NonViolence

[Ender]

So, when George Bush launched cruise missiles in an attempt to kill Saddam Hussein, knowing that innocent people would and were in fact killed, was he justified? Is the blowing up of an entire block of people, in order to kill one man, moral?

The just war doctrine accepts that innocent civilians will be unavoidably killed. What it requires is not that there is no “collateral damage” but that every reasonable effort be made to limit it and that an honest judgment be made that the results won’t outweigh the cost.

We may disagree about whether the invasion of Iraq satisfied the just war criteria but we should at least be able to agree on what the criteria are. The criteria did not prohibit the invasion although whether this particular war met the criteria is a valid question. It’s analogous to admitting that one is allowed to kill in self defense while disagreeing about whether a particular killing was justifiable by the self defense criteria.

You don’t help your argument any by basing it on an exaggeration. There was never a case where an entire block of civilians was destroyed, to kill Hussein or for any other reason. There hasn’t been a reprise of WWII carpet bombing tactics; given the accuracy of smart bombs it has never required more than a single piece of ordinance to destroy whatever building Hussein was thought to be hiding in. That building would be obliterated but the rest of the block would be relatively undamaged (except for the buildings immediately adjacent to the target.)

Ender

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The just war doctrine accepts that innocent civilians will be unavoidably killed.

In a preemptive attack ?

Jim

 

[Ender]

"ender:

The just war doctrine accepts that innocent civilians will be unavoidably killed.

In a preemptive attack ?

If the war is just, the unavoidable death of some innocent civilians does not make it unjust. If the war is unjust to begin with then the death of everyone, civilian or soldier, is unjust. You make your case against the war in Iraq by showing that it is unjust, not by pointing out the obvious fact that civilians die in war.

Ender

 

[JimR-OCDS]

If the war is just, the unavoidable death of some innocent civilians does not make it unjust. If the war is unjust to begin with then the death of everyone, civilian or soldier, is unjust. You make your case against the war in Iraq by showing that it is unjust, not by pointing out the obvious fact that civilians die in war.

Ender

OK.

Iraq, did not attack the United States of America.

Iraq did not have the capability to attack the USA

Iraq was being contained by the United Nations of which the USA was a participant. UN inspectors where doing their job and not finding WMD. In fact Iraq provided a 20,000 word document describing what they did with the WMD’s they had, Bush rejected it.

These three things alone violate the just war doctrine.

Then, President Bush, with a tip (which turned out to be false) of the location of Saddam Hussein, ordered a cruise missile attack, knowing it would take out the entire compound and surrounding buildings, thereby killing anyone there. In fact, Bush tried three different times, to kill Saddam with the use of a bombing campaign of some sort. All three times, Saddam was not in the area, but many civilians, old men, woman and children, were killed.

This was a reckless use of military power, no different than President Clintion’s bombing of Yugoslavia.

How a Christian could justify these uses of military power, is beyond my understanding.

Jim

 

[Amolibri]

OK.

Iraq, did not attack the United States of America.

Iraq did not have the capability to attack the USA

Iraq was being contained by the United Nations of which the USA was a participant. UN inspectors where doing their job and not finding WMD. In fact Iraq provided a 20,000 word document describing what they did with the WMD’s they had, Bush rejected
it.

These three things alone violate the just war doctrine.

Then, President Bush, with a tip (which turned out to be false) of the location of Saddam Hussein, ordered a cruise missile attack, knowing it would take out the entire compound and surrounding buildings, thereby killing anyone there. In fact, Bush tried three different times, to kill Saddam with the use of a bombing campaign of some sort. All three times, Saddam was not in the area, but many civilians, old men, woman and children, were killed.

This was a reckless use of military power, no different than President Clintion’s bombing of Yugoslavia.

How a Christian could justify these uses of military power, is beyond my understanding.

