Just War

[Jim_Baur]

I believe in the Cross–love conquers death.

He showed us that we should not be afraid of physical death.

I, therefore, see value in His cross.

This is next statement is from a secular point of view.

What right do we (USA) have to be in many countries with our military?

Should the major military powers of NATO say to Russia: go into Ukraine and we are going to come after your leaders? We are going to send soldiers there to protect Ukraine, we are coming after the leader(s).

Again, I really believe like the early Church lived–no reason to join the military.

But from a secular point of view, countries do have the right to protect one another, should we do it like in the game of chess, we are coming for the king and queen?

 

[PaulfromIowa]

Again, I really believe like the early Church lived–no reason to join the military.

That is certainly not what the early Church believed. Many Christians served in the Roman army. The early Christians believed in and practiced self defense and carried weapons for that purpose.

 

[captainrick]

I am a soldier. I believe that if the U.S. (or our citizens) is threatened, we should respond, destroying the threat. Other than that, we should stay out of it. I don’t believe in “nation building.”

 

[Jim_Baur]

Paul:

My mistake!

I was under the impression that the Roman Army demanded that one pay tribute to the Emperor god, take a oath in his divinity and therefore could not as a Christian join the army.

THANKS!

 

[Jim_Baur]

"The methods of raising men for the army have varied…The Roman system depended on the annual levy, consisting of four legions of infantry…each legion containing 6666 men…

The above quote is from heraldmag.org/olb/contents/doctrine/ecvowams.htm

I wonder if there is a connection with the infamous 666 of Revelations.

 

[Jim_Baur]

CaptainRick–

I agree: I do not believe in “nation building.”

I agree: we should defend our people.

THANKS!

 

[Jim_Baur]

This is how I came to my conclusion about the Early Church and war.

I do not know if this article is correct, but I have often heard and I believe often read the same idea.

I apologize for my mistake!

heraldmag.org/olb/contents/doctrine/ecvowams.htm

A. General Historical Perspective
"The rise of Christianity led to a rapid growth of conscientious objection. Accordingly to A. Harnack, C.J. Cadoux, and G.J. Herring, the most eminent students of the problem, few if any Christians served in the Roman Army during the first century and a half A.D.; and even in the third century there were Christian conscientious objectors."5

 "The many early Christians accepted the injunctions of the Sermon on the Mount quite literally is certain and their attitude brought them into much the same kind of conflict with the Roman authorities which conscientious objectors of our own time face in dealing with the military authority.  G.C. Macgregor (The New Testament Basis of Pacifism) points out that ‘until about the close of the third quarter of the second century the attitude of the church was quite consistently pacifist.’  Harnack’s conclusion is that no Christian would become a soldier after baptism at least up to the time of Marcus Aurelius, say about A.D. 170 (Militia Christi, p.4).  After that time signs of compromise became increasingly evident, but the pacifist trend continues strong right up into the fourth century."6 

 "During its first three centuries of existence, the Christian church was opposed to war and others forms of violence.  Christian opposition to war early expanded into a denial of rightness of all coercive action on the part of the civil power.  Thus arose that form of conscientious objection which has been designated as political non-participation."7 

 "For many years many Christian regarded services in the army as inconsistent with their profession.  Some held that for them all bloodshed, whether as soldiers or executioners, was unlawful."8 

 "During a considerable period after the death of Christ, it is certain...that his followers believed He had forbidden war, and that, in consequence of this belief many of them refused to engage in it, whatever were the consequences, whether reproach, or imprisonment, or death.  These facts are indisputable: ‘It is easy,’ says a learned writer of the 17th century, ‘to obscure the sun at midday, as to deny that the primitive Christian renounced all revenge and war.’  Of all Christian writers of the second century, there is not one who notices the subject, who does not hold it to be unlawful for a Christian to bear arms."9

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

This is how I came to my conclusion about the Early Church and war.

I do not know if this article is correct, but I have often heard and I believe often read the same idea.

I apologize for my mistake!

heraldmag.org/olb/contents/doctrine/ecvowams.htm

A. General Historical Perspective
"The rise of Christianity led to a rapid growth of conscientious objection. Accordingly to A. Harnack, C.J. Cadoux, and G.J. Herring, the most eminent students of the problem, few if any Christians served in the Roman Army during the first century and a half A.D.; and even in the third century there were Christian conscientious objectors."5

 "The many early Christians accepted the injunctions of the Sermon on the Mount quite literally is certain and their attitude brought them into much the same kind of conflict with the Roman authorities which conscientious objectors of our own time face in dealing with the military authority.  G.C. Macgregor (The New Testament Basis of Pacifism) points out that ‘until about the close of the third quarter of the second century the attitude of the church was quite consistently pacifist.’  Harnack’s conclusion is that no Christian would become a soldier after baptism at least up to the time of Marcus Aurelius, say about A.D. 170 (Militia Christi, p.4).  After that time signs of compromise became increasingly evident, but the pacifist trend continues strong right up into the fourth century."6 

