Just War?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Odell
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Odell said:
What are the exceptions to war? And what constitutes a Just war?
Click to expand...
I don’t know what you mean by an exception to war. But the catechism gives the following:
Paragraph 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.
Click to expand...
 
Odell said:
What are the exceptions to war? And what constitutes a Just war?
Click to expand...
I am not sure what you would mean by the exceptions to war, but I don’t think you can have a just war when you are using atomic bombs to destroy populated cities of the enemy. In that sense, I would say that the use of atomic weapons of mass destruction would constitute an exception to a just war.
 
sidbrown said:
I am not sure what you would mean by the exceptions to war, but I don’t think you can have a just war when you are using atomic bombs to destroy populated cities of the enemy. In that sense, I would say that the use of atomic weapons of mass destruction would constitute an exception to a just war.
Click to expand...
I don’t know if that is universally true. Somebody could probably come up with a scenario where prudential judgement would include the use of atomic weapons against a civilian population. That is why the rules (listed above and in the catechism) don’t mention specific weapons.

For example: If the enemy is preparing to use biological warfare that could wipe out all human life on earth.
 
Odell said:
What are the exceptions to war? And what constitutes a Just war?
Click to expand...
I think this should be very carefully considered. The morality of war assumes you have failed already IMO. Basically, it is a doctrine of defence when all other solutions have been tried and failed.

“Social justice cannot be attained by violence. Violence kills what it intends to create.”

“Humanity should question itself, once more, about the absurd and always unfair phenomenon of war, on whose stage of death and pain only remain standing the negotiating table that could and should have prevented it.”

~Pope John Paul II
 
Evan said:
I don’t know if that is universally true. Somebody could probably come up with a scenario where prudential judgement would include the use of atomic weapons against a civilian population. That is why the rules (listed above and in the catechism) don’t mention specific weapons.

For example: If the enemy is preparing to use biological warfare that could wipe out all human life on earth.
Click to expand...
I don’t go for your example, since it is my understanding that according to Catholic teaching the end does not justify the means, and it is always wrong to deliberately murder thousands of innocent civilians.
 
sidbrown said:
I don’t go for your example, since it is my understanding that according to Catholic teaching the end does not justify the means, and it is always wrong to deliberately murder thousands of innocent civilians.
Click to expand...
I know. That’s why prudential judgment is required. All wars involve civilian casualties. Of course, the citizens of the country may be civilians, but they may not be innocent. They may be part of the industrial complex that supports the military capacity to make war.

An atomic bomb is just a bigger bomb. Can a bomb be justified? One can never know who will be around when it explodes. Just like with cannon fire, or the Greek fire used in Roman times. Judgment is needed. As our capacity has grown, so has the involvement of civilians in the military capacity.

The means are not to kill civilians, but to eliminate the capacity for making war by the enemy. Secondary effect (death of civilians) is recognized as acceptable if the proper intention is used (limited action to accomplish the goal and make sure the potential harm is less than the harm caused by the limited action).

Just war is not an easy decision. It does not end with declaring war, the decision must be continually reviewed during the course of the war.

Another interesting thing about this issue is that the prudential judgment is NOT made by the Church (who does not have the necessary knowledge of the facts) but the by commander on the ground who should be adequately familiar with Just War Theory.
 
Evan said:
Of course, the citizens of the country may be civilians, but they may not be innocent. They may be part of the industrial complex that supports the military capacity to make war.
Click to expand...
Where does the Catholic Church teach that such people are not innocent when it comes to taking life in war? I always thought part of the just war criteria included not targeting civilians. Thanks.
 
Evan said:
An atomic bomb is just a bigger bomb.
Click to expand...
No, it’s not. Just like a biological bomb is not just a bigger bomb.

The effects of an atomic bomb last long beyond the initial detonation. That’s a huge difference.
 
Evan said:
I
Another interesting thing about this issue is that the prudential judgment is NOT made by the Church (who does not have the necessary knowledge of the facts) but the by commander on the ground who should be adequately familiar with Just War Theory.
Click to expand...
No, prudential judgement regarding just wars are made by Catholics. Non-Catholics do not necessarily believe in Catholic teaching regarding war and peace.

I don’t know of any country, or military force, or whatever, that suggests or requires that their commanders on the ground be familiar with just war theory. Do you? I was in the U.S. Navy, and was never required or expected to know such. thanks for any clarification.

The real question is, when war is decided upon, how do Catholics affected by that decision respond?
 
Vince1022 said:
No, it’s not. Just like a biological bomb is not just a bigger bomb.

The effects of an atomic bomb last long beyond the initial detonation. That’s a huge difference.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is. A bomb kills people indescriminantly, bigger bombs kill more people indescriminintly.
 
Vince1022 said:
  1. Where does the Catholic Church teach that such people are not innocent when it comes to taking life in war?
  2. I always thought part of the just war criteria included not targeting civilians. Thanks.
Click to expand...
  1. Innocence ends when you reach the age of accountability (unless you are perfectly holy).
  2. I agree, and that’s what I said, “just ware criteria includes not targeting civilians” and that’s what you quoted: “The means are not to kill civilians, but to eliminate the capacity for making war by the enemy.”
 
Vince1022 said:
No, prudential judgement regarding just wars are made by Catholics. Non-Catholics do not necessarily believe in Catholic teaching regarding war and peace.

I don’t know of any country, or military force, or whatever, that suggests or requires that their commanders on the ground be familiar with just war theory. Do you? I was in the U.S. Navy, and was never required or expected to know such. thanks for any clarification.

The real question is, when war is decided upon, how do Catholics affected by that decision respond?
Click to expand...
I don’t know if it’s required or not. I’m not involved in educating the military. BUT I did say that the commander on the ground must make the decision. If he is a Catholic, I would hope he is grounded in just war theory. If not, I would hope that he has access to God’s graces and natural intellegence and use that to make a prudential judgment. The theory that I can just do what I am commanded ended at the Neuremburg trials. Each commander must do what is right.
 
FightingFat said:
I think historically, by giving their lives in service.
Click to expand...
I don’t think so. Many Christians are pacifists.

Those Christians who follow the just war criteria would still have a choice to make…is such and such a war in accord with just war criteria or not? A government’s decision to go to war does not absolve Christians from following their conscience, in this case specifically regarding the just war criteria (or any other Christian ideals they adhere to).

Catholics are not obliged by Church teaching to give their lives in any war or military action decided on by a nation or government.
 
Evan said:
Yes, it is. A bomb kills people indescriminantly, bigger bombs kill more people indescriminintly.
Click to expand...
Conventional bombs kill people then and there (including those who are injured by such bombs, and perhaps after a period of suffering die from the immediate effects).

Atomic, biological/chemical, etc. bombs have lasting effects that conventional bombs don’t. That’s the point. There is a difference.

I don’t know of any Catholic teaching that says use of nuclear, chemical, or biological warfare is in accord with just war teaching. Do you?
 
Evan said:
I. Each commander must do what is right.
Click to expand...
Of course.

The pertinent question seems to be, if such a commander is Catholic, what determines for him/her what is right? Catholicism or the government?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top