JW dispute unbroken line of papal succession

[dmar198]

Sin, maybe, but culpability maybe another thing altogether. The rank and file in the military do not get to decide whether or not they believe a war is just. When they receive their orders, they go.

You say they don’t get to decide whether they believe their orders are just. I think they should.

The Catechism says: “Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out.” (CCC 2313) That paragraph has a marginal note indicating that the reader should also read CCC 2242: The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” “We must obey God rather than men.” (CCC 2242) On the other hand, the Catechism also says: “The evaluation of [the just war conditions] belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.” (CCC 2309) Perhaps the rank and file are supposed to simply trust the evaluative judgment of their superiors, except when they cannot think of a reasonable scenario in which those judgments would be compatible with the moral law.

 

[SteveVH]

You say they don’t get to decide whether they believe their orders are just. I think they should.

The Catechism says: “Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out.” (CCC 2313) That paragraph has a marginal note indicating that the reader should also read CCC 2242: The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” “We must obey God rather than men.” (CCC 2242) On the other hand, the Catechism also says: “The evaluation of [the just war conditions] belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.” (CCC 2309) Perhaps the rank and file are supposed to simply trust the evaluative judgment of their superiors, except when they cannot think of a reasonable scenario in which those judgments would be compatible with the moral law.

Thanks for this, but deciding as to whether or not a war is just is not something that is always readily apparent, depending upon what information one has available. The Catechism is referring to those who know that their own actions are unjust, even if ordered to carry them out. That is another discussion altogether.

 

[dmar198]

Thanks for this, but deciding as to whether or not a war is just is not something that is always readily apparent, depending upon what information one has available. The Catechism is referring to those who know that their own actions are unjust, even if ordered to carry them out. That is another discussion altogether.

That seems to be a very intelligent way to interpret these passages of the Catechism. Thanks.

 

[Memaw]

Sin, maybe, but culpability maybe another thing altogether. The rank and file in the military do not get to decide whether or not they believe a war is just. When they receive their orders, they go.

Do you want an army that doesn’t obey orders? How would that protect us?? What do you propose we do???; God Bless. Memaw

 

[SteveVH]

Do you want an army that doesn’t obey orders? How would that protect us?? What do you propose we do???; God Bless. Memaw

Well, that isn’t at all what I said. I am standing up for the soldier who obeys orders, even in a war which some may find unjust, from the premise that we cannot expect our military to operate if each soldier is allowed to determine for him or her self whether or not they are being called to fight in a just war. Therefore their culpability is lessened or is removed altogether in regard to their participation.

My point is that there is a difference between sin and culpability for that sin. Is killing an innocent child an objective evil? Yes. Is the soldier who fired the mortar round, which resulted in an errant piece of shrapnel tearing through the child’s, body blocks away, morally responsible for this objective evil? No.

On the other side of the coin, if we find a soldier who indiscriminately fires into an area without regard to the innocent lives that might be present there, we could very well say that he is morally responsible, even in a just war.

 

[KathleenGee]

SteveVH…good post…

 

[Memaw]

Well, that isn’t at all what I said. I am standing up for the soldier who obeys orders, even in a war which some may find unjust, from the premise that we cannot expect our military to operate if each soldier is allowed to determine for him or her self whether or not they are being called to fight in a just war. Therefore their culpability is lessened or is removed altogether in regard to their participation.

My point is that there is a difference between sin and culpability for that sin. Is killing an innocent child an objective evil? Yes. Is the soldier who fired the mortar round, which resulted in an errant piece of shrapnel tearing through the child’s, body blocks away, morally responsible for this objective evil? No.

On the other side of the coin, if we find a soldier who indiscriminately fires into an area without regard to the innocent lives that might be present there, we could very well say that he is morally responsible, even in a just war.

Might be, is not for sure. Depends on who is firing at him. I don’t think most soldiers act indiscriminately. The cowards are those who hide in homes and schools. They are the ones that are morally responsible! God Blees. Memaw

 

[SteveVH]

Might be, is not for sure. Depends on who is firing at him. I don’t think most soldiers act indiscriminately. The cowards are those who hide in homes and schools. They are the ones that are morally responsible! God Blees. Memaw

Did I say that most soldiers act indiscriminately? Sheesh!

Our country goes to great lengths to build weapons that that hit targets accurately so that we avoid as much collateral damage as possible. We’re not the bad guys. Not sure why you have taken so much offense. I’m on your side, okay?

 

[Memaw]

Did I say that most soldiers act indiscriminately? Sheesh!

Our country goes to great lengths to build weapons that that hit targets accurately so that we avoid as much collateral damage as possible. We’re not the bad guys. Not sure why you have taken so much offense. I’m on your side, okay?

I didn’t day you said that. Good why so defensive??? God Bless. Memaw

 

[SteveVH]

I didn’t day you said that. Good why so defensive??? God Bless. Memaw

Hmmm… Let’s see:

Originally Posted by SteveVH
Sin, maybe, but culpability maybe another thing altogether. The rank and file in the military do not get to decide whether or not they believe a war is just. When they receive their orders, they go.

Originally Posted by Memaw
Do you want an army that doesn’t obey orders? How would that protect us?? What do you propose we do???;

Originally Posted by SteveVH
Well, that isn’t at all what I said. I am standing up for the soldier who obeys orders, even in a war which some may find unjust, from the premise that we cannot expect our military to operate if each soldier is allowed to determine for him or her self whether or not they are being called to fight in a just war. Therefore their culpability is lessened or is removed altogether in regard to their participation.

My point is that there is a difference between sin and culpability for that sin. Is killing an innocent child an objective evil? Yes. Is the soldier who fired the mortar round, which resulted in an errant piece of shrapnel tearing through the child’s, body blocks away, morally responsible for this objective evil? No.

On the other side of the coin, if we find a soldier who indiscriminately fires into an area without regard to the innocent lives that might be present there, we could very well say that he is morally responsible, even in a just war.

Originally Posted by Memaw
Might be, is not for sure. Depends on who is firing at him. I don’t think most soldiers act indiscriminately. The cowards are those who hide in homes and schools. They are the ones that are morally responsible!

Originally Posted by SteveVH
Did I say that most soldiers act indiscriminately? Sheesh!

Our country goes to great lengths to build weapons that that hit targets accurately so that we avoid as much collateral damage as possible. We’re not the bad guys. Not sure why you have taken so much offense. I’m on your side, okay?

 

[Memaw]

Hmmm… Let’s see:

OK, now show me where I said YOU said most soldiers act indiscriminately?? All I SAID was. “I” don’t think most soldiers act indiscriminately." That’s an observation in case you didn’t know!. We love to make a mountain out of a mole hill sometimes. God Bless, Memaw