Morality of War

[VeritasLuxMea]

Christian military professionals are sometimes called upon to defend the morality of war. Our current dilemma over Syria brings this to a fine point. I am in concert with the Pope’s intention to pray for peace but am a realist about the inevitability of human conflict. The best we can do is pray for the end of current wars. As a great military professional once said, “Only the dead have seen the end of war.” The even greater concern to me is the spiritual warfare which is truly unending and more difficult to fight as it is unseen.

Isn’t that kinda like saying, “I’m all for the 8th commandment, but I’m a realist about the inevitability of human deception”?

The best we can do is pray for the end of current wars.

Isn’t that kinda like saying, “I’m all for the 8th commandment, but the best thing we can do is pray to stop being a liar.”

To that point, correct enough to an extent. But there’s nothing preventing you from taking active steps to stop lying or, in this case, active steps to promote peace.

Obviously very few individuals here are actually excited by the prospects of war, but there does seem to me a higher tolerance on CAF for war than you would find in the general population. That confuses me somewhat. We are not commanded by God to be pacifists but we are called to push for peace.

 

[Timothysis]

If a person knowingly (or knows that it is very likely) shoots or drops a bomb on, an innocent civilian, then that is an act of murder (wearing a uniform, or “following orders” does not afford any exemption from the law of God).

Are you saying that the air corps who bombed German and Japanese cities in the effort to deny the enemy the industrial means and the morale of the populace during World War II to continue the war are/were guilty of murder? That is a bold statement and it is not one that I think the Church - particularly Pope Pius XII - would make.

Wars seldom happen in a vacuum; collateral damage is probably more of the rule than the exception.

 

[Timothysis]

Well, lucky for you, seeing as you have so much disdain for this forum, the authoritative Church has given us plenty of guidance on Syria.

I have far less “disdain” for this forum than you seem to have with my post. And it isn’t the authoritative Church that I’m interested in; it is the unauthoritative opinion on CAF.
TRH1292;11196977:

Pope Francis has instructed everyone to pray for peace, and said in no uncertain terms that military intervention here is futile. In addition, all the bishops in Syria and surrounding area have been unanimous in opposing any kind of war.

But did Pope Francis declare military intervention in Syria to be unjust? Futile and unjust are two different things. The Holy Father’s position is hardly surprising; I don’t think I would trust a pope or a bishop who advocated military hostilities against a sovereign country.

 

[Brendan_64]

Are you saying that the air corps who bombed German and Japanese cities in the effort to deny the enemy the industrial means and the morale of the populace during World War II to continue the war are/were guilty of murder?

If it involved (on the part of the person responsible for pushing the bomb release button) the deliberate bombing of innocent civilians, then, yes.

We are not permitted to “slay the innocent” under any circumstances, let alone kill them in order to damage their nation’s morale. The deliberate killing of an innocent person is an evil act. We are never permitted to commit an evil act for the ‘greater good’. The ends do not justify the means. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out.

As for the bombing of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden etc.

CCC 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.”

The Church’s teaching on the Fifth Commandment doesn’t include a proviso that reads “This applies, except when war has been officially declared; in which case the Fifth Commandment is put on hold until such time as one side in the war is victorious and the war is declared over.” There is no such line in the Catechism of our Church.

 

[Timothysis]

If it involved (on the part of the person responsible for pushing the bomb release button) the deliberate bombing of innocent civilians, then, yes.

Nonsense. It is a soldiers duty to obey orders by legitimate superiors. If there is any culpability of military actions that harm innocents, then it is on those who gave the orders and not the rank and file who follow.

As for the bombing of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden etc.

CCC 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.”

And I don’t think any reasonable person would have an intellectual conflict with that. The mass bombings and destruction during World War II were necessary in that time to bring both the European and Pacific wars to an end. We will never see the likes of that again, just as we will never see that types of battles fought in World War I or even the American Civil War. There was no such canon as this before the WWII.

The Church’s teaching on the Fifth Commandment doesn’t include a proviso that reads “This applies, except when war has been officially declared; in which case the Fifth Commandment is put on hold until such time as one side in the war is victorious and the war is declared over.” There is no such line in the Catechism of our Church.