Jim

[couldn’t resist posting this as an “Amen”, Jim ]

From the column of Sr. Joan Chittister, August 12, 2003:

The “information” on which we based the invasion of Iraq, the rest of world, and we, too, know now, had all been discredited by our own intelligence agencies, as well as by U.N. inspectors, before the first bombs ever dropped.
So much for “preemptive war,” for wars waged on probability theory. Or less.

Clearly pre-emptive war, even for those who have no moral qualms about it, is a very iffy thing.
Which gives new credence to another possibility: Instead of waging preemptive war maybe we could invest ourselves in waging preemptive peace. But how?
“Preemptive Peace,” the theme of [the 2003] annual Pax Christi USA national conference, opened the question to invited guests from around the world, as well as to American scholars, theologians, activists and social analysts.
Etienne de Jonghe, chairperson of Pax Christi International in Belgium, underscored seven issues for particular attention, especially in the United States, if preemptive peace is to be possible. The following summary of those remarks beg for fuller attention:

Different perspectives
Outside the United States, the U.S. invasion of Iraq was seen from two perspectives.
In the Northern Hemisphere, in Europe, people were really worried. The invasion was seen as a complete rejection of public opinion and other political bodies. Europe has become wary of U.S. policy. De Jonghe said, “It has become clear that in Europe you cannot speak about war the way (the U.S.) government speaks about war. People get ‘the shivers.’ We have seen a whole continent destroyed. We know genocide. Seeing war become an instrument, a continuation of political policy, to see our concerns, our political systems, brushed away, has done great harm to the allies.”
In the Southern hemisphere, on the other hand, people remember that the U.S. government supported the powerful there and ignored the poor. “It is the daily struggle for survival, they know, that is the crucial determination of peace,” de Jonghe said.

An informed populace
The United States is the most powerful nation on earth, and the country’s lack of knowledge and information about the rest of the world frightens people outside U.S. borders. “What we see of U.S public opinion makes us afraid. We are really afraid of what we see as the lack of empathy you have about the conditions and attitudes of the rest of the world,” de Jonghe said. “You must bring foreign perspective to the United States. People in the U.S. are handicapped (because) they lack understanding of the outside world.”

•

Reaching Out
We must reach out to the people of the world. Travel is one way to foster this. Exchanges of ideas and experiences helps. “We have to build bridges,” de Jonghe said.

 

[Orionthehunter]

From Ender: Welllll … I’ll certainly grant that I was hard on him. I believe him to be saying that Jesus teaches (Gandhian style) non-violence and I disagree with that characterization. Your comments caused me to go back to his video to see precisely what he did say. Early on in the video he remarks that the desert is a good place “to slow down and follow in the footsteps of Jesus and the path of non-violence”. According to Martin Sheen, his first words as a priest included “and the love of the non-violent Jesus be with you all”. You are correct in that he never specifically states that the Church teaches non-violence but he clearly implies that Jesus did. I don’t mind having my conscience piqued but I find no way to square what Fr. Dear is saying re non-violence with what the Church teaches - and if the Church doesn’t teach non-violence I don’t know why I would aspire to it. But since the Church doesn’t teach non-violence his appeal was not based on what the Church teaches. It might seem self-evident that a peaceful world could be achieved only by renouncing violence, but the Church doesn’t define peace as merely the absence of violence but it also requires the presence of justice.

You disagree with him that is for sure. Yes he is making an appeal to make an extra-ordinary faithful leap toward peace in faith and love for Jesus. So? Your call to arms in defense of the defenseless is also an extra-ordinary faithful leap for justice in faith and love for Jesus. Your response in admonishment is because you disagree w/ him but you don’t want the same admonishment by those who are just as faithful in disagreement with you.

From Ender: I don’t think his position is simply looking at an old problem from a new perspective; I believe it is a distortion of our Catholic responsibilities.

