M
Matt25
Guest
Which of them has used weapons of mass destruction against civillian cities?
- Status
M
Matt25
Guest
No my point is that the US the UK and the USSR were allies. Anyone who wants to call WWII Holy has to explain why the massacres at Katyn were acceptable.
B
bogeyjlg
Guest
I am not to argue that war should be avoided but not at all costs. As outlined by the Catholic Church there is a such thing as a just war. Matt is correct in saying all war is the product of sin. However, that does not limit one side from declaring war for just and holy reasons against the other.
What about the wars in which Joshua led the people of Israel against the lands of Canaan? Were these not Holy wars? They were done by the will of God, were they not?
What about the wars in which Joshua led the people of Israel against the lands of Canaan? Were these not Holy wars? They were done by the will of God, were they not?
G
gilliam
Guest
Matt,
Not sure any war is holy or not. Some wars are necessary. That is Catholic doctrine.
Not sure any war is holy or not. Some wars are necessary. That is Catholic doctrine.
B
bogeyjlg
Guest
Calling a war holy does not imply that all on either side act in accord with holiness. Rather, a holy war is one waged on just and holy reasons.
J
Jay74
Guest
Which of them rebuilds nations they conquer, and which of them thinks that you are an infidel and must die?
You can’t seriously fear America nuking scotland more than you fear terrrorism?
G
grotto
Guest
War is Hell! Not the immortal, but the mortal!
M
Matt25
Guest
I don’t think ETA or the Tamil Tigers think of me as an infidel.
I never suggested that the USA would nuke Scotland. It is not something I fear. So?
J
Jay74
Guest
When asked if which you feared more, American power or terrorism, you answered “which one used weapons of mass destruction against civilian cities?” One can only conclude you fear America more because we used WMDs on two Japanese cities over 60 years ago (a few years, and over a million casualties, after they attacked us).
K
KathleenElsie
Guest
Again IMHO everyone needs to read the whole artical. Just because the artical is referenced does not make the quoted parts whole in thoughts.
Violence, terror and war are wrong. Inner peace is the gift of GOD and goal of all honorable men and women. It is unfortunate that it is not spread with a bigger spreader.
GOD BLESS
Matt25 said:
Violence, terror and war are wrong. Inner peace is the gift of GOD and goal of all honorable men and women. It is unfortunate that it is not spread with a bigger spreader.
GOD BLESS
K
KathleenElsie
Guest
“NO TO WAR”! War is not always inevitable. It is always a defeat for humanity. International law, honest dialogue, solidarity between States, the noble exercise of diplomacy: these are methods worthy of individuals and nations in resolving their differences. I say this as I think of those who still place their trust in nuclear weapons and of the all-too-numerous conflicts which continue to hold hostage our brothers and sisters in humanity. At Christmas, Bethlehem reminded us of the unresolved crisis in the Middle East, where two peoples, Israeli and Palestinian, are called to live side-by-side, equally free and sovereign, in mutual respect. Without needing to repeat what I said to you last year on this occasion, I will simply add today, faced with the constant degeneration of the crisis in the Middle East, that the solution will never be imposed by recourse to terrorism or armed conflict, as if military victories could be the solution. And what are we to say of the threat of a war which could strike the people of Iraq, the land of the Prophets, a people already sorely tried by more than twelve years of embargo? War is never just another means that one can choose to employ for settling differences between nations. As the Charter of the United Nations Organization and international law itself remind us, war cannot be decided upon, even when it is a matter of ensuring the common good, except as the very last option and in accordance with very strict conditions, without ignoring the consequences for the civilian population both during and after the military operations.* It is therefore possible to change the course of events*, once good will, trust in others, fidelity to commitments and cooperation between responsible partners are allowed to prevail. I shall give two examples. Today’s Europe, which is at once united and enlarged. Europe has succeeded in tearing down the walls which disfigured her. She has committed herself to planning and creating a new reality capable of combining unity and diversity, national sovereignty and joint activity, economic progress and social justice. This new Europe is the bearer of the values which have borne fruit for two thousand years in an “art” of thinking and living from which the whole world has benefitted. Among these values Christianity holds a privileged position, inasmuch as it gave birth to a humanism which has permeated Europe’s history and institutions. In recalling this patrimony, the Holy See and all the Christian Churches have urged those drawing up the future Constitutional Treaty of the European Union to include a reference to Churches and religious institutions. We believe it desirable that, in full respect of the secular state, three complementary elements should be recognized: religious freedom not only in its individual and ritual aspects, but also in its social and corporative dimensions; the appropriateness of structures for dialogue and consultation between the Governing Bodies and communities of believers; respect for the juridical status already enjoyed by Churches and religious institutions in the Member States of the Union. A Europe which disavowed its past, which denied the fact of religion, and which had no spiritual dimension would be extremely impoverished in the face of the ambitious project which calls upon all its energies: constructing a Europe for all!
