Morality of War

[Brendan_64]

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

How then do you explain Pope Paul VI describing the bombing of Hiroshima as an act butchery of untold magnitude? Or Pope John Paul II placing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, along with Auschwitz as places of pilgrimage marked by man’s sin?

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.

That has got nothing to do with what happened with the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. So the airmen who dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not to know that the cities would be full of civilians? Despite the fact that the ground zero for the bombs was to be the city centres? Nonsense! Dropping these bombs (and other blanket bombings of cities, or napalm attacks on villages etc) were clearly acts of deliberate killing of innocent civilians. That IS blind obedience, and those responsible cannot hide behind their uniforms when they are called to account.

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

No better, and no worse. I wonder if, rather than dropping bombs, American soldiers were ordered to enter Hiroshima and Nagasaki and bayonet every man, woman and child in the cities, would it be considered less acceptable? Although it seems a lot easier to kill an unarmed, innocent person from a distance than doing it up close and personal, it does not make the act any less evil.

Deliberately killing an innocent civilian is murder. It does not matter whether or not this act will save the lives of others, it is always murder. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and other acts) were intended to kill innocent civilians. They were acts of mass murder. Those who commit mass murder are mass murderers. Blind obedience to orders is no defence for committing murder.

 

[Timothysis]

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?

I may not agree with it but I never said that it is not correct in regards to the application of Church teachings. There are many theologians on both sides of the issue and the Church, despite the contentions of many here, has not declared one way or the other the side of truth, much as Brendan maintains that an airman in a plane during wartime whose bomb goes wide and kills non-combatants is a murderer. The Church doesn’t say that. It is a far cry to say the intentional targeting of noncombatants in a post World War II world is sinful and another to say that airmen, during the second world war, have gravely sinned by doing their job and duty.

I suggest reading the article on lying in the Catholic encyclopedia at New Advent; it is kinda lengthy but has interesting points on both sides of the subject. I find it very interesting and most telling that the Church does not have a stringent line drawn in the sand pertaining to the subject.

 

[Timothysis]

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and other acts) were intended to kill innocent civilians. They were acts of mass murder. Those who commit mass murder are mass murderers. Blind obedience to orders is no defence for committing murder.

Quite simply, you are wrong; the Church has never said as much and I’m sure that the many men and women who toiled to bring the war to an end would not appreciate the fact that you judge them to be murderers. There is a stark difference between blind obedience and doing one’s duty. The Bolsheviks and Nazis subscribed to blind obedience and history has judged them to be criminals; the scientists and airmen of the second world war have not.

 

[Brendan_64]

Quite simply, you are wrong; the Church has never said as much and I’m sure that the many men and women who toiled to bring the war to an end would not appreciate the fact that you judge them to be murderers…

I have not said that all soldiers involved in WWII were murderers, and you know it.

All I have done is maintain that the deliberate killing of an innocent person is murder. That is, whether you like it or not, the teaching of our Church.

If a soldier in warfare deliberately kills an innocent civilian then he is guilty of murder. If he deliberately kills many innocent civilians then he is guilty of mass murder.

It does not matter if he is deliberately killing these innocent civilians with an aim of bringing the war to an end, because our Church teaches that one can never commit evil for a greater good.

The fact that acts are committed in the course of serving one’s country, does not negate the moral responsibility of the individual carrying these acts out. Following an order that goes against the God’s law, because it is an order from your superior, or because you think your country requires it, is blind obedience. If you pull the trigger or press the bomb release button knowing that innocent civilians will die as a result, then you are committing murder. The stain of the sin does not bypass you in order to to pass up the chain of command.

As to people not appreciating what I’ve written, that neither here nor there. That has got nothing to do with whether or not an action was wrong. playing the “you can’t speak against our heroic ex-servicemen” card is a very poor defence of your position.

Here’s a good article by a CAF apologist, who was also a serving soldier.

catholic.com/magazine/articles/dropping-the-atomic-bomb-was-wrong-period

 

[Mount_Carmel]

Brendan - How do you [practically] nit-pick between the ‘innocent’ and ‘guilty’ in a war? In Hiroshima and Nagasaki and even Dresden, there were folks, military AND civilian who were engaged in supporting and promoting the war. Civilians manufactured the goods of war, and lived amongst those who didn’t.

Even in North Africa, said to have been a ‘soldiers’ war’, civilians were still involved, indeed it was civilians who made and supplied the wherewithal to prosecute the conflict. The harbours, towns and the cities also contained civilians, innocent AND involved. In the flow and dynamics of war how do you separate them without piling extra casualties on ‘your’ side?