It is looking at our Catholic responsibilities thru a different prism. JimR-OCDS suffers from the same problem as you except his is much more closed. He seems to believe that anyone who disagrees with him is not a good Christian. Note the following quote from Jim:

From JimR-OCDS: How a Christian could justify these uses of military power, is beyond my understanding.

From Ender: I appreciate your comments and if you can cite something he said that would mitigate my view of his position I would be interested in knowing what I missed.

You have to try to get in his head and heart to understand how he sees this as being consistent with Church teaching. He isn’t teaching a heresy. He is teaching a moral response to a problem. You have the same goal (find a moral response to a problem) but your prism saw a differnt problem leading to a different moral response.

From Ender: I missed this in my previous response: what prudential judgment are you referring to? My view of Fr. Dear or my comments on the position of the Church with regard to non-violence? If it is the latter can you explain what the Church teaches on the subject? That’s the point that needs to be cleary defined. If it’s the former, well … you say po-tay-to, I say po-tot-o.

Neither. The wisdom and appropriateness of our initial invasion of Iraq.

 

[Ender]

Yes he is making an appeal to make an extra-ordinary faithful leap toward peace in faith and love for Jesus. So? Your call to arms in defense of the defenseless is also an extra-ordinary faithful leap for justice in faith and love for Jesus. Your response in admonishment is because you disagree w/ him but you don’t want the same admonishment by those who are just as faithful in disagreement with you.

My position is probably narrower than you take it to be and is simply this: does the Church teach that Catholics have a moral duty to be non-violent? I don’t see this as a matter of faith but a question of fact and therefore not open to any answer other than yes or no, with Fr. Dear saying yes and me saying no. One of us is right and the other is wrong. Where do you stand on this point?

I actually have not called for armed defense of the defenseless, what I have said is that the Church recognizes such action as moral and it is one criteria for a just war. I have been trying to define the principles which must be used to categorize an action before applying them in a particular instance (e.g. Iraq).

Ender

 

[Orionthehunter]

Part 2

This being said, one can’t necessarily hide from the consequences of action just because the action was “motivated” by good morality. The action must be proportionate to the problem, deemed realistic to achieve a moral good, and many other judgments. This requires to application of our God-given gift of “reason.”

This is in my mind the beauty and strength of a democracy. The collective reason is most often greater and more often correct than the reason of a single individual. And when determined incorrect, is most likely and often to find a proper “correction”.

This is where I think we are today. The collective motive of the U.S. and its leaders was moral. The collective “reason” (reason is the collective process of thinking thru and determining an action) was appropriate (I was in the minority as was JimR-OCDS as we disagreed with the combined action although for slightly different reasons). Unfortunately, the “reason” has been proven to have included many miscalculations leading to challenges achieving the original goal (improving the lives of Iraqi’s).

While there are two camps on the periphery of the issues (one is holding fast to their original position intervention was wrong and thus withdrawal is the only best solution and the other is holding fast that even with the unforeseen challenges intervention was correct), the vast majority of Americans are in neither camp (regardless of their original position). The reason I believe this to be true is reflected in the following:

President Bush’s over-riding commitment to see the original action through to the end is not supporte by the general public as represented in his dismal approval rating.

At the same time, Democrats are finding that pushing the immediate pull-out or a defined date for withdrawal is opposed by an even greater majority of Americans as reflected in the approval rating of the Democratic leadership below that of President Bush. Personally, I think that Democrats are hurt by a collective conclusion that the motive of Democrat leadership is to score political points against Republicans regardless of what is the best solution for America or Iraq.

It is my opinion that most American’s have “reasoned” that America has a moral obligation to find a solution that attempts to achieve their original motive grounded in respect for the human integrity of Iraqi’s and acheiving peaceful tranquility in the region. This position is grounded in the principle of this from the Catechism: 2304 Respect for and development of human life require peace. Peace is not merely the absence of war, and it is not limited to maintaining a balance of powers between adversaries. Peace cannot be attained on earth without safeguarding the goods of persons, free communication among men, respect for the dignity of persons and peoples, and the assiduous practice of fraternity. Peace is “the tranquillity of order.” Peace is the work of justice and the effect of charity.