Africa too gives us today an occasion to rejoice: Angola has begun its rebuilding; Burundi has taken the path which could lead to peace and expects from the international community understanding and financial aid; the Democratic Republic of Congo is seriously engaged in a national dialogue which should lead to democracy. The Sudan has likewise shown good will, even if the path to peace remains long and arduous. We should of course be grateful for these signs of progress and we should encourage political leaders to spare no effort in ensuring that, little by little, the peoples of Africa experience the beginnings of pacification and thus of prosperity, safe from ethnic struggles, caprice and corruption. For this reason we can only deplore the grave incidents which have rocked Côte-d’Ivoire and the Central African Republic, while inviting the people of those countries to lay down their arms, to respect their respective constitutions and to lay the foundations for national dialogue. It will then be easy to involve all the elements of the national community in planning a society in which everyone finds a place. Furthermore, we do well to note that Africans are increasingly trying to find the solutions best suited to their problems, thanks to the activity of the African Union and effective forms of regional mediation.
*
R
Robert_Bay
Guest
Quotes and therefore threads are getting too long.
M
Matt25
Guest
People who justify the mass murder of civillians terrify me. The children and babies incinerated in Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not attack anyone. Point 80 of Gaudium et Spes states unequivocally
If today the US, UK or any other administration harbours people who believe that it is ever or has ever been right to use WMD’s against civillians then yes I fear them greatly.
J
Jay74
Guest
I agree. I’m not justifying Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they were bad moves. However, Japan started this war, the war was not started by an act of agression on the part of America. Had Japan not bombed us, they would not have been at war.
Not to excuse poor response, there are differing levels of wrongs. No American war has been unprovoked, not even the Iraqi war.
It’s funny you should say “people who justify the mass murder of civilians terrify me”, because mass murder is exactly the tactic of terrorists. Our wrong action against Japan is not something that has been repeated in the war against terrorism, as we have went far out of our way to avoid killing Afghan and Iraqi innocents. Sadly, some have been hurt, but more have been hurt by the terrorists intentionally than by us unintentionally.
H
Hospitaller
Guest
Unfortunately, it was a choice between them, and perhaps nearly a million America casualities in a conventional invasion.
L
Lurch104
Guest
In the world view of MATT25, that would be ok. You see, she feels that Americans are evil and the islamofacists are doing the world a favor by attacking us.
J
Jay74
Guest
Matt25 and I disagree on more things than not, but I don’t think I would attribute such a motive to Matt.
It may sadden me that Matt fears American strength more than terrorism, but his oppositiong to our actions doesn’t equate to consciously supporting what the terrorist do. I know enough about Matt to know he doesn’t think terrorrists are doing a good thing.
I hate being called a warmonger because I supported ending Saddam’s tyranny, because it is an unfair indictment of my belief. Please, don’t accuse others of approving of what the terrorists do because they oppose the war in terror. It, too, is unfair.
Blessings to all.
M
Matt25
Guest
That is actually not my viewpoint. No one is evil in Catholic Theology. Evil is only the absence of God. Since God is never wholly absent no individual nation or institution is ever wholly evil.
B
Brendan
Guest
Yes, we are no longer bound by the ceremonial law (clean vs. unclean) , but the Moral Law of the Old Testament still stands (Holy vs. not Holy).
And besides, what we have there is God ordering the complete anihiation of a town (men, women, children and livestock). If the Jews complied with God’s wishes, would that have been an unholy act?
How about God’s command to Moses to war against the Ammorites? Was the Jews following God’s command somehow not Holy?
And even then, Paul clearly states that there are times where the ruler of a country excercises God’s Judgement on behalf of God
Romans 13
M
Matt25
Guest
God describes the pagan King Cyrus
Since the Pagan King is called God’s shepherd and his anointed does that make his reign and the Persian Empire necessarily Holy?
- Status