Is intetionally hurting someone, making them feel pain, maiming them and crippling them, even ending the greatest gift known as life with wepons–and all for the name of defense and freedom? It’s costly, which means big taxes till the people resent it. I agree that all wars, they’re evil because people die. Whatever happened to do violence to no one? Whatever happened to “And they shalt beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks, and nation shalt not rise against nation, and study war no more?”
7
777
Guest
- Status