Morality of snipers

[BrooklynBoy200]

Is it ok to be a sniper in the army? Is it considered immoral to shoot someone who is unaware of your presence? Is this included in the section or whatever that deals with wars? Thanks.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Is it ok to be a sniper in the army? Is it considered immoral to shoot someone who is unaware of your presence? Is this included in the section or whatever that deals with wars? Thanks.

III. SAFEGUARDING PEACE

Peace

2302 By recalling the commandment, "You shall not kill,"94 our Lord asked for peace of heart and denounced murderous anger and hatred as immoral.

Anger is a desire for revenge. “To desire vengeance in order to do evil to someone who should be punished is illicit,” but it is praiseworthy to impose restitution "to correct vices and maintain justice."95 If anger reaches the point of a deliberate desire to kill or seriously wound a neighbor, it is gravely against charity; it is a mortal sin. The Lord says, "Everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment."96

2303 Deliberate hatred is contrary to charity. Hatred of the neighbor is a sin when one deliberately wishes him evil. Hatred of the neighbor is a grave sin when one deliberately desires him grave harm. "But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven."97

2304 Respect for and development of human life require peace. Peace is not merely the absence of war, and it is not limited to maintaining a balance of powers between adversaries. Peace cannot be attained on earth without safeguarding the goods of persons, free communication among men, respect for the dignity of persons and peoples, and the assiduous practice of fraternity. Peace is "the tranquillity of order."98 Peace is the work of justice and the effect of charity.99

2305 Earthly peace is the image and fruit of the peace of Christ, the messianic "Prince of Peace."100 By the blood of his Cross, "in his own person he killed the hostility,"101 he reconciled men with God and made his Church the sacrament of the unity of the human race and of its union with God. "He is our peace."102 He has declared: "Blessed are the peacemakers."103

2306 Those who renounce violence and bloodshed and, in order to safeguard human rights, make use of those means of defense available to the weakest, bear witness to evangelical charity, provided they do so without harming the rights and obligations of other men and societies. They bear legitimate witness to the gravity of the physical and moral risks of recourse to violence, with all its destruction and death.104

 

[Mannyfit75]

Avoiding war

2307 The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war.105

2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.

However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."106

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.

2310 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

2311 Public authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms; these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way.108

2312 The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. "The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties."109

2313 Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely.

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. Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide.

2314 "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation."110 A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes.

2315 The accumulation of arms strikes many as a paradoxically suitable way of deterring potential adversaries from war. They see it as the most effective means of ensuring peace among nations. This method of deterrence gives rise to strong moral reservations. The arms race does not ensure peace. Far from eliminating the causes of war, it risks aggravating them. Spending enormous sums to produce ever new types of weapons impedes efforts to aid needy populations;111 it thwarts the development of peoples. Over-armament multiplies reasons for conflict and increases the danger of escalation.

2316 The production and the sale of arms affect the common good of nations and of the international community. Hence public authorities have the right and duty to regulate them. The short-term pursuit of private or collective interests cannot legitimate undertakings that promote violence and conflict among nations and compromise the international juridical order.

2317 Injustice, excessive economic or social inequalities, envy, distrust, and pride raging among men and nations constantly threaten peace and cause wars. Everything done to overcome these disorders contributes to building up peace and avoiding war:
Insofar as men are sinners, the threat of war hangs over them and will so continue until Christ comes again; but insofar as they can vanquish sin by coming together in charity, violence itself will be vanquished and these words will be fulfilled: "they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."112

 

[Mannyfit75]

Is it ok to be a sniper in the army? Is it considered immoral to shoot someone who is unaware of your presence? Is this included in the section or whatever that deals with wars? Thanks.

In short if it is diliberate and the desire to kill someone for vengeance it is unjust.

The snipers in the US military kill only hostile enemy. It is either them or you. You have mission and that is to protect the lives of your men, and yourself.

If you have more concern about this, please site the scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm#2314.

 

[Reformed1]

Is it ok to be a sniper in the army? Is it considered immoral to shoot someone who is unaware of your presence? Is this included in the section or whatever that deals with wars? Thanks.