 

[catholictiger]

I have not said that all soldiers involved in WWII were murderers, and you know it.

All I have done is maintain that the deliberate killing of an innocent person is murder. That is, whether you like it or not, the teaching of our Church.

If a soldier in warfare deliberately kills an innocent civilian then he is guilty of murder. If he deliberately kills many innocent civilians then he is guilty of mass murder.

It does not matter if he is deliberately killing these innocent civilians with an aim of bringing the war to an end, because our Church teaches that one can never commit evil for a greater good.

The fact that acts are committed in the course of serving one’s country, does not negate the moral responsibility of the individual carrying these acts out. Following an order that goes against the God’s law, because it is an order from your superior, or because you think your country requires it, is blind obedience. If you pull the trigger or press the bomb release button knowing that innocent civilians will die as a result, then you are committing murder. The stain of the sin does not bypass you in order to to pass up the chain of command.

As to people not appreciating what I’ve written, that neither here nor there. That has got nothing to do with whether or not an action was wrong. playing the “you can’t speak against our heroic ex-servicemen” card is a very poor defence of your position.

Here’s a good article by a CAF apologist, who was also a serving soldier.

catholic.com/magazine/articles/dropping-the-atomic-bomb-was-wrong-period

I understand what your saying and while you are correct by the basic definition of the word. I think comparing soldiers who are carrying out orders in a very deadly war to a person who is actually a murder or mass murder is to much. I will explain why.

1. culpability: this is a huge thing here a solider who is trained from the day he enters military service to follow orders no matter what. Those who pulled the trigger flew the plane, protected the plane ext were following orders. Let’s assume they knew that those bombs would fall on civilians. People would be telling them, this was necessary and can save millions of lives and millions of american soldiers lives. Imagine being a guy who would go against orders that they insisted would save millions of lives. While in theory they would be guilty of Mass Murder their culpability would be very very low.
2. Culpability criminal murder: is alot higher than murder during war when you are carrying out orders. First many criminal murderers do it on their own no one is ordering them to murder someone. There is usually no doubt about combatants and non combatants like their can be in war. You don’t have someone ordering you to do it normally. Culpability is alot higher then someone who commits murder in war.

I understand what you are trying to say and by the basic definition of the word you are correct but when you begin to go deeper into it you hopefully will realize that culpability is alot lower when it comes to war. I’m not trying to justify the murder of innocent people that is never good, BUT those who fight in war can’t be held as accountable for murder in war then someone who actually commits mass murder. It is actually possible that some in war who commit murder by definition of the word aren’t guilty of any sin because their culpability was so low.

One other thing it shouldn’t be up to the soldiers to discern the morality of acts of war. Those in power should be trusted to discern these actions.

One example I can think of someone who is in a missile control silo shouldn’t have to discern if the missile he is about to fire is going to be a moral act or not, it should be up to the person who gives the order.

 

[catholictiger]

Brendan - How do you [practically] nit-pick between the ‘innocent’ and ‘guilty’ in a war? In Hiroshima and Nagasaki and even Dresden, there were folks, military AND civilian who were engaged in supporting and promoting the war. Civilians manufactured the goods of war, and lived amongst those who didn’t.

Even in North Africa, said to have been a ‘soldiers’ war’, civilians were still involved, indeed it was civilians who made and supplied the wherewithal to prosecute the conflict. The harbours, towns and the cities also contained civilians, innocent AND involved. In the flow and dynamics of war how do you separate them without piling extra casualties on ‘your’ side?

Those who support the wars are non-combatans, now it is possible that the principle of double affect my apply if you are bombing factories with non-combatants in it.

but I would say that combatants are the actual people who actually fire guns fly plans pilot war ships etc.

 

[Brendan_64]

I understand what you are trying to say and by the basic definition of the word you are correct but when you begin to go deeper into it you hopefully will realize that culpability is alot lower when it comes to war. I’m not trying to justify the murder of innocent people that is never good, BUT those who fight in war can’t be held as accountable for murder in war then someone who actually commits mass murder…

I accept your argument that culpability may be lowered, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that murder is committed. Our Church is very clear on this, the deliberate killing of an innocent person is always murder. Someone who commits murder is a murderer, someone who murders many people is a mass murderer. The level of culpability between murderers may vary (as it does with civilian murders) but the offence is still murder.

