D
dbacks5439
Guest
i was wondering if you are in the military, is it justified to kill enemies of the united states, or are you sill breaking the 5th commandment?
- Status
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
It depends. St. Thomas Aquinas teaches:
"In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary.
First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged…
Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault. Wherefore Augustine says (QQ. in Hept., qu. x, super Jos.): “A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly.” …
Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil… “True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandizement, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good.” For it may happen that the war is declared by the legitimate authority, and for a just cause, and yet be rendered unlawful through a wicked intention. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 74): “The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, *Summa Theologica, *IIb, 40, 1)
Thus, as is asserted above, a military member fighting in war declared by legitamite authority, and for a just cause, can commit sin if they have wicked intention.
What is intended? Deadly force is not intrinsically evil. God, for example, order that the Amalekites be utterly destroyed by the Israelites.
So, if legitamite authority orders combatant operations against other combatants for a just cause, the role that any military member has is obey lawful orders of their superiors and avoid wicked intention.
Given the above conditions for a just war, if a military member intends to “secure peace, punish evil-doers, and uplift the good,” then their actions cannot be understood to be a violation of the God’s commandments, according to Catholic doctrine.
"In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary.
First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged…
Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault. Wherefore Augustine says (QQ. in Hept., qu. x, super Jos.): “A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly.” …
Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil… “True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandizement, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good.” For it may happen that the war is declared by the legitimate authority, and for a just cause, and yet be rendered unlawful through a wicked intention. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 74): “The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, *Summa Theologica, *IIb, 40, 1)
Thus, as is asserted above, a military member fighting in war declared by legitamite authority, and for a just cause, can commit sin if they have wicked intention.
What is intended? Deadly force is not intrinsically evil. God, for example, order that the Amalekites be utterly destroyed by the Israelites.
So, if legitamite authority orders combatant operations against other combatants for a just cause, the role that any military member has is obey lawful orders of their superiors and avoid wicked intention.
Given the above conditions for a just war, if a military member intends to “secure peace, punish evil-doers, and uplift the good,” then their actions cannot be understood to be a violation of the God’s commandments, according to Catholic doctrine.
E
Eileen_T
Guest
While my son was growing up he always wanted to join the Army. He is now 23 and just the other week he brought the subject up that if we went to war he doesn’t ever want to kill anyone.
He said he would prefer to be a stretcher-bearer, going in under fire to recover the wounded.
He said he would prefer to be a stretcher-bearer, going in under fire to recover the wounded.
J
John-the-Seeker
Guest
God’s Word says what He means and He means what He says.
There are no exceptions listed to Thou shalt not kill or perhaps better stated ‘Thou Shalt not take life’. Not with the tongue destroying a person’s reputation. Not in the womb. Not in the hospital to avoid the cross given to the dying for their salvation or perhaps the salvation of others. Not in the We Are Right fights of nations. God Himself told the Jews that if they selected kings instead of the judges He gave them, that their children would be offered as sacrifices on the altars of wars. The combatants that laid down their lives that others might live have made the supreme act of love as described by God. So is killing wrong? Always. Can God find a way to save soldiers. You betcha!
There are no exceptions listed to Thou shalt not kill or perhaps better stated ‘Thou Shalt not take life’. Not with the tongue destroying a person’s reputation. Not in the womb. Not in the hospital to avoid the cross given to the dying for their salvation or perhaps the salvation of others. Not in the We Are Right fights of nations. God Himself told the Jews that if they selected kings instead of the judges He gave them, that their children would be offered as sacrifices on the altars of wars. The combatants that laid down their lives that others might live have made the supreme act of love as described by God. So is killing wrong? Always. Can God find a way to save soldiers. You betcha!
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Yes, God says what he means. Thus says the Lord:
“***To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven…***a time of war, and a time of peace.” (Eccl 3:1,8)
“***To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven…***a time of war, and a time of peace.” (Eccl 3:1,8)
T
tamccrackine
Guest
Eileen T:
Soldiers are used to serve and protect… not just wage war and believe me… it’s not like our soldiers are blatantly killing. Any soldier that has killed can tell you that it’s really simple… “kill or be killed.” yet it’s a rough decision on their conscious. It’s a survival technique at that point. Our soldiers are nearly forced to take the moral high road so they don’t sink into animalistic behaviors like some of our adversaries have. That’s a hard road to take when you just want to exact revenge for your buddy’s death or you’ve just watch a terrorist blow up a car near a school full of children.
So please… don’t tell a soldier the jive that they are sinning by breaking the “thou shall not kill” commandment. I’m a devout Catholic and I look to St. Thomas of Aquinas for guidance for my spiritual and mental wellbeing in our time of war. I don’t need someone telling me that I’m misunderstanding “thou shall not kill.”
If it’s that important… thou shall not kill also doesn’t specify what you shall not kill so if you just ate a hamburger, I guess you were an accessory to murder by killing a cow.
Very admirable of your son to still want to serve and then do a double duty of being a medic! My father is in the Army, I’m in the Army, my husband is in the Army (and heading to Iraq in January) and my brother is in the Navy.