I was a Marine (infantry, non-sniper) and the whole point was to shoot the enemy while he was unaware of our presence. Sniper or not, if the enemy, whoever that is, knows you are there, they can shoot you. That’s not good.

Also, I think you will find some OT verses where the Israelites, undger God’s orders, ambushed their various enemies.

 

[tptram]

Let’s say that “unawared” soldier is manning a machine gun, which will mow down your friends and by taking him out, alot less blood will be spilled.
Let’s say that he is a general. The whole war can be avoid, would it be less blood to be spilled?

War is horrible. Let’s end it quickly but NOT at ANY cost.

Tak

 

[tptram]

I once heard this from a Marine Chaplain (sorry but I forgot his name).

If a man is willing to risk his life and limbs for the protection and safety of others, he is truly love as Jesus loves us.

This is a very honourable vocation.

Please support our troops and police men and firefighters.

Tak

 

[Liberian]

It is rather well known but not repeated too often that if the British and French had shown some backbone when Hitler re-militarized the Rhineland, the Second World War in Europe could have been prevented. The German generals were ready to overthrow Hitler and re-establish the peace if there had been any Allied opposition to his moves there. It was the Allies’ desire for “peace at any price” that led them back to war.

• Liberian

 

[Steven_Merten]

Hello Brookland Boy,

The Pope protects himself with Swiss Guard snipers.

Here is a related thread where we discussed Pope John Paul II use of snipers to protect himself.

SNIPERS on Pope’s hosptial roof!

 

[Marilena]

Is it ok to be a sniper in the army? Is it considered immoral to shoot someone who is unaware of your presence? Is this included in the section or whatever that deals with wars? Thanks.

i couldn’t kill anyone. army or not. iam a peacemaker, not a person who could go to war.

 

[jman507]

Who are you trying to shoot a 3 year old or a combatant of the enemy?

 

[Aurelio]

Howdy everyone! Especially tptram!

You, know having literally been in situations (one in particular) “far away and long ago,” where a couple or three such hardcases spelled the difference between sudden death for “our” side and instead sent it methodically back with interest to our “opposite numbers,” I really like both this question and the discussion.

Acording to US Marine folklore, even such Renaissance mover’s and shaker’s as, (if my memory serves me correctly) Bottacelli (sp?) “the guy with the sexy salt cellars” and Michaelangelo "our artiscally-inclined gay brother (according to some whimsical Italians today) were themselves both superb, long-range killers.

They purportedly designed, crafted and actually machined, customized sniper rifles that could really reach out at a time in history when most any mountain side more than fifty feet way was pretty safe.

At least one (1) of these two is credited with gunning down some famous French marshall, himself no mere run-of-the-mill warrior.

In both cases, the sniper-gunmen were at least baptized Roman Catholics, as were those on the losing side of their marksmanship.

Thanks!

Aurelio:thumbsup:

 

[Sixtus]

Is it ok to be a sniper in the army? Is it considered immoral to shoot someone who is unaware of your presence? Is this included in the section or whatever that deals with wars? Thanks.

I do not know but the rules of combat are entirely different to civilian life. Do not forget that one of the roles of a sniper team is to take out enemy snipers.

I used to be an infantry weapons systems instructor. I did my job to the best of my ability. I never taught anyone to kill. I taught marksmanship principles when applied to the strict rules of engagement. No soldier is permitted to open fire unless s/he has given due warning, believes that ‘not to fire’ is to increase the threat or believes that not to fire may lead to someone dying, also if they believe that someone is about to throw or discharge an explodable device with the intent to threaten life.

I am a crack shot myself, so endeavoured to make sure the troops under my instruction could at least score a respectable grouping on the target at ranges of 25 to 150 yards.

I was horrified [heaven knows why] when I discovered that one lad I had trained, had gone on to become a sniper. That he had engaged and injured a catholic in Northern Ireland. He did not know I was catholic. He thanked me for the training I had given him.