From Ender: I actually have not called for armed defense of the defenseless, what I have said is that the Church recognizes such action as moral and it is one criteria for a just war. I have been trying to define the principles which must be used to categorize an action before applying them in a particular instance (e.g. Iraq).

I understand that and support your effort to get JimR to see that as well.

 

[Orionthehunter]

From Ender: My position is probably narrower than you take it to be and is simply this: does the Church teach that Catholics have a moral duty to be non-violent?

Yes. Violence is physical force used to injure or harm done by violating individual rights. But not all force is violent. Police using deadly force to protect or subdue a threat to society isn’t violence. And a country using its military to protect its citizens or the rights of others isn’t violence.

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

From Ender: I don’t see this as a matter of faith but a question of fact and therefore not open to any answer other than yes or no, with Fr. Dear saying yes and me saying no. One of us is right and the other is wrong. Where do you stand on this point?

Judging a particular action right or wrong is not the right question. For example, I punch you in the nose. If it is because I disagree w/ your position on this issue, it is a moral wrong. If it is to subdue you from raping my daughter, I was morally justified in my action. Morality is not always in the act but in the motive/justfication for the act.

It depends first on determination of the “problem” which the action is intended to “solve”. For instance, you saw Iraq as a US defense problem or human rights problem and you determined the proper action was intervention. JimR didn’t see it as a US defense problem and thus couldn’t see any justification for the use of force. Father Dear sees the problem as being a first inclination to use force and thus the solution is to take force off the table.

Ender, these are great acts of faith. When I go to Mass, it is an act of faith that God exists. When I read Scripture, it is an act of faith that what these men wrote is actually inspired by God. It is an act of faith by Fr. Dear to believe that the best counter to violence is pacifism. And, it is an act of faith to believe that extreme force is the remedy to violence.

Both you and JimR-OCDS are judging the action (intervention) as either as morally right or morally wrong. And you are free to make this prudential judgment. But a component of morality requires a judgement of the problem. Let me address both your positions in light of the problem.

JimR-OCDS had determined that intervention was wrong.

If his rationale is “I don’t care about the human condition of Iraqi’s”, his position would be morally wrong as it would be an act based on hatred (lack of concern for others). From the Catechism: 2303 Deliberate hatred is contrary to charity. Hatred of the neighbor is a sin when one deliberately wishes him evil. Hatred of the neighbor is a grave sin when one deliberately desires him grave harm. “But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven.”

If his rationale was related to a position that force is not the correct response to violence, his position would be morally right because it is grounded in an act of faith.

You have determined that intervention was right.

If your rationale was grounded in a desire to extract the natural resources of Iraq for the benefit of America and not the benefit of Iraqi’s, your position would be morally wrong.

If your rationale was grounded in a desire to protect the human dignity of Iraqi’s, your position is morally right. From the Catechism: 2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

See Part 2 below

 

[JimR-OCDS]

My opposition to the war is based on the following;

As with all moral acts the use of force to obtain justice must comply with three conditions to be morally good. First, the act must be good in itself. The use of force to obtain justice is morally licit in itself. Second, it must be done with a good intention, which as noted earlier must be to correct vice, to restore justice or to restrain evil, and not to inflict evil for its own sake. Thirdly, it must be appropriate in the circumstances. An act which may otherwise be good and well motivated can be sinful by reason of imprudent judgment and execution.

I did not believe the Bush administration’s justification for war. I saw it as weak. Justification for going to war, must be overwhelming, not subjective.

In this regard Just War doctrine gives certain conditions for the legitimate exercise of force, all of which must be met:

"1. the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

Who were the aggressors? In this case, we were. Iraq was being contained. Iraq was not a threat to the US or its neighbors. Even Iