"No War Is Ever Holy"

[Writer]

koda:

But what is a nation but many individuals?

Also, what about the innocent that are killed in war - the “collateral damage” that even our side is sometimes guilty of inflicting?

True, Koda, but the rules of behavior for nations can’t be the same as the rules for individuals. This is evident in so many different areas, that it is hard to select examples. When a police officer shoots someone poised to attack him, is it murder? When an IRS Agent seizes a truck for tax fraud, is it theft? Granted, we all may have opinions that another course of action would be better, but it doesn’t change the fact that governments are different than individuals.

Maybe the easiest way to understand it is to ask yourself what “turning the other cheek” would exactly mean to a nation? A few posts ago, I posted my idea of what this concept would boill down to in the real world when I gave the example of someone saying,“Thank you for striking New York! For your terrorism convenience, Seattle is now ready for destruction. Have a great day!” Any thinking person realizes that this can’t work–it just doesn’t make sense. Furthermore, there is something perverse or sadistic in this line of thinking. None of us would fail to defend a loved one, would we? You see, I think the argument for pacifism really discounts the value of life and treats it as a joke, which we can choose to take or leave. I suggest that, based on Christian teaching and western tradition, life is to be valued, and nations must defend their citizens against attack.

As far as collateral damage, you’re right…it’s awful. War is terrible, and I don’t think anyone opposing pacifism as a view is trying to say otherwise. We’re just saying that it’s an option that has to be left available to nations–just as Saint Thomas Aquinas pointed out in his writings. I will add, though, that I think in general terms that our technology is making collateral damage less severe, but I don’t think that it will ever be eliminated entirely–that’d be science fiction and not the real world.

 

[Jay74]

Writer:

As far as collateral damage, you’re right…it’s awful. War is terrible, and I don’t think anyone opposing pacifism as a view is trying to say otherwise. We’re just saying that it’s an option that has to be left available to nations–just as Saint Thomas Aquinas pointed out in his writings. I will add, though, that I think in general terms that our technology is making collateral damage less severe, but I don’t think that it will ever be eliminated entirely–that’d be science fiction and not the real world.

So true. The issue of collateral damage always makes decisions tough. A good example was when the Air Force was given permission to shoot down hijacked commercial airliners if necessary. There, unlike a bombing gone wrong (or right for that matter), they knew with dead certainty there would be civilian casualties, including children. They even knew exactly how many. If they would have had to do this, I don’t think anyone would accuse them of murder because the alternative would have been far worse.

I don’t envy anyone who has to make decisions in regard to war. It’s often hard to measure whether the “cure is worse than the disease,” so to speak.

I doubt any such decision could be deemed holy, but that doesn’t necessarily make it immoral. (I had to tie it to the treat topic somehow. lol)

Blessings

 

[Writer]

koda:

But what is a nation but many individuals?

Also, what about the innocent that are killed in war - the “collateral damage” that even our side is sometimes guilty of inflicting?

Another quick observation… I recall that the fellow who began this thread made the comment in some earlier discussion that, instead of defending itself against some kind of hideous aggression, citizens being attacked should simply pray the rosary instead of defending themselves. Sometimes the most challenging falsehoods to debate are the ones which contain a form of truth wrapped in a lie. That’s what we have here.

Because, you see, it would be wonderful if many, many people prayed as intensely as possible, but prayer doesn’t relieve a nation of its moral responsibility to defend its citizens. In fact, if we explore this line of thinking a bit further, we see how lacking in logic or reason it really is. For example, I have some relatives who belong to the Christian Science “denomination”. They don’t believe in seeking medical care, but insist on prayer alone. A particular relative of mine suffered a terrible injury, but she did not want to be taken to the doctor. Why aren’t my prayers sufficient, she wondered. Another person finally couldn’t take it any longer, and she was taken to the hospital.

Doctors are a wonderful resource, and we can seek their aid AND pray for healing; they are not mutually exclusive courses of action. Just like God can help the believer through the doctor’s skilled hands, the soldier “who lays down his life for a friend” or neighbor, or countryman is being used by God to protect his loved ones. A similar view is expressed in the Scripture references given in the “letter to the editor” I posted earlier; good and just governments are a gift from God.

 

[Matt25]

Writer:

Another quick observation… I recall that the fellow who began this thread made the comment in some earlier discussion that, instead of defending itself against some kind of hideous aggression, citizens being attacked should simply pray the rosary instead of defending themselves…

He did not. If you cannot quote me accurately please don’t quote me at all

 

[Writer]

Matt25:

He did not. If you cannot quote me accurately please don’t quote me at all

Well, then, what did you say? I believe the statement was within the thread entitled “Why we Fight” by Peacemonger, but the thread won’t allow itself to be viewed. I am quite sure that this was the gist of what you said…if not, where is the error? You do agree in a nation’s right to defend itself now perhaps?