But at the end of the day, he was only doing his job. I accept that I am not culpable for deaths of enemy who have fallen due to the skills I have imparted.

I always took a ‘pro-life’ stance in emphasising that ALL LIFE IS SACRED and that no man has the right to kill, not even in combat. Once the target falls the battle is over for him. It is only lawful to continue firing if the fallen target is still a threat.

Sniping is actually a two man job. Who is the most culpable then, the range finder or the firer? I do not think it sinful. It is a weapon of war. Let us work hard to prevent wars, then their skills will not be necessary.

 

[Sixtus]

One final point: on the helping of fallen friend and foe: I used to emphasise that you MUST NOT go to the aid of a fallen comrade, first you must win the firefight then you tend the casualties.

That is the reason why I am against men and women serving together. It is my belief that women soldiers can compromise men who may feel biologically obliged to go to the assistance of a woman in distress.

Just a short diversion. Sorry moderators.

 

[Steven_Merten]

I always took a ‘pro-life’ stance in emphasising that ALL LIFE IS SACRED and that no man has the right to kill, not even in combat. Once the target falls the battle is over for him. It is only lawful to continue firing if the fallen target is still a threat.

Hello Sixtus,

I am not sure what you are saying. You seem to be contradicting yourself. Please explain.

 

[Sixtus]

Originally Posted by Sixtus
I always took a ‘pro-life’ stance in emphasising that ALL LIFE IS SACRED and that no man has the right to kill, not even in combat. Once the target falls the battle is over for him. It is only lawful to continue firing if the fallen target is still a threat.

Hello Sixtus,

I am not sure what you are saying. You seem to be contradicting yourself. Please explain.

A soldier [or a police officer] has a duty to follow the rules of engagement. Troops are not permitted to open fire unless a strict criteria to do so has been met.

Sometimes in the heat of battle and the adrenalin is pumping, troops forget the rules of engagement. It cannot be explained unless you have been there.

The target falls when hit. Once the target falls, it is then unlawful [under the rules of engagement] to continue firing at the target. If the target dies of their wounds, that is no fault of the soldier who shot him. If the target falls injured but the soldier firing continues to fire, then he is guilty of unlawful killing unless he believes that a fallen target still presents a threat to life, eg he falls but is about to throw a granade. Then it is lawful to fire at an injured man with intent to kill him.

I used to take a pro-life stance and emphasise that. Some did not. Some Instructors used to encourage troops to relish in thinking about the injuries they inflict on the target. I did not. I used to congratulate a soldier if he scored really well but reminded him that had it been for real, he had a duty of care towards his enemy.

I used to point out that the rules of engagement MUST BE STRICTLY ADHERED TO. No man may open fire unless there is a risk to life or by not doing so, may increase the risk No more shots should be fired than are absolutely necessary.

Some specialist units, that rule may not apply. I am speaking about infantrymen.

---

 

[Sandi]

Nations, just like persons, have the right to defend themselves and if requires snipers to perform acts of defense, there’s nothing sinful about it.

 

[Sixtus]

ations, just like persons, have the right to defend themselves and if requires snipers to perform acts of defense, there’s nothing sinful about it.

Perhaps one could ask God to be with you [a sniper] and guide you to do your duty. Then you have brought God into the situation. It is also a good thing to pray for one’s enemies, particularly ‘the fallen’

 

[Durendin]

I found this part of the original post worthy of remark;

Is it considered immoral to shoot someone who is unaware of your presence?

As it kind of sums up most of the weapons in modern warfare. Strange as it sounds, most people in war don’t actually become a casualty from line of sight weapons such as firearms, rather, they don’t see it coming, whether it’s incoming shells or bombs.

As to the morality of war? I’m no expert on morality, but much to the ire of some, I consider it to be a neccesary evil.

 

[Church_Militant]

Is it ok to be a sniper in the army? Is it considered immoral to shoot someone who is unaware of your presence? Is this included in the section or whatever that deals with wars? Thanks.

Perhaps you have never heard the definition of a fair fight?

Answer: The one that I win…