It is actually possible that some in war who commit murder by definition of the word aren’t guilty of any sin because their culpability was so low.

Grave matter, full knowledge and deliberate consent. If these conditions are met, then the sin is mortal. As the killing of an innocent person is most definitely grave matter, if the soldier knew that innocent people would be killed by his actions, and if he consented to carrying out those actions (obedience to orders does not negate his consent) then the conditions for mortal sin have been met. The Church does not have a separate ‘rule book’ for serving soldiers.

One other thing it shouldn’t be up to the soldiers to discern the morality of acts of war. Those in power should be trusted to discern these actions.

But an individual is responsible for his own actions, he cannot pass on this responsibility to his superiors. The Church expects all soldiers to act in accordance with God’s law. It is up to the individual soldier to ensure that his actions are moral.

One example I can think of someone who is in a missile control silo shouldn’t have to discern if the missile he is about to fire is going to be a moral act or not, it should be up to the person who gives the order.

How is that different from a person who aims a gun at someone’s head and pulls the trigger? If the person in the missile silo knows that the missile he is ordered to fire is aimed at a civilian area then he has a duty to refuse to obey that order. Just because you cannot see the whites of the eyes of the person (or persons) who is going to be killed by your action, does not make the action is less wrong. Just as deliberately dropping a bomb on a civilian centre is no less wrong than going in and bayoneting the civilians there, one by one. It might make it easier for the perpetrator, but it isn’t any less wrong.

 

[Brendan_64]

Brendan - How do you [practically] nit-pick between the ‘innocent’ and ‘guilty’ in a war? In Hiroshima and Nagasaki and even Dresden, there were folks, military AND civilian who were engaged in supporting and promoting the war. Civilians manufactured the goods of war, and lived amongst those who didn’t.

So you are arguing that once war has been declared then any civilian living in the opposing nation is fair game? Not only is that view very much in opposition to the teaching of our Church, but it is against all international conventions and agreements on war. You are not permitted to kill other innocent people because you suspect that the guilty dwell amongst them

Our Church does not permit us to deliberately kill one innocent person. Would you not concede that, at the very least, the children, infants, babies, and unborn children killed by the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombing were innocent? Because if they were innocent then their deaths as a result of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were murder, and it cannot be argued that the bombers thought that there would be no children in those cities when they were deliberately obliterated.

Whether people like it or not, the deliberate killing of innocent people is always murder, even in war.

If a war cannot be engaged without it involving the killing of innocent people, then that war cannot be a just war. A war that necessitates murder (the killing of innocent people) in order for it to be carried out in practical terms, can never be just. The fact that modern warfare always seems to involve the killing of innocent people (so-called co-latteral damage) begs the question, “Can modern warfare ever be just?”.

 

[catholictiger]

I accept your argument that culpability may be lowered, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that murder is committed. Our Church is very clear on this, the deliberate killing of an innocent person is always murder. Someone who commits murder is a murderer, someone who murders many people is a mass murderer. The level of culpability between murderers may vary (as it does with civilian murders) but the offence is still murder.

Grave matter, full knowledge and deliberate consent. If these conditions are met, then the sin is mortal. As the killing of an innocent person is most definitely grave matter, if the soldier knew that innocent people would be killed by his actions, and if he consented to carrying out those actions (obedience to orders does not negate his consent) then the conditions for mortal sin have been met. The Church does not have a separate ‘rule book’ for serving soldiers.

But an individual is responsible for his own actions, he cannot pass on this responsibility to his superiors. The Church expects all soldiers to act in accordance with God’s law. It is up to the individual soldier to ensure that his actions are moral.

How is that different from a person who aims a gun at someone’s head and pulls the trigger? If the person in the missile silo knows that the missile he is ordered to fire is aimed at a civilian area then he has a duty to refuse to obey that order. Just because you cannot see the whites of the eyes of the person (or persons) who is going to be killed by your action, does not make the action is less wrong. Just as deliberately dropping a bomb on a civilian centre is no less wrong than going in and bayoneting the civilians there, one by one. It might make it easier for the perpetrator, but it isn’t any less wrong.

we agree in all but the missile silo. My example assumed that he didn’t know what the target was, it could have been a test fire or the real thing it shouldn’t be up to the person pressing the trigger to decide if it is moral or not, rather the person in charge. While I know the church is against any nuclear weapon use, the point of having this level of unknown in the missile silo is to avoid people second guessing themselves. I was trying to give you an example of a situation where someone could be the direct cause of the killing of thousands if not millions of people but because he had no knowledge of what he is firing at.

again you are correct to say its moral I just think in general the person is alot less morally culpable but not in the fact that it takes away sin. This isn’t an easy discussion but please realize we are mostly in agreement.