 "During its first three centuries of existence, the Christian church was opposed to war and others forms of violence.  Christian opposition to war early expanded into a denial of rightness of all coercive action on the part of the civil power.  Thus arose that form of conscientious objection which has been designated as political non-participation."7 

 "For many years many Christian regarded services in the army as inconsistent with their profession.  Some held that for them all bloodshed, whether as soldiers or executioners, was unlawful."8 

 "During a considerable period after the death of Christ, it is certain...that his followers believed He had forbidden war, and that, in consequence of this belief many of them refused to engage in it, whatever were the consequences, whether reproach, or imprisonment, or death.  These facts are indisputable: ‘It is easy,’ says a learned writer of the 17th century, ‘to obscure the sun at midday, as to deny that the primitive Christian renounced all revenge and war.’  Of all Christian writers of the second century, there is not one who notices the subject, who does not hold it to be unlawful for a Christian to bear arms."9

Oh boy…the Crusades changed all of that…

 

[sirach2v4]

What right do we (USA) have to be in many countries with our military?

Let’s take one question, the first one.

The presence of U.S. military in many nations is portrayed as in our national interest (defense) and as fulfilling a commitment to protect our allies. We have defense pacts, like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

It was before my time, but I believe we kept U.S. troops in Europe after WWII to keep the peace and to restrain our enemies.

In any particular case, one needs to zoom out one’s perspective and see where the threats may be coming from.

 

[Jim_Baur]

The reason I asked that question: from where do rights come? God or humans?

If only from humans, then a country can do what it is strong enough to do and call it “right” or legal.

If from God, then the ideas from Revelation: Bible, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium can be used–Just War Theory, to name just one.

To complicate the issue, political and military leaders most like do not know or care about Just War Theory, and most theology most likely do not know enough about the military and political.

Ergo, no war.

 

[Jim_Baur]

Concerning USA’s rights, in how many countries do we have troops?

From where do we get the rights to be in those countries?

From where do we get the responsibility to be in those countries?

I am asking myself to provoke my own thinking!

I will read any responses!

THANKS!

 

[oldcatholicguy]

The reason I asked that question: from where do rights come? God or humans?

If only from humans, then a country can do what it is strong enough to do and call it “right” or legal.

If from God, then the ideas from Revelation: Bible, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium can be used–Just War Theory, to name just one.

To complicate the issue, political and military leaders most like do not know or care about Just War Theory, and most theology most likely do not know enough about the military and political.

Ergo, no war.

-Just War Theory as taught by the Church, no most military leaders probably don’t know it. But, most (sadly not all) military leaders and soldiers in general do care a lot about just (lawful) war.
-Theology doesn’t need to know anything about politics or the military as it is supposed to shape them rather than be shaped by them.
-“Ergo, no war” only works in a world filled with saints. Not going to happen.

 

[Jim_Baur]

OldCatholicGuy

Wouldn’t it be beautiful if it was “heaven on earth”?

 

[JimG]

This is how I came to my conclusion about the Early Church and war.

I do not know if this article is correct, but I have often heard and I believe often read the same idea.

I apologize for my mistake!

heraldmag.org/olb/contents/doctrine/ecvowams.htm

I would be rather wary of using the site of an apparently Protestant millennialist group for historical information.

In any case, you might want to read the thread on “Holdomor: Facts and History” in deciding when international intervention might be a good idea in preventing evil.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Concerning USA’s rights, in how many countries do we have troops?

From where do we get the rights to be in those countries?

A nation or government has no rights. Individuals have rights.

Nations or governments have power and authority. This power or authority can be exercised in the form of rational influence, diplomacy, economic influence or military might.
A just and objective nation or government will use that power and authority ONLY to protect the individual rights of its own citizens. This is the major function of government.

Since the end of WWII, the United States has, by power and authority, maintained military bases and military presence in many countries. Originally for the purpose of preventing aggression that would lead to a possible nuclear WWIII…that would obviously affect the rights of Americans. Later, these bases, and the presence of U.S. military might, provided an efficient defensive force for the “host country”. This essentially eliminated the need and expense of maintaining an army. Japan is a perfect example.

From where do we get the responsibility to be in those countries?

I am asking myself to provoke my own thinking!

I will read any responses!

THANKS!

The United States has the responsibility to protect its citizens. By maintaining military bases in other countries to prevent aggression and maintain peace, the U.S. fulfills its responsibility to its citizens.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Nations or governments have power and authority. This power or authority can be exercised in the form of rational influence, diplomacy, economic influence or military might.
A just and objective nation or government will use that power and authority ONLY to protect the individual rights of its own citizens. This is the major function of government.

This statement does not help us decide when and if the exercise of that “power and authority” and “major function of government” is** just**. And “Just War” is the title of this thread.

Are you implying that whenever government exercises its power and authority to protect the “rights” of its citizens that the resulting action is always just? The Catholic Just War doctrine would say “not necessarily”. Especially if the loss of those rights is not an existential threat.

Consider this example. Suppose the United States was the target of an embargo by the coffee-producing countries of the world. The government might reason that the citizens have a right to buy coffee on the international market. After diplomacy and economic pressure fail to bring about a satisfactory resolution, suppose the government exercises its military might and invades Columbia and topples their government. Are you saying that the protection of those rights justifies war? Obviously in this case the Catholic Just War doctrine would say “no”.

Coffee may seem like a trivial matter, but suppose the embargo were of oil. The consequences would be more serious, but it still would not rise to the level required by the Just War doctrine.

So we need to be careful when we make seemingly inconsequential changes to the Just War doctrine to suit our particular concerns of the day. Lots of justifications can be found that sound perfectly reasonable, but still do not satisfy the requirements of the Just War doctrine as contained in Catholic teaching. Justifications such as:

Since the end of WWII, the United States has, by power and authority, maintained military bases and military presence in many countries. Originally for the purpose of preventing aggression that would lead to a possible nuclear WWIII…that would obviously affect the rights of Americans. Later, these bases, and the presence of U.S. military might, provided an efficient defensive force for the “host country”. This essentially eliminated the need and expense of maintaining an army. Japan is a perfect example.

The United States has the responsibility to protect its citizens. By maintaining military bases in other countries to prevent aggression and maintain peace, the U.S. fulfills its responsibility to its citizens.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

This statement does not help us decide when and if the exercise of that “power and authority” and “major function of government” is** just**. And “Just War” is the title of this thread.

Yes, the title of this thread is “Just War”. But it is not in the form of a question.

I answered the question:

"Concerning USA’s rights, in how many countries do we have troops?

From where do we get the rights to be in those countries?"

I see no relationship or mention of “Just War” in that question. The OP is questioning the “occupation” of countries and not the war or conflict that lead to the occupation.

Had the question included a reference to a “Just War” I would have elaborated that point in my answer.

 

[Jim_Baur]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deployments

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces

The military of the United States is deployed in more than 150 countries around the world, with 164,227 of its active-duty personnel serving outside the United States and its territories and an additional 118,966 deployed in various contingency operations. US troops are spread across the globe: over 66,000 are stationed in Europe; over 51,000 in East Asia and the Pacific region; over 4,500 in North Africa, the Near East, and South Asia; over 1,600 in the Western Hemisphere; 332 in Sub-Saharan Africa; and less than 100 in states of the former Soviet Union.[1] Of those in Europe, most of the military personnel are located at installations activated during the Cold War, by which the US government sought to challenge the Soviet Union in the aftermath of World War II.[2]
U.S. personnel are seeing active combat in Afghanistan. Others are deployed as part of several peacekeeping missions, military attachés, or are part of embassy and consulate security.

 

[JimG]

Unfortunately for the Ukrainians, there are no U.S. troops deployed in the Ukraine. The people will be at the mercy of the Russian army.

 

[djames99]

I believe in the Cross–love conquers death.

He showed us that we should not be afraid of physical death.

I, therefore, see value in His cross.

This is next statement is from a secular point of view.

What right do we (USA) have to be in many countries with our military?

Should the major military powers of NATO say to Russia: go into Ukraine and we are going to come after your leaders? We are going to send soldiers there to protect Ukraine, we are coming after the leader(s).

Again, I really believe like the early Church lived–no reason to join the military.

But from a secular point of view, countries do have the right to protect one another, should we do it like in the game of chess, we are coming for the king and queen?

You will note incursions into other nations ended at the same time as the decision to not ‘trouble congress’ by declaring war on the other nation. What are the odds that a nation will find yet another war to fight every 2-3 years? Now they even overlap. When one dies down, (all weapons testing results finalized) another starts?

These are cause for an unbiased study in a nation’s internal affairs. It should try to find out if some lobby group or branch of the government holds sway on the power structure. Is it just coincidence that new arms being developed are better tested in the field of battle, AND, a new war just happens to crop up against a nation incapable of presenting a direct threat to a powerful nation?

The thing is, the world isn’t fooled anymore. This foolish ‘kicking sand in another’s face’ tactics will backfire one of these days. The technologies will be had by them also one day.