 

[Matt25]

Writer:

Well, then, what did you say? I believe the statement was within the thread entitled “Why we Fight” by Peacemonger, but the thread won’t allow itself to be viewed. I am quite sure that this was the gist of what you said…if not, where is the error? You do agree in a nation’s right to defend itself now perhaps?

You said

I recall that the fellow who began this thread made the comment in some earlier discussion that, instead of defending itself against some kind of hideous aggression, citizens being attacked should simply pray the rosary

I never suggested that there is only ever one thing to do. It is part of the deception that enthusiasts for war practice to suggest that the only alternative to killing people is to sit back and be passive. Certainly people should play the rosary. Nonetheless it was not prayer alone that effected the revolutions in Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, GDR, Georgia, Phillipines, Indonesia etc etc.

Tell me how many wars did the Christians fight in order to conquer the Roman Empire?

 

[Writer]

Matt25:

You said

I never suggested that there is only ever one thing to do. It is part of the deception that enthusiasts for war practice to suggest that the only alternative to killing people is to sit back and be passive. Certainly people should play the rosary. Nonetheless it was not prayer alone that effected the revolutions in Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, GDR, Georgia, Phillipines, Indonesia etc etc.

Tell me how many wars did the Christians fight in order to conquer the Roman Empire?

I would suggest that the Roman conversion is a unique and powerful example as to the power of Christianity to grow and flourish when it’s persecuted and treated as an insignificant cult. It seems less a takeover than a cultural and religious shift. It’s an interesting observation, but I don’t see a clear connection to modern history’s examples of revolutions which required some degree of violence: England’s Civil War (The Glorious Revolution), French Revolution, India, Greece, modern Turkish state, United States of America, and one might even say that the Spanish Civil War led to eventual democracy.

If the Nazis had not been opposed by force, you would not be living in the free country you are. The methods used by the early Christians were actually used by many Christians suffering under the German authorities, but that alone would not have done the trick–especially since the Germans adopted a state religion which combined elements of Christianity with elements of the occult and German and Nordic mythology. In other words, Christians who failed to understand their own faith, were swept in (at least temporarily) by the Nazi lie. That’s why victory required 100% on all fronts–social, cultural, and military fields of battle.

 

[Matt25]

Just for the record the “Glorious Revolution” was peaceful. The Civil War was a different historical epoch.

 

[Writer]

Matt25:

You said

Tell me how many wars did the Christians fight in order to conquer the Roman Empire?

While I don’t see the direct relevancy of the conversion of the Roman Empire to the present discussions of the German Reich, for example, I do think that you have raised an interesting point. It should also be pointed out, however, that Emperor Constatine was instrumental in bringing Christinanity to the Empire, and he did not always employ the most gentle means of persausion. If I remember my history accurately, he dealt pretty harshly with Christian heretics, Jews, and others who were not inclined to change their pagan belief system. He destroyed a number of temples–e.g. in Egypt and Turkey. Now, I am not criticizing anything Constatine did–my Roman history is a bit rusty at present–but I think it is a bit disingenuous to imply that Christianity made the leap from perceived cult to the religion of the empire with everyone grinning and shaking hands with their brothers and sisters in Christ. Bloodshed took place due to this transition, as well. Conversion was likely frequently made with the business end of Roman soldier’s spear staring the new convert in the face.

 

[Al_Masetti]

There was a tremendous discussion on the ethics and morality of war prior to the anniversary date of the Hiroshima atomic bombing. To access those discussions, do a search for “Hiroshima” and view those threads.

 

[Steven_Merten]

koda:

But what is a nation but many individuals?

Also, what about the innocent that are killed in war - the “collateral damage” that even our side is sometimes guilty of inflicting?

Hello Koda,

So do you think Vatican City should abandon the use of violence (Swiss Guards) to protect the Pope and Vatican treasures? Did Jesus authorize Swiss Guards with His command to the Apostles “…And the man without a sword must sell his coat and buy one.”

What about the potential for “collateral damage” from Swiss Guard standard issue *FN Nato 5.56mm assault rifles *which have a firing rate of 700 rounds per minute with a kill range of 450 meters?

Do you believe that the Pope and the Vatican community should send the Vatican Guards back to Switzerland and instead rely on praying the rosery, fasting and other non-violent means to protect the Pope and Vatican relics? Would this be the “Holy” thing to do?

Originally Posted by thechrismyster

All members of the Pope’s Swiss Guard first in the Swiss Army. Their weapons consist of Swords and the Halberd ( a type of spear/battle axe) which may look ceremonial but are actually quite sharp. They also normally pack a Beretta 9mm pistol shown below
*Guns, Ammo & Accessories - Online Gun Dealers | Impact Guns *

AND under the colorful uniforms and if need be can break out the FN Nato 5.56mm rifles which are standard issue to Guardsmen.

