Just War

[Matt25]

Why and when recourse to war is permissible.

   a) Just Cause: War is permissible only to confront "a real and       certain danger," i.e., to protect innocent life, to preserve       conditions necessary for decent human existence, and to basic human       rights. . . .

 b) Competent Authority: In the Catholic tradition the right to use force     has always been joined to the common good; war must be declared by those     with responsibility for public order, not by private groups or individuals.     . . .

 c) Comparative Justice: . . . .he question in its most basic form is     this: do the rights and values involved justify killing?. . .

 d) Right Intention: Right intention is related to just cause - war can be     legitimately intended only for the reasons set forth above as a just cause.     . . .

   e) Last Resort. For resort to war to be justified, all peaceful       alternatives must have been exhausted. . . .

 f) Probability of Success. This criterion to apply, but its purpose is to     prevent irrational resort to force or hopeless resistance when the outcome     of either will clearly be disproportionate or futile. The determination     includes a recognition that at times defense of key values, even against     great odds, may be a "proportionate" witness. . . .

 g) Proportionality: In terms of the "jus ad bellum" criteria,     proportionality means that the damage to be inflicted and the costs incurred     by war must be proportionate to the good expected by taking up arms. . . .

        [The       Challenge of Peace](http://www.osjspm.org/cst/cp.htm), #85 - 99

This comes from the Challenge of Peace issued by the US Bishops in 1983.It raises a number of questions. For example does invading a country which permits UN weapons inspectors to do their work constitute exhausting al peaceful alternatives.
Irrelevantly I should point out that properly speaking you can only ever have one alternative- thats a grammitical point not a theological one

 

[Exporter]

Lets reduce this question to a neighborhood situation.

You have an obviously insane man living two doors away from you. His brother said that man has 20,000 ponds of C-4 explosive stored in his house. That man told his brother if he hears one more dog bark at night he will detonate all 20,000 pounds of the explosive and blow up the entire block.

What do you do? Do you take action or sit and watch?

 

[Jay74]

Exporter:

Lets reduce this question to a neighborhood situation.

You have an obviously insane man living two doors away from you. His brother said that man has 20,000 ponds of C-4 explosive stored in his house. That man told his brother if he hears one more dog bark at night he will detonate all 20,000 pounds of the explosive and blow up the entire block.

What do you do? Do you take action or sit and watch?

LOL. According to some people, you get rid of the dog, appease the madman, and he will grow to love you from your peaceful solution and the world will be a better safe place because he got what he wanted and you lost what you had the right to have.

Of course, maybe he really didn’t have the explosives. Maybe he just put an ad in the paper promising $30,000 to anyone who blew up your house. Leave him alone–remember, think peace.

Okay, i’m just being goofy. I sympathize with those who make the decisions since these are tough decisions–what happens if we go to war? what happens if we don’t? These are tough decisions with potentially serious consequences either way.

 

[Trelow]

Exporter:

Lets reduce this question to a neighborhood situation.

You have an obviously insane man living two doors away from you. His brother said that man has 20,000 ponds of C-4 explosive stored in his house. That man told his brother if he hears one more dog bark at night he will detonate all 20,000 pounds of the explosive and blow up the entire block.

What do you do? Do you take action or sit and watch?

I think it can even be brought down simpler and better:

Your state has a right to carry.

You are at a gas station fueling up.

Somebody pulls a gun on the attendant demanding money.

This guy is crazy enough to rob someone at gun point, so he’s crazy enough to shoot him.

You are right there, and strapped.

Where do you moral and legal obligations fall?

Well legally and morally you are required to take action.

Why?

Because you are equipped to handle the situation. Simple as that.

Allowing injustice is injustice, and grave matter.

 

[Matt25]

Exporter:

Lets reduce this question to a neighborhood situation.

You have an obviously insane man living two doors away from you. His brother said that man has 20,000 ponds of C-4 explosive stored in his house. That man told his brother if he hears one more dog bark at night he will detonate all 20,000 pounds of the explosive and blow up the entire block.

What do you do? Do you take action or sit and watch?

Saddam denied having weapons of mass destruction (truthfully as it transpires) so your analogy falls down.

Unless the man two doors away from you owns the second largest oil reserves in the world of course.

 

[gilliam]

Matt25:

Saddam denied having weapons of mass destruction (truthfully as it transpires) so your analogy falls down.

Unless the man two doors away from you owns the second largest oil reserves in the world of course.

please keep this thread to a discussion of the Just War theory, generically.

You can start another thread on Iraq if you wish.

 

[Matt25]

gilliam:

please keep this thread to a discussion of the Just War theory, generically.

You can start another thread on Iraq if you wish.