 

[catholictiger]

So you are arguing that once war has been declared then any civilian living in the opposing nation is fair game? Not only is that view very much in opposition to the teaching of our Church, but it is against all international conventions and agreements on war. You are not permitted to kill other innocent people because you suspect that the guilty dwell amongst them

Our Church does not permit us to deliberately kill one innocent person. Would you not concede that, at the very least, the children, infants, babies, and unborn children killed by the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombing were innocent? Because if they were innocent then their deaths as a result of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were murder, and it cannot be argued that the bombers thought that there would be no children in those cities when they were deliberately obliterated.

Whether people like it or not, the deliberate killing of innocent people is always murder, even in war.

If a war cannot be engaged without it involving the killing of innocent people, then that war cannot be a just war. A war that necessitates murder (the killing of innocent people) in order for it to be carried out in practical terms, can never be just. The fact that modern warfare always seems to involve the killing of innocent people (so-called co-latteral damage) begs the question, “Can modern warfare ever be just?”.

as much as you are correct the other poster brings up an interesting issue that is ALOT more present in warfare today.

think of a situation like this you are a Marine in the streets of some major city in a unstable country under control of the terrorist. Car bombs, people strapping bombs to themselves etc. are some of the most common way people die during this war, there are some firefights that cause deaths on your side but your military is so overpowering that they know they will lose almost all firefights. So you are walking through this city and someone is acting suspicious he may have a bomb tied to him but you can’t be certain. It is very unclear if this person is a combatant or a non combatant. He starts to approach you, none in your group speaks his langague so you start to yell with guns pointed get down put your hands up, but he doesn’t respond you shoot because he doesn’t cooperate. You find out this guy didn’t have any bombs strapped to himself and he was just returning home with some groceries and theft is very common so he was trying to hid it. You just killed a non combatant. Did the solider who pulled the trigger commit a sin? I would say no because he had no knowledge that he was one. Waiting to find out if this guy was a combatant was to risky if he got very close to you, you would die along with all the men in your company.

another situation, you are a recon specialist and you have been watching the activity in this building. It appears that they are storing weapons and ammunition in this building but you can’t tell because they cover up what they bring in to the building. To find out for certain if this building stores ammunition is to risky, it is close to the enemies stronghold and to investigate this or attack it would be to risky. You decide that it seems likely enough that there are guns and ammunition in this building, you decide to send a precision missle strike on the building taking it out. You find out after the fact that it was just a food storage building and they had no guns or ammunition, in the process you killed 100 innocent civilians. Did the person who called in the order commit a sin. No again the combatants are not clear.

While his analogy may not work for WWII it very well could work for today’s wars.

 

[Brendan_64]

While I know the church is against any nuclear weapon use, the point of having this level of unknown in the missile silo is to avoid people second guessing themselves. I was trying to give you an example of a situation where someone could be the direct cause of the killing of thousands if not millions of people but because he had no knowledge of what he is firing at.

If you are in a position where you know that the weapons you are using are likely, or even have a distinct possibility of being used against civilians and that you may be required to ‘press the button’ and you still willingly put yourself in this position, then you will be guilty if the time arises when your pushing the button does actually result in innocent deaths. I’m not sure that standing before your maker using a defence of, “Well they never told me that that time when I pressed the button, it was for real and many thousands of innocent people died as a result. I knew there was a possibility of this happening one day, I just hoped it wouldn’t be my button push that would do it.”

The Church is against any use of nuclear weapons because they are weapons of indiscriminate destruction and are built to lay waste to large areas. Working in such a facility would in itself be gravely sinful.

This isn’t an easy discussion but please realize we are mostly in agreement.

I realise that I am in agreement with much of what you say.

However I do not think that we should hold back from being clear on this issue. If the teachings of our Church on such issues offends ‘patriotic’ sensibilities, then so be it. We cannot make exceptions simply because the teachings of our Church does not suit a ‘patriotic’ view of our nations’ engagement in warfare and the actions carried out by servicemen (in our name). We have only one Lord the teaching of His Church, on the issue of the deliberate taking of innocent people’s lives, is very clear.