I wonder what the Church’s teaching on the matter was in past centuries when crusades were preached, kings forcibly deposed and warrior popes fought to defend Papal territories?

 

[Brendan_64]

Nonsense. It is a soldiers duty to obey orders by legitimate superiors. If there is any culpability of military actions that harm innocents, then it is on those who gave the orders and not the rank and file who follow.

Well the teachings of our Church says otherwise. A soldier is culpable for his actions, he cannot hide benind the defence of “following orders”. “Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out”. That is from the Catechism. Individual soldiers are morally responsible for their actions. A soldier has a duty to obey God and His laws, and this is not trumped by obeying his military superiors. If he knowingly kills an innocent person then it will be his sin and he will have to pay the consequences. It is a soldier’s individual duty to not act in contravention of God’s laws., even if this means disobeying orders.

Our Church is very clear. It is never right to take an innocent life. The taking of an innocent life in murder.

And I don’t think any reasonable person would have an intellectual conflict with that. The mass bombings and destruction during World War II were necessary in that time to bring both the European and Pacific wars to an end. We will never see the likes of that again, just as we will never see that types of battles fought in World War I or even the American Civil War. There was no such canon as this before the WWII.

The Church is very clear that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of great evil. The Church has specifically condemned these acts. Every Pope since the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki has specifically condemned it, as did Vatican II, “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.” (Gaudium et Spes, 80 3). This forms part of the binding teachings of our Church.

The deliberate killing of an innocent person is murder (regardless of whether or not it is carried out during a war). The killing of hundreds of thousands of individuals is mass murder of a colossal scale. Your arguing that this was necessary and justifiable in order to bring WWII to an end, puts you very much at odds with the teachings of our Church. It isn’t a ‘grey area’, our Church is very clear on this.

The Church is very clear that evil can never be done for the greater good. The ends do not justify the means. Actions in war are not exempt from this. Individual soldiers are responsible for their actions (regardless of whether they were ordered to do it) and they are accountable to God for their actions.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

And I don’t think any reasonable person would have an intellectual conflict with that. The mass bombings and destruction during World War II were necessary in that time to bring both the European and Pacific wars to an end. We will never see the likes of that again, just as we will never see that types of battles fought in World War I or even the American Civil War. There was no such canon as this before the WWII.

I wonder what the Church’s teaching on the matter was in past centuries when crusades were preached, kings forcibly deposed and warrior popes fought to defend Papal territories?

Nonsense. It is a soldiers duty to obey orders by legitimate superiors. If there is any culpability of military actions that harm innocents, then it is on those who gave the orders and not the rank and file who follow.
One can not pass one’s moral responsibilities/duties onto another by claiming “I was just following orders” or claiming said orders were legitimate. A soldier is responsible for acting morally regardless of the legitimacy of his orders.

And I don’t think any reasonable person would have an intellectual conflict with that. The mass bombings and destruction during World War II were necessary in that time to bring both the European and Pacific wars to an end. We will never see the likes of that again, just as we will never see that types of battles fought in World War I or even the American Civil War. There was no such canon as this before the WWII.
Problem-
-It was known at the time that massive bombings were not very effective in regards to destroying the enemy’s ability to wage war (military targets, military infrastructure, weapons).
-The non-military collateral damage was an intent of these massive bombings (Total war). The only difference between the massive conventional bombing of a city during WW2 and the use nuclear weapons during WW2 was the number of bombs used. Morally they both violate the Church’s teachings regarding war and conduct during war.

 

[Timothysis]

The Church is very clear that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of great evil.

Source? I know that the Church has, since the atomic age, condemned the use of atomic weapons in warfare but I am not aware of the Church specifically condemning the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as “acts of great evil.”

 

[Brendan_64]

Source? I know that the Church has, since the atomic age, condemned the use of atomic weapons in warfare but I am not aware of the Church specifically condemning the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as “acts of great evil.”