I was answering a previous posting but its relevance would be this. If a government justifies a war on the basis of assertions that are false or intentionally misleading then does that war not automatically become unjust?

 

[Matt25]

War against Iraq is Immoral

   	author: Hans Kung 	 		       		http://portland.indymedia.org/img/mail_small.gife-mail: [email="mbatko@lycos.com"]mbatko@lycos.com[/email] 	  
              
                     "War against Iraq is Immoral"

By Professor Hans Kung

[This excerpt is translated from the German in the Spiegel interview of March 17, 2003, [URL]http://portland.indymedia.org/img/extlink.gif[/URL] [URL='http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/0,1518,240443,00.html']spiegel.de/spiegel/0,1518,240443,00.html[/URL].]

As a theologian, I am against this war out of conviction. According to classical theological teaching, six criteria must be fulfilled to justify a war.

· The first criterion is the just cause. A mere threat assumed to be emerging is not a reason for war. A preventive war on suspicion is immoral and against international law.

· The second criterion is honest intention. What about removing weapons of mass destruction or regime change? No. In reality the US seeks to enforce its concept of a worldwide US empire.

· The third criterion is proportionality. A humanitarian catastrophe with thousands of dead and hundreds of thousands of refugees cannot be accepted on account of removing a misanthropic dictator.

· The fourth is full power authority. Only the UN Security Council was such an authority since no one was attacked and no immediate threat existed.

· Fifthly war must be the ultima ratio, the last possibility, for removing evil. Saddam’s containment was undoubtedly possible without war with an exact timetable and work schedule for UN inspectors and constant surveillance.

· And lastly number six: International law must be observed. No guarantee exists after the experiences of the Afghanistan war that the Americans will respect humanitarian rules.

All six criteria must be fulfilled to justify a war. Not one single criterion was actually fulfilled. Therefore war against Iraq is immoral.

[I]OK so Hans Kung is not in the orthodox mainstream of the Catholic Church but can you deal with his statement on its own merits[/I]

 

[gilliam]

War against Iraq is Immoral

author: Hans Kung http://portland.indymedia.org/img/mail_small.gife-mail: mbatko@lycos.com

“War against Iraq is Immoral”

By Professor Hans Kung

[This excerpt is translated from the German in the Spiegel interview of March 17, 2003, [URL]http://portland.indymedia.org/img/extlink.gif[/URL]
[/quote]

[URL='http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/0,1518,240443,00.html']spiegel.de/spiegel/0,1518,240443,00.html[/URL].]

As a theologian, I am against this war out of conviction. According to classical theological teaching, six criteria He just added 3. According to classical theological teaching there are only a total of three criteria. Read them yourself, from St. Thomas Aquinas. [URL='http://ethics.acusd.edu/Books/Texts/aquinas/justwar.html']St. Thomas Aquinas; The Summa Theologica Part II, Question 40[/URL])

He even adds some that are not in the [URL='http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm#2307']Catechism of the Catholic Church[/URL] (which attempts to embellish on the classical teaching).

 

[gilliam]

Matt25:

· The fourth is full power authority. Only the UN Security Council was such an authority since no one was attacked and no immediate threat existed.

No, the US was threatened, so the US was the authority, not the UN. Sorry, Hans.

For those who do not know. The Church has taken away from him to right to teach as a Catholic theologian

 

[gilliam]

gilliam:

No, the US was threatened, so the US was the authority, not the UN. Sorry, Hans.

For those who do not know. The Church has taken away from Hans Kung the right to teach as a Catholic theologian

 

[Steven_Merten]

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?

Pope John Paul II condemned the use of NATO force in Kosovo. The Muslim people were suffering from Serb attrocities of genocide, ethinic cleansing, rape and were being driven from their homes and country. What if Pope John Paul II would have bound consciences over his political stand against the Kosovo war? Many people around the world believe in, and do not repent from, their support for the war in Kosovo to protect the Muslims? If the Pope bound conciences against those in unrepented support of the war in Kosovo, would these unrepentent people be at risk of having thier souls killed from papal conscience binding?

One person going to hell because of papal conscience binding will loose far more life (spiritual eternal life) than the combine years of physical life cut short from all the wars in human history.

Let us hope our worldly pacifist Pope is a bit careful with the spiritually deadly big gun of authority. Throwing Stones

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com

 

[jman507]

So what actually happens when some look at the principles of the doctrine and think the war is just while others don’t think they apply?

 

[gilliam]

jman507:

So what actually happens when some look at the principles of the doctrine and think the war is just while others don’t think they apply?

My understanding is that the authority for determining when to engage in war is left to those directly responsible for protecting the people. Normally, that is the civil authorities. It is their immortal souls at risk if they ignore the doctrine.

You could equate it to a family. The parents are responsible for action to protect their children. If there is a sin of inaction, or a sin of incorrect behavior, it is the parents who sin, not the Bishop or the Pope. The bishops are responsible for making sure the parents are taught what the doctrine is, but they are not commissioned to making sure the parents uphold that doctrine.

By the way, I can’t remember when a Pope actually endorsed a war in modern times.

 

[Matt25]

gilliam:

By the way, I can’t remember when a Pope actually endorsed a war in modern times.

Why do you think that might be?

 

[Brad]

Matt25:

Why do you think that might be?

Well, for one, it wouldn’t look very good for the head of the Roman Catholic Church to say - “Go to war against those Muslilm countires”, now would it?

I’d think this would bring even more persecution of Christians by Muslims than is already experienced - the Pope is looking to shepherd and protect his flock in every way possible.

 

[Steven_Merten]

Brad:

Well, for one, it wouldn’t look very good for the head of the Roman Catholic Church to say - “Go to war against those Muslilm countires”, now would it?

I’d think this would bring even more persecution of Christians by Muslims than is already experienced - the Pope is looking to shepherd and protect his flock in every way possible.

It is sad to think that Catholic moral theology as to how to remain faithful and obedient to Jesus when one must kill to protect the innocent is based on what makes the Pope look good in the world.

Pope Pious XII did not bind Catholic consciences to the fact that Hitler was fighting an unjust war in WWII. If he would have done so, the Vatican would have no doubt been boombed by Hitler and Catholics persecuted. So what is more important? Germans and Itailians gaining spiritual guidance by having their consciences bound against Hitler’s unjust evil war or getting through the war without Catholic martyrs? Pope Pius XII chose silence to protect physical Catholic life rather than bind consciences or speak any guidance as to how killing for Hitler or supporting Hitler’s war might effect people’s obedience and faithfulness to Jesus or impact their eternal souls.

If publically speaking out against Hitler was not so important for the salvation of souls, why the big push for Pope John Paul II to condemn the Kosovo and Iraq wars? Because it makes him look good in the world.

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com

 

[roymckenzie]

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.

Mr PeaceMonger you are wrong.
All of you bleeding hearts keep saying the Pope said.
The Holy Father is a forthright man who means what he says and says what he means. He has not said the war is unjust. There is only anecdotical evidence that the Pope was thinking, he never said it was unjust. The Holy Father is not shy if he believed it was wrong he would have definitively said it was wrong.
It is just wrong and I think immoral to push off your agenda as if it were spoken directly from the Pope when it has not. It is how ever fair for honest people to disagree but lying is not fair and not moral.

 

[Brad]

Steven Merten:

It is sad to think that Catholic moral theology as to how to remain faithful and obedient to Jesus when one must kill to protect the innocent is based on what makes the Pope look good in the world.

Pope Pious XII did not bind Catholic consciences to the fact that Hitler was fighting an unjust war in WWII. If he would have done so, the Vatican would have no doubt been boombed by Hitler and Catholics persecuted. So what is more important? Germans and Itailians gaining spiritual guidance by having their consciences bound against Hitler’s unjust evil war or getting through the war without Catholic martyrs? Pope Pius XII chose silence to protect physical Catholic life rather than bind consciences or speak any guidance as to how killing for Hitler or supporting Hitler’s war might effect people’s obedience and faithfulness to Jesus or impact their eternal souls.

If publically speaking out against Hitler was not so important for the salvation of souls, why the big push for Pope John Paul II to condemn the Kosovo and Iraq wars? Because it makes him look good in the world.

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com

I’m not sure if I understand the point behind your post, althought I think I may agree but I’m not sure.

It’s not the Pope’s duty to declare a war just or unjust. It is prudent for him to condemn certain actions.

I believe Sadaam’s actions were condemnable - thus it is just that the US is there - I’m in no way pushing him to say the Iraq war is unjust because I don’t think it is.

When I used the phrase “wouldn’t look good”, I mean that more that it would be bad for Christian-Muslim relations if he were to support a crusade of sorts. It is already bad for Christians in Muslim countries - he wouldn’t want to make it worse and almost impossible for any type of underground church or evangelization to take place.

 

[roymckenzie]

PeaceMonger
Main Entry: 1mon•ger
Pronunciation: 'm&[ng]-g&r, 'mä[ng]-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mongere, from Old English mangere, from Latin mangon-, mango, of Greek origin; akin to Greek manganon charm, philter
1 : BROKER, DEALER – usually used in combination
2 : **a person who attempts to stir up or spread something that is usually petty or discreditable – usually used in combination"

That is a great explanation.

2 : a person who attempts to stir up or spread something that is usually petty or discreditable – usually used in combination .

**