Just War

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gilliam

Guest
In reply to some questions on different threads.

St. Augustine and St. Thomas said there are 3 components to a just war (St. Thomas Aquinas; The Summa Theologica Part II, Question 40):
  1. Just authority, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged.
  2. Just cause (aka legitimate defense by military force).
  3. Just intention, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil.
If you read the following selection from the Catholic Catechism carefully, you will see the 3 components of the Just War Theory.

2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.

However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."106

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
  • 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. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

2310 Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense.
Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.

A lot more information is here:
Just War Doctrine
 
No where does it say in there that Preemptive strike makes a just war null and void…so all of you libs out there…read it and weep.
 
40.png
dumspirospero:
No where does it say in there that Preemptive strike makes a just war null and void…so all of you libs out there…read it and weep.
Click to expand...
I think the Pope was trying to say Bush’s pre-emption doctrine did not fall under self defense (CCC 2308), but still he didn’t bind our consciences to not support the war. If he said outright that the war was not a Just War, would he have bound consciences to oblige?
 
Preemption is a touchy (or ‘grey’ area). Here is what George Wiegal says on the matter in relation specifically to Iraq:

*Is preemption ever morally justifiable?

*Classic just-war thinking identified three kinds of “just cause”: defense against an aggression under way, recovery of something wrongfully taken, or punishment for evil. [St. Thomas Aquinas
The Summa Theologica Part II, Question 40 ]](http://ethics.acusd.edu/Books/Texts/aquinas/justwar.html)

Modern just-war thinking, reflected in the U.N. Charter, has tended to limit “just cause” to “defense against an aggression under way.”

When a vicious regime that has used chemical weapons against its own people and against a neighboring country — a regime that has no concept of the rule of law and that flagrantly violates its international obligations — works feverishly to obtain and deploy further weapons of mass destruction, a compelling moral case can be made that this is a matter of an “aggression under way.”

The nature of the regime, which is the crucial factor in the moral analysis, makes that plain. It makes no moral sense to say that the U.S. or the international community can only respond with armed force when an Iraqi missile carrying a weapon of mass destruction has been launched, or is being readied for launch.

There are serious questions of prudence here, of course. At the level of moral principle, however, there may be instances when it is not only right to “go first,” but “going first” may be morally obligatory. Iraq may well pose one of those instances.
 
40.png
ToddC:
If he said outright that the war was not a Just War, would he have bound consciences to oblige?
Click to expand...
No, he would have had to specificaly tell us that. I doubt a Pope would ever bind us on such a matter. Normally they only do when a doctrine is in doubt.
 
40.png
dumspirospero:
No where does it say in there that Preemptive strike makes a just war null and void…so all of you libs out there…read it and weep.
Click to expand...
Actually, the just war tradition always taught that a just cause for war was punishment of evil. Only recently have some tried to suggest that all war was bad because we have WMDs and the cost would be too great. A simpleton argument against war, but because many Catholics taught it, many bought it.

The fact is that it is not war that is bad or good - it is the moral intention of those involved that is bad or good. Again, this comes down to personal goodness or personal sin - something the “liberal” establishment wants to ignore.
 
This is so hard. Pre-emption is always difficult. I’m not sure pre-emption in this case was just.

Bu when you don’t pre-empt people go on an on about why don’t we take him out, why didn’t we stop Hitler, why we didn’t we let MacArthur go into China, why didn’t we get Saddam the first time, blah blah for years without end.
Then you finally try to do it proactively and suddenly the public forgot what the problem was to begin with. Like we were all born yesterday–why are we at war? The war starts to go bad and people at home turn the channel.

I supported the war but there was admittedly a good argument for not taking this on–i.e. the “prudential” argument. Just play it safe. But then we risk turning into Western Europe, that is willing to give up everything to protect its money, blood and social programs.

Just venting. I admit I’m stumped and don’t have the answer.
 
The Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales issued a document Cherishing Life last year, on war they said this:-
195. War always involves the use of lethal force and results in the loss of life, not only of soldiers, but also of innocent civilians. The destruction to homes, crops and infrastructure and the presence of landmines and unexploded munitions also causes great hardship even after the war is over. All wars bring great evils, few wars bring great benefits. Nevertheless, for most of Christian history the Church has accepted the argument that unjust aggression should be resisted by legitimate political authorities so that these authorities can defend the common good and protect innocent life. Such resistance requires the use of force up to and including lethal force. While encouraging the work of peace and the building of competent international authorities to prevent warfare, the Catholic Bishops of the Second Vatican Council acknowledged that governments possess a right to lawful self-defence. (The Church in the Modern World, paragraph 79) This teaching follows the Christian tradition of just war theory, the aim of which is to limit the outbreak of war and to govern the way in which war may be waged.
Code: 
              196. According to just war theory, the war must have a just cause. The only legitimate reason for waging war is to oppose a great evil that cannot effectively be opposed by any other means. It should always be an act of self-defence and not an act of aggression. The decision to go to war should be taken as a last resort after all other political, economic and diplomatic means have been exhausted. It must be waged by a legitimate ruler and, where this exists, be authorised by international law or mandate. It ought also to reflect a fair degree of popular support. It must have a reasonable prospect of success in military terms and be confident of achieving its objective without causing more harm than the evil it opposes. Finally, the intentions of those who fight the war must be upright: acting for the sake of the stated cause and not for the sake of strategic or economic gain, empire or conquest. There must also be an intention to use only legitimate means, for instance, discriminating between the combatants and non-combatants, not targeting the population as a whole and not using weapons of mass destruction.

              197. What has never been accepted by the Church is usurping God's authority over life and death by deliberately killing those who are not engaged in unjust aggression. The killing of unarmed prisoners of war, indiscriminate bombing, the use of weapons of mass destruction, and the targeting of schools, hospitals or residential areas cannot be regarded as legitimate military tactics. Even if these were done in a good cause, they would not be acts of war but acts of terror.

             198. Although war may sometimes be just, it is a scandal that throughout the world so much money is spent on armaments while so little is spent addressing poverty. Furthermore, the proliferation and accumulation of all these weapons makes the world a less secure and more dangerous place.
 
gilliam said:
In reply to some questions on different threads.

St. Augustine and St. Thomas said there are 3 components to a just war (St. Thomas Aquinas; The Summa Theologica Part II, Question 40
Click to expand...
):
  1. Just authority, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged.
  2. Just cause (aka legitimate defense by military force).
  3. Just intention, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil.
The invasion of Iraq was NOT self-defense. Iraq was not a threat to the U.S. Was Iraq a threat to its neighbors? Yes…but not to the U.S. The invasion was unjust…just as the Holy See declared it would be before the invasion happened. Sorry…truth is truth.
Click to expand...
 
Just War or no Just War, the thing is we are in Iraq, and we better win the peace and the war.
The way things are going, it seems that the terrorists have a greater desire to kill us, than we do them. I can’t understand how expertise they are in using car bombs. Don’t we have any technology to detect these bombs?
How soon will it be before our troop death toll reaches 5,000?
We are there, lets win it, not be sitting ducks for insurgents.
 
Let’s try to talk only about Just War theory on this doctrine. We need one thread on the doctrine to refer people to.
 
40.png
Peacemonger:
The invasion of Iraq was NOT self-defense. Iraq was not a threat to the U.S. Was Iraq a threat to its neighbors? Yes…but not to the U.S. The invasion was unjust…just as the Holy See declared it would be before the invasion happened. Sorry…truth is truth.
Click to expand...
I understand what you are saying but there are many who believe that Iraq was a threat to the U.S.
I remember the Holy See was for the Nucular Freeze in the 80’s, along with the American Bishops.
The French Bishops would have no part of it, they were for peace through strength. They knew you can’t trust the devil.
Click to expand...
 
According to just war theory, the war must have a just cause. The only legitimate reason for waging war is to oppose a great evil that cannot effectively be opposed by any other means. It should always be an act of self-defence and not an act of aggression. The decision to go to war should be taken as a last resort after all other political, economic and diplomatic means have been exhausted. It must be waged by a legitimate ruler and, where this exists, be authorised by international law or mandate. It ought also to reflect a fair degree of popular support. It must have a reasonable prospect of success in military terms and be confident of achieving its objective without causing more harm than the evil it opposes. Finally, the intentions of those who fight the war must be upright: acting for the sake of the stated cause and not for the sake of strategic or economic gain, empire or conquest. There must also be an intention to use only legitimate means, for instance, discriminating between the combatants and non-combatants, not targeting the population as a whole and not using weapons of mass destruction.
 