 

[Brendan_64]

So you are walking through this city and someone is acting suspicious he may have a bomb tied to him but you can’t be certain. It is very unclear if this person is a combatant or a non combatant. He starts to approach you, none in your group speaks his langague so you start to yell with guns pointed get down put your hands up, but he doesn’t respond you shoot because he doesn’t cooperate. You find out this guy didn’t have any bombs strapped to himself and he was just returning home with some groceries and theft is very common so he was trying to hid it. You just killed a non combatant. Did the solider who pulled the trigger commit a sin? I would say no because he had no knowledge that he was one.

I would agree with you. Grave matter? Yes. Full knowledge? No. The soldier did not know that he was killing an innocent civilian (and mistook the man for a bomber, and acted with the intention of saving lives) therefore the conditions for mortal sin have not been met.

That is very different from dropping a bomb on a civilian area in the full knowledge that civilians were highly likely to be killed by your actions.

another situation, you are a recon specialist and you have been watching the activity in this building. It appears that they are storing weapons and ammunition in this building but you can’t tell because they cover up what they bring in to the building. To find out for certain if this building stores ammunition is to risky, it is close to the enemies stronghold and to investigate this or attack it would be to risky. You decide that it seems likely enough that there are guns and ammunition in this building, you decide to send a precision missile strike on the building taking it out. You find out after the fact that it was just a food storage building and they had no guns or ammunition, in the process you killed 100 innocent civilians. Did the person who called in the order commit a sin. No again the combatants are not clear.

That would depend on how certain you were that the building was a weapons store and whether or not it was likely that innocent civilians would have been present in the buildings.

f however you were certain beyond all reasonable doubt that it was indeed a weapons store and it was almost certain that not one innocent civilian would be present in the building, then the attack would be a tragic mistake, but not necessarily a grave sin.

But if attacked it on the balance of probability that it was a weapons store, or you knew that there was a real possibility that at least one innocent civilian may be present in the building, then it would have been murder (weapons store or not).

 

[McHenry]

For spiritual warfare to occur (and it may be the only noble cause), you have to survive long enough here. Human Nature says that prospect may require direct action on your fellow peoples. Live with that, and you will survive to perform the other. Deny that, and St. Peter will check you in early.

But spiritual warfare occurs now and hereafter. I look forward to the combat that no longer depends upon physical survival. Think of the power we will have when we exist only in the spiritual realm and are on the side of the legions of Mary!

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Whether people like it or not, the deliberate killing of innocent people is always murder, even in war.

That depends on what is meant by “deliberate”. If the killing of innocent people is the primary intended effect, then the act is immoral, regardless of the good that may come of it. (such as using the deaths of innocents to demoralize the enemy nation and thereby weaken support for the military). But if the intended effect was something else, and the killing of the innocents was an unfortunate side effect, the act could be acceptable, based on prudential judgement of the degree of good gained in proportion to the loss of innocent life. For support, I turn to the Church’s teaching on acceptable methods of treating an etopic pregnancy. The Church teaches that it is acceptable to cut out a portion of the Fallopian tube containing the innocent child, even though it ends the innocent child’s life with 100% certainty. So at least in this case the Church allows for collateral damage. However it is wrong to inject chemicals that kill the fetus because then the killing of the innocent child is the primary intended effect, and the good that comes from removal of the threat to the mother is the result of that evil act, and so cannot be morally justified.

So i think it would be an exaggeration of the just war doctrine to claim that collateral damage to innocent civilians is always immoral. Of course prudential judgement plays a role here. One cannot justify the “unfortunate” destruction of an entire city just to eliminate one bad guy.

 

[Brendan_64]

That depends on what is meant by “deliberate”. If the killing of innocent people is the primary intended effect, then the act is immoral, regardless of the good that may come of it. (such as using the deaths of innocents to demoralize the enemy nation and thereby weaken support for the military). But if the intended effect was something else, and the killing of the innocents was an unfortunate side effect, the act could be acceptable, based on prudential judgement of the degree of good gained in proportion to the loss of innocent life.

This is not correct. You are not permitted to take innocent life in order to benefit others. The deliberate taking of an innocent life means taking an action that you know is likely to result in the death of an innocent person. You cannot insist that as your intended target was a military target, but one that was based in a civilian area, and that the killing of innocent civilians was an unfortunate ‘side effect’, that the killing of these innocents is therefore allowed. It is not. You must be convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that your action will not result in the death of any innocent person. The concept of reasonable doubt is a Christian concept that exists to protect the souls of those passing judgement. If you are going to take such action then you must be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that no innocent people will die as a result of your action. If you are not convinced of this beyond all reasonable doubt then it is murder.