*http://world.guns.ru/assault/fn_fnc3.jpg *
sweet weapon. Swiss guard DO NOT play games.
FN FNC Assult Rifle
Caliber: 5.56x45mm NATO
Action: Gas operated, rotating bolt
Overall length: standard model 997 mm (776 mm with folded butt); “Para” model 911 mm / 680 mm
*Barrel length: 449 mm (363 mm “Para” model) *
Weight with empty magazine: 4.06 kgÊ (3.81 kg “Para” model)
Magazine capacity: 30 rounds (accept all STANAG-compatible magazines)
Rate of fire: about 700 rounds per minute
Effective range: 450 meters

 

[KathleenElsie]

Jay74:

So true. The issue of collateral damage always makes decisions tough. A good example was when the Air Force was given permission to shoot down hijacked commercial airliners if necessary. There, unlike a bombing gone wrong (or right for that matter), they knew with dead certainty there would be civilian casualties, including children. They even knew exactly how many. If they would have had to do this, I don’t think anyone would accuse them of murder because the alternative would have been far worse.

I don’t envy anyone who has to make decisions in regard to war. It’s often hard to measure whether the “cure is worse than the disease,” so to speak.

I doubt any such decision could be deemed holy, but that doesn’t necessarily make it immoral. (I had to tie it to the treat topic somehow. lol)

Blessings

Actually IMHO there are more then likely many people that would accuse them of murder. The debate would rage on and on as to what the other options could have been. Some out there would blame the cure as the cause.

 

[Jay74]

KathleenElsie:

Actually IMHO there are more then likely many people that would accuse them of murder. The debate would rage on and on as to what the other options could have been. Some out there would blame the cure as the cause.

That’s true. It’s reminischent of the big buzz about what Bush knew before 9/11 and why he didn’t stop it. Of course, if he would have declared war on al Qaeda before 9/11 and 9/11 happened anyway, many would said 9/11 only happened because of the war.

Never any easy answers.

 

[Steven_Merten]

Jay74:

That’s true. It’s reminischent of the big buzz about what Bush knew before 9/11 and why he didn’t stop it. Of course, if he would have declared war on al Qaeda before 9/11 and 9/11 happened anyway, many would said 9/11 only happened because of the war.

Never any easy answers.

Hello Jay,

There are some theory’s that American intelligence knew of Japanees aircraft carriers in the vacinity of Hawaii before the Japanees strike on Pearl Harbor prior to America entering into WWII. However, American intelligence decided to take the hit, which would and did bring the isolationists in America off the fence for a full hearted united America entering into WWII. This is how the theory goes anyway.

Personally I do not think Bush knew of the Alqada plan to attack America in 911.

 

[Writer]

"The authors tell us that she “distinguished in The Catholic Worker between true and false pacifism, the former using traditional, spiritual weapons like prayer and reception of the sacraments to actively resist evil.” Dorothy went so far as to say, “If we are not going to use our spiritual weapons, let us by all means arm and prepare.” Editorials in the 1939 Catholic Worker exhorted all the Worker houses to recite the Rosary daily for peace–not for victory…

Several authors describe the penitential quality of the pacifism of the Catholic Worker, which emphasized “the spiritual principle that penance and suffering freely and willingly undertaken by the individual, and prayerfully offered up for the good of others could effect change beyond the life of the individual doing the penance.” …"

For the record, this is part of the quote of Matt’s from another thread which I referred to earlier. While it isn’t exactly as I remembered it, the gist seems pretty much what I had suggested. Praying the rosary is great, but sometimes it is no replacement for a man who is “willing to lay his life down for his friends” by defending those he loves. It might also be interesting to explore what Dorothy meant exactly by “praying for peace–not for victory”. Would she have been just as satisfied with a Nazi victory as with an Allied victory? If so, this would seem to suggest either a person who is inclined to moral relativism, or who just is lacking in a bit of old fashioned common sense.

 

[Matt25]

Reciting the rosary is no bad thing. But if it was the only thing needed then the newspaper Catholic Worker would not have been published. The Catholic Worker was part of an activist movement which is why it aroused the supicion of the FBI.

To suggest that Dorothy would have been as satisfied with a Nazi victory as an Allied one is patently absurd. Even the slightest aquaintance with her history and that of the Catholic Worker movement answers that question before it is asked.

cjd.org/paper/pacifism.html

Never has there been so much talk about peace and justice than in today’s Catholic world at all levels. But there is no peace and there is no justice.

In 1965 Dorothy Day was asked by a Catholic pacifist to write a clear, theoretical, logical pacifist manifesto, noting that none had so far appeared from her pen. She responded in words that are as relevant today as they were when she wrote them:

“I can write no other than this: unless we use the weapons of the spirit, denying ourselves and taking up our cross and following Jesus, dying with Him and rising with Him, men will go on fighting, and often from the highest motives, believing that they are fighting defensive wars for justice and in self-defense against present or future aggression.”