Soldiers are used to serve and protect… not just wage war and believe me… it’s not like our soldiers are blatantly killing. Any soldier that has killed can tell you that it’s really simple… “kill or be killed.” yet it’s a rough decision on their conscious. It’s a survival technique at that point. Our soldiers are nearly forced to take the moral high road so they don’t sink into animalistic behaviors like some of our adversaries have. That’s a hard road to take when you just want to exact revenge for your buddy’s death or you’ve just watch a terrorist blow up a car near a school full of children.
So please… don’t tell a soldier the jive that they are sinning by breaking the “thou shall not kill” commandment. I’m a devout Catholic and I look to St. Thomas of Aquinas for guidance for my spiritual and mental wellbeing in our time of war. I don’t need someone telling me that I’m misunderstanding “thou shall not kill.”
If it’s that important… thou shall not kill also doesn’t specify what you shall not kill so if you just ate a hamburger, I guess you were an accessory to murder by killing a cow.
G
gilliam
Guest
Here is what the Catechism says:
[2310](javascript
penWindow(‘cr/2310.htm’)
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.107
[2310](javascript
penWindow(‘cr/2310.htm’) 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.107
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
Police protect and serve and their task is to use minimum force. Although occasionally, if they have to use force, they might end up killing someone.Very admirable of your son to still want to serve and then do a double duty of being a medic! My father is in the Army, I’m in the Army, my husband is in the Army (and heading to Iraq in January) and my brother is in the Navy.
Soldiers are used to serve and protect… not just wage war and believe me… it’s not like our soldiers are blatantly killing. Any soldier that has killed can tell you that it’s really simple… “kill or be killed.” yet it’s a rough decision on their conscious. It’s a survival technique at that point. Our soldiers are nearly forced to take the moral high road so they don’t sink into animalistic behaviors like some of our adversaries have. That’s a hard road to take when you just want to exact revenge for your buddy’s death or you’ve just watch a terrorist blow up a car near a school full of children.
So please… don’t tell a soldier the jive that they are sinning by breaking the “thou shall not kill” commandment. I’m a devout Catholic and I look to St. Thomas of Aquinas for guidance for my spiritual and mental wellbeing in our time of war. I don’t need someone telling me that I’m misunderstanding “thou shall not kill.”
If it’s that important… thou shall not kill also doesn’t specify what you shall not kill so if you just ate a hamburger, I guess you were an accessory to murder by killing a cow.
Military generally use maximum force. St. Paul’s ( I think it was him) admonishment to soldiers had nothing to do with not killing. He told them to not gripe about their pay and to not extort money.
T
tamccrackine
Guest
Al Masetti:
Just check out who brought law and order back to New Orleans after H. Katrina just by mere presence. They didn’t use force.
And I don’t recall anyone on here bringing up military pay on this thread so what does that have to do with killing? (Or did I miss something in someone elses’ thread? )
I’m not going to get into a spitting match about what the military does but I think I have pretty good authority (see my other post) to make the comment that the military is used to protect and serve. Talk to any soldier that was in Kuwait during the period of 1991-2002, talk to any soldier that was in Kosovo, Macedonia/Herzegovinia, talk to any soldier that has been on patrol during and right after the 9/11 attacks. The military is quite capable of using minimum force, unfortunately, you’re making an assumption that because we are “military” it’s synonomous with “full force.” There is a reason some military campaigns needed full force.
Just check out who brought law and order back to New Orleans after H. Katrina just by mere presence. They didn’t use force.
And I don’t recall anyone on here bringing up military pay on this thread so what does that have to do with killing? (Or did I miss something in someone elses’ thread?
)
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
Correctly translated, the commandment is “Thou shall not murder.” which is different from “Thou shall not kill” or “Thou shall not take life.” Otherwise, how do you explain other passages of God’s law in the OT where certain offenses required that a person be put to death? If the correct translation was “Thou shall not take life.”, then by fulfilling the commandment of putting someone to death, they would be breaking the “Thou shall not take life.” commandment.
7
777
Guest
Well said on Thou shalt not muder. There’s more than one way to defend a nothion. Also, St. Paul said "Do not love the world, and serving a nation is the same as loving the world. Serving a president? Wouldn’t that be the same as saying, “Hail, Caesar?”
7
777
Guest
You sure they didn’t write that just to appease the goverments and all the secular?
F
fix
Guest
2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65
2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.66
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
G
Giver
Guest
Isn’t it strange you have to quote a man (Thomas Aquinas) to justify killing, war. I will quote Jesus our Lord and God who says there is no justification for killing.
(Matthew 5:44) “But I say this to you: love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you;”
giver
F
fix
Guest
How does that mean self defense is wrong?
G
Giver
Guest
Self defense? In a court of law, some accusation, or an enemy?
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
Go read the OT and see how many times God lead His people into battle and COMMANDED them to kill their enemies.
F
fix
Guest
War can be about self defense or defending another. Do you claim Christ wants pacificsm even in the face of innocents being murdered?
G
Giver
Guest
Sir Knight:
Come on! Jesus is God and He told us not to kill. You have to know that He came here to complete the law.
F
fix
Guest
I do not think anyone is arguing intentionally killing innocent folks is moral. What they may be saying is this:
2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65
2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.66
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
- Status