40.png
Matt25:
According to just war theory, the war must have a just cause. The only legitimate reason for waging war is to oppose a great evil that cannot effectively be opposed by any other means. It should always be an act of self-defence and not an act of aggression. The decision to go to war should be taken as a last resort after all other political, economic and diplomatic means have been exhausted. It must be waged by a legitimate ruler and, where this exists, be authorised by international law or mandate. It ought also to reflect a fair degree of popular support. It must have a reasonable prospect of success in military terms and be confident of achieving its objective without causing more harm than the evil it opposes. Finally, the intentions of those who fight the war must be upright: acting for the sake of the stated cause and not for the sake of strategic or economic gain, empire or conquest. There must also be an intention to use only legitimate means, for instance, discriminating between the combatants and non-combatants, not targeting the population as a whole and not using weapons of mass destruction.
Click to expand...
Traditional just war theory does not require international approval nor does it require self-defense as an only acceptable reason.
 
gilliam said:
1) Just authority, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged.
Click to expand...

GWB?
40.png
gilliam:
  1. Just cause (aka legitimate defense by military force).
Click to expand...
Not present in this instance.

gilliam said:
3) Just intention, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil.
Click to expand...

At best that point is moot.

This makes me really sad. War is hardly ever just and certainly, it is highly questionable in this instance which is probably why it has been questioned so widely and some here are so very defensive about it.

Really, just war? Please.
 
40.png
FightingFat:
GWB?

Not present in this instance.

At best that point is moot.

This makes me really sad. War is hardly ever just and certainly, it is highly questionable in this instance which is probably why it has been questioned so widely and some here are so very defensive about it.

Really, just war? Please.
Click to expand...
These 3 points come directly from St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine. read: (St. Thomas Aquinas; The Summa Theologica Part II, Question 40):
 
40.png
FightingFat:
I understand that, just not how you apply them in this instance!
Click to expand...
This thread is not about any war in particular, it is on the Just War doctrine. If you want a thread on applying it to any particular war, pls start one, and I will respond as best I can.
 
40.png
caroljm36:
This is so hard. Pre-emption is always difficult. I’m not sure pre-emption in this case was just.
Click to expand...
Very hard. I believe this is why the Just War Doctrine states that the ultimate decision for war is in the hands of the government, and not the public, since they have more information and bear the responsibility.
40.png
caroljm36:
Bu when you don’t pre-empt people go on an on about why don’t we take him out, why didn’t we stop Hitler, why we didn’t we let MacArthur go into China, why didn’t we get Saddam the first time, blah blah for years without end.
Then you finally try to do it proactively and suddenly the public forgot what the problem was to begin with. Like we were all born yesterday–why are we at war? The war starts to go bad and people at home turn the channel.
Click to expand...
That’s one thing I hold against some Bush critics in washington, two groups in particular. The first are the ones who voted “yes”, then say “well, we thought he should have the authority but didn’t want him to use it.” The other group are the ones who were up at arms that, before 9/11 he didn’t “connect the dots” and after Iraq are up at arms that he did “connect the dots.” It puts any commmander in chief in a no-win situation–don’t attack first and you are blamed for not stopping it, do attack first and you are blamed for starting it.
40.png
caroljm36:
I supported the war but there was admittedly a good argument for not taking this on–i.e. the “prudential” argument. Just play it safe. But then we risk turning into Western Europe, that is willing to give up everything to protect its money, blood and social programs.
Click to expand...
I can respect both pro-war and anti-war arguments if they are done honestly. I can also respect those who support it initially, then wonder later if maybe it was a mistake. The command in chief, however, can’t do that–he has to make a decision and stick with it. Regardless, we are there now and must win.
40.png
caroljm36:
Just venting. I admit I’m stumped and don’t have the answer.
Click to expand...
It’s allowed. I enjoyed your post. 👍
 
40.png
ToddC:
I think the Pope was trying to say Bush’s pre-emption doctrine did not fall under self defense (CCC 2308), but still he didn’t bind our consciences to not support the war. If he said outright that the war was not a Just War, would he have bound consciences to oblige?
Click to expand...
I’m not Catholic, so I don’t feel bound by all the Pope’s opinions. But I try not to argue with statements made by him. I think it would be very disrespectful for me to come to a Catholic forum and argue with the Pope’s beliefs.

I have great respect for Catholicism (as well as evangelical christianity) as a force for goodness on the planet. And I certainly would never pretend to know more than the pope about scripture.

To my knowledge, the Pope never called Iraq an unjust war. If my understanding is correct, I believe he was hoping inspectors would find something if they had more time. I respectfully disagree (disagree, but not argue with his belief) that inspectors could have handled Saddam, and believe the Middle
East will be greatly improved with a free Iraq–something we must attain now regardless of whether the war was a good idea in the first place. I think the Pope understands, as the Just War Doctrine states, that the decision was ultimately the responsibility of the who had the most information and were responsibile.

I know the Church doesn’t endorse a candidate, but I really wish we knew who the Pope was rooting for in the Presidential election–it would tell us a lot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top