Vatican II “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**.” (Gaudium et Spes 80:3, CCC 2314). There is no wriggle room here. This teaching is clear and unequivocal. It is a binding teaching with which we are not free to dissent from. You cannot possibly argue that that does not apply to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Pope John Paul II said in a radio message to the people of Japan on 06/08/85 ( vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1985/august/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19850806_radiomessaggio-giappone_en.html ) “To speak of Hiroshima and of Nagasaki is to become vividly aware of the immense pain and horror and death that human beings are capable of inflicting upon one another. But it is also to be conscious of the fact that such a tragic destiny is not inevitable. It can and must be avoided. Our world needs to regain confidence in its capacity to choose moral good over evil.”

Pope John Paul II also named Hiroshima and Nagasaki along with Auschwitz as places of pilgrimage marked by man’s sin. That puts those three places on a moral equivalence.

In 1976 Pope Paul VI, in his message for World Peace Day, referred to “butchery of untold magnitude, as at Hiroshima on 6 August 1945” ( vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/messages/peace/documents/hf_p-vi_mes_19751018_ix-world-day-for-peace_en.html )

To argue that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not acts of great sin and evil, will put you very much at odds with the teachings of our Church. Arguing that individual airmen (or soldiers) are not culpable for their actions in war (because they were following orders) will also put you very much at odds with the teachings of our Church. And to argue that committing acts of sin (killing innocent people) is justifiable if it serves a ‘greater good’ will also put you at odds with the teachings of our Church, which clearly states that acts of sin can never be justified in order to serve a greater ‘good’. The ends do not justify the means and the deliberate killing of innocent people is always sinful. We are not allowed to even kill one innocent person, in order to save a nation. CCC 1753 “Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation”.

We cannot simply look at the teachings of our Church and take a view that they do not apply to the actions of our nation in war, and the actions of our soldiers in war, because our nation is somehow a ‘defender of freedom’ and our soldiers are ‘heroes’.

Fulton Sheen wrote about how the refusal to recognise the evil of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki heralded a new concept of freedom being divorced from morality, the notion that acts in the name of freedom cannot be immoral. “When, I wonder, did we in America ever get into this idea that freedom means having no boundaries and no limits?.. I think it began on the 6th of August 1945 at 8:15 am when we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima. … Somehow or other, from that day on in our American life, we say we want no limits and no boundaries.”

If the Japanese had dropped atomic bombs on two American cities during WWII, would we not view those as acts of unspeakable evil, as mass murder on a horrendous scale? Or are acts only evil when they are done to us?

 

[Mount_Carmel]

While I am not a great fan of the Hiroshima and Nakasaki bombings, I am also reminded that the US had 500,000 Purple Heart medals pre-struck for their expected casualties in the event of an assault on the Japanese home islands - this does not include the possibly millions of Japanese military AND civilian casualties during such an event.

ps. There are still left over Purple Hearts, even after Korea, Vietnam and all the other conflict issues.

pps. A case of the ‘lesser of two evils’?

 

[Timothysis]

Vatican II “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**.” (Gaudium et Spes 80:3, CCC 2314). There is no wriggle room here. This teaching is clear and unequivocal. It is a binding teaching with which we are not free to dissent from. You cannot possibly argue that that does not apply to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I take it, then, that you do not have a source of the Church declaring that the Japanese atomic bombings were “acts of great evil.”

To argue that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not acts of great sin and evil, will put you very much at odds with the teachings of our Church.

No it won’t. The Church states that using atomic weapons against whole societies is immoral but it has not retroactively declared that the personal opinion of support of the Japanese bombings places one outside of the Church’s teachings.

Arguing that individual airmen (or soldiers) are not culpable for their actions in war (because they were following orders) will also put you very much at odds with the teachings of our Church.

No it won’t. Please cite a source.

And to argue that committing acts of sin (killing innocent people) is justifiable if it serves a ‘greater good’ will also put you at odds with the teachings of our Church, which clearly states that acts of sin can never be justified in order to serve a greater ‘good’.

I never said as much.

Fulton Sheen wrote about how the refusal to recognise the evil of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki heralded a new concept of freedom being divorced from morality, the notion that acts in the name of freedom cannot be immoral. “When, I wonder, did we in America ever get into this idea that freedom means having no boundaries and no limits?.. I think it began on the 6th of August 1945 at 8:15 am when we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima. … Somehow or other, from that day on in our American life, we say we want no limits and no boundaries.”