There is nothing whatsoever in the teachings of our Church that allows you to take the life of an innocent person, or take actions that you know is likely to result in an innocent death. This is always considered murder. You cannot commit wrong for a greater good. our Church does not accept deliberate deaths of innocents as an “unfortunate side-effect”. Our Church does not accept the concept of ‘co-lateral damage’.

The teaching of our Church is very clear on this.

 

[Timothysis]

You must be convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that your action will not result in the death of any innocent person. The concept of reasonable doubt is a Christian concept that exists to protect the souls of those passing judgement. If you are going to take such action then you must be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that no innocent people will die as a result of your action. If you are not convinced of this beyond all reasonable doubt then it is murder.

Frankly, you do not know what you are talking about. The Church condemns the purposeful targeting of civilians as an intent to simply kill them; it has never required a “beyond reasonable doubt” knowledge that a military action by the legitimate authority aimed at killing or rendering the enemy unable to sustain war to be 100% certain that an innocent will not be killed.

There is nothing whatsoever in the teachings of our Church that allows you to take the life of an innocent person, or take actions that you know is likely to result in an innocent death. This is always considered murder. You cannot commit wrong for a greater good. our Church does not accept deliberate deaths of innocents as an “unfortunate side-effect”. Our Church does not accept the concept of ‘co-lateral damage’.

Once again, you are completely wrong. Study the principle of double effect and then tell me that an action that kills an innocent is immoral even though it was not the primary intention.

• "Double-effect originates in Thomas Aquinas’s treatment of homicidal self-defense, in his work Summa Theologiae.[1]

This set of criteria states that an action having foreseen harmful effects practically inseparable from the good effect is justifiable if the following are true:

the nature of the act is itself good, or at least morally neutral;

the agent intends the good effect and not the bad either as a means to the good or as an end itself;

the good effect outweighs the bad effect in circumstances sufficiently grave to justify causing the bad effect and the agent exercises due diligence to minimize the harm.[2]"*

 

[oldcatholicguy]

This is not correct. You are not permitted to take innocent life in order to benefit others. The deliberate taking of an innocent life means taking an action that you know is likely to result in the death of an innocent person. You cannot insist that as your intended target was a military target, but one that was based in a civilian area, and that the killing of innocent civilians was an unfortunate ‘side effect’, that the killing of these innocents is therefore allowed. It is not. You must be convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that your action will not result in the death of any innocent person. The concept of reasonable doubt is a Christian concept that exists to protect the souls of those passing judgement. If you are going to take such action then you must be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that no innocent people will die as a result of your action. If you are not convinced of this beyond all reasonable doubt then it is murder.

There is nothing whatsoever in the teachings of our Church that allows you to take the life of an innocent person, or take actions that you know is likely to result in an innocent death. This is always considered murder. You cannot commit wrong for a greater good. our Church does not accept deliberate deaths of innocents as an “unfortunate side-effect”. Our Church does not accept the concept of ‘co-lateral damage’.

The teaching of our Church is very clear on this.

The bold is at odds with what the Church teaches in regards to unborn children who die as an unintentional result of doctors treating the mother.

 

[Gricken]

I said that the crusades is the only one that I can think as being just: the crusades are the only exception was my statement. I also said that the crusaders didn’t initiate the war. The crusades were a defense to a brutal war in order to stop the otomans, they didn’t start the war. The only way I can see a battle as just is under the same circumstances as the crusades and in the same way i.e. not involving any civilians which doesn’t happen in our time anymore.

Well technically it was to bail out the Byzantine Empire who had asked the Pope for reinforcements while fighting the Turks, I don’t think they were technically the Ottoman Empire yet.
Atrocities were committed by both sides. In modern times it has become fashionable to marginalize what the Seljuk’s did and inflate what the crusaders did.

 

[Timothysis]

I have not said that all soldiers involved in WWII were murderers, and you know it.

Your quote: "The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and other acts) were intended to kill innocent civilians. They were acts of mass murder. "

Maybe you did not say that “all soldiers” who served in WWII were murderers, but we can extrapolate from what you have posted that those who were involved in the daytime/night-time bombings of Germany and the bombings of Japan (the firebombing of Tokyo killed more people than the two atomic bombs) were, by your standards and logic, murderers, something the Church (and rational human beings) have never said.