Archbishop Sheen is perfectly free to possess his personal opinion on the subject. I think that there are probably hundreds of thousands of individuals and their families who are glad of the fact that the war was brought to an end without an invasion of the mainland that would have resulted in God only knows how many deaths, including Japanese civilians who were willing to fight to the last man.

If the Japanese had dropped atomic bombs on two American cities during WWII, would we not view those as acts of unspeakable evil, as mass murder on a horrendous scale? Or are acts only evil when they are done to us?

The Japanese had been on a journey of imperial conquest since the Russian-Japanese war of 1905 left them in charge of Korea, which they reduced to a vassal state. The subsequent invasion of Manchuria and China, the Philippines, Burma and Indochina starting in 1933 is a textbook example of death and destruction. Something had to be done to stop it. I do not support your modern view that the US has been an unjust aggressor in the past when it was this country that ended what were the greatest threats to civilization that the world has ever seen. Innocent people die in war and that is a shame but what is even more of a shame is those nations that force others into war.

 

[Timothysis]

While I am not a great fan of the Hiroshima and Nakasaki bombings, I am also reminded that the US had 500,000 Purple Heart medals pre-struck for their expected casualties in the event of an assault on the Japanese home islands - this does not include the possibly millions of Japanese military AND civilian casualties during such an event.

ps. There are still left over Purple Hearts, even after Korea, Vietnam and all the other conflict issues.

pps. A case of the ‘lesser of two evils’?

Very true. There are two planes upon which we strive; the ideal and the real. Ideally, we shouldn’t have to go to war but the reality is that it happens. How many innocent soldiers should have to be sacrificed because some continue to strive for the ideal which, usually, is never attained?

 

[Timothysis]

And to argue that committing acts of sin…is justifiable if it serves a ‘greater good’ will also put you at odds with the teachings of our Church, which clearly states that acts of sin can never be justified in order to serve a greater ‘good’. The ends do not justify the means…

It is interesting, then, that Pope Pius XII ordered priests and brothers to do what they could - including the stating of lies and deliberate deception - in order to save Jews and others persecuted by the Nazis. During the war, the future Pope John XXIII was in a basement in Constantinople forging baptismal certificates for Jews to prevent their arrests. Saint Maximilian Kolbe ordered his brothers to disguise themselves and to pass themselves off as someone else to avoid arrest. According to you, these attempts to serve the “greater good” put them at odds with the Church since "sin can never be justified in order to serve a greater good."

 

[oldcatholicguy]

It is interesting, then, that Pope Pius XII ordered priests and brothers to do what they could - including the stating of lies and deliberate deception - in order to save Jews and others persecuted by the Nazis. During the war, the future Pope John XXIII was in a basement in Constantinople forging baptismal certificates for Jews to prevent their arrests. Saint Maximilian Kolbe ordered his brothers to disguise themselves and to pass themselves off as someone else to avoid arrest. According to you, these attempts to serve the “greater good” put them at odds with the Church since "sin can never be justified in order to serve a greater good."

Those actions are sins?

 

[Brendan_64]

I take it, then, that you do not have a source of the Church declaring that the Japanese atomic bombings were “acts of great evil.”

Are you seriously trying to argue that that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not acts of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants? If is is such an act then the Church is clear, it is a crime aagainst God and man. As to specific mention Pope Paul VI, in his message for World Peace Day, referred to the bombings as “butchery of untold magnitude”.

No it won’t. The Church states that using atomic weapons against whole societies is immoral but it has not retroactively declared that the personal opinion of support of the Japanese bombings places one outside of the Church’s teachings.

So despite it falling clearly into the category of an act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants, and therefore being a crime against God and man. Despite Pope Paul VI describing the act as butchery of untold magnitude. Despite Pope John Paul II placing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, along with Auschwitz as places of pilgrimage marked by man’s sin. Despite all that you are of the opinion that our Church does not teach that dropping bombs with full knowledge that this would kill hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians is against Church teaching?

No it won’t. Please cite a source.

Soldiers are not given special dispensation to abrogate their responsibility to act morally, nobody is. Putting on a uniform does not mean that you must do whatever you are told to do by your superiors. As regards to immoral acts with regard to the Fifth Commandment CCC 2313 “Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out”.

I never said as much.

Yet you argue that it is not sinful to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people in order to bring a war to an end?

Archbishop Sheen is perfectly free to possess his personal opinion on the subject. I think that there are probably hundreds of thousands of individuals and their families who are glad of the fact that the war was brought to an end without an invasion of the mainland that would have resulted in God only knows how many deaths, including Japanese civilians who were willing to fight to the last man.

So you are arguing that the deliberate killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians was justifiable in order to save the lives of others?

CCC 1753 “Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation”.

Our Church forbids us from killing even one innocent civilian, even to save a nation.

The Japanese had been on a journey of imperial conquest since the Russian-Japanese war of 1905 left them in charge of Korea, which they reduced to a vassal state. The subsequent invasion of Manchuria and China, the Philippines, Burma and Indochina starting in 1933 is a textbook example of death and destruction. Something had to be done to stop it. I do not support your modern view that the US has been an unjust aggressor in the past when it was this country that ended what were the greatest threats to civilization that the world has ever seen. Innocent people die in war and that is a shame but what is even more of a shame is those nations that force others into war.

It is not about how bad the Japanese have been. This does not justify the deliberate killing of innocent civilians. Our Church is clear on this.

CCC 1753 “Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation”.

We are not permitted to deliberately kill innocent civilians, for any purpose, no matter how great. Not even if this would bring about an end to a war.

 

[Timothysis]

Those actions are sins?

According to many on this site, deliberately stating something that one knows is false is a sin.

 

[Timothysis]

Are you seriously trying to argue that that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not acts of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants? If is is such an act then the Church is clear, it is a crime aagainst God and man. As to specific mention Pope Paul VI, in his message for World Peace Day, referred to the bombings as “butchery of untold magnitude”.

So despite it falling clearly into the category of an act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants, and therefore being a crime against God and man. Despite Pope Paul VI describing the act as butchery of untold magnitude. Despite Pope John Paul II placing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, along with Auschwitz as places of pilgrimage marked by man’s sin. Despite all that you are of the opinion that our Church does not teach that dropping bombs with full knowledge that this would kill hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians is against Church teaching?

Do you understand that these statements came AFTER the dropping of the atomic bombs? The Church does not create ex post facto laws.

Soldiers are not given special dispensation to abrogate their responsibility to act morally, nobody is. Putting on a uniform does not mean that you must do whatever you are told to do by your superiors. As regards to immoral acts with regard to the Fifth Commandment CCC 2313 “Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out”.

You obviously do no understand that there is a major difference between ordering troops to go into a village and massacre every man, woman and child, and ordering a battery unit to shell a ridge to suppress enemy fire. That battery unit, without knowing if there are civilians there or not, is not guilty of murder (should civilians be caught in the fire) because they are following the orders of their legitimate superiors. This is NOT blind obedience.

Yet you argue that it is not sinful to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people in order to bring a war to an end?

Is it any better to personally kill them individually with a rifle?

 

[oldcatholicguy]

According to many on this site, deliberately stating something that one knows is false is a sin.

And since both of us are Catholic we understand that “according to many on this site” has nothing to do with answering my question in regards to those actions being sins. Are the actions you listed sins or not?

 

[Timothysis]

And since both of us are Catholic we understand that “according to many on this site” has nothing to do with answering my question in regards to those actions being sins. Are the actions you listed sins or not?

Many on this site,quoting the catechism and other Church documents, say that the deliberate action of stating a false fact is a sin. While I do not personally subscribe to this point of view, many here do. I take the point of view that a lie is like taking medicine; we do it when driven by necessity. Yet, I often hear the overused statement that we are never allowed to do evil so that good may come of it. In any event, it works well with my point that extraordinary situations require extraordinary actions.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Many on this site,quoting the catechism and other Church documents, say that the deliberate action of stating a false fact is a sin. While I do not personally subscribe to this point of view, many here do. I take the point of view that a lie is like taking medicine; we do it when driven by necessity. Yet, I often hear the overused statement that we are never allowed to do evil so that good may come of it. In any event, it works well with my point that extraordinary situations require extraordinary actions.

So in order to validate your argument you use an example that you not only do not agree with, you apparently know it is not correct in regards to the application of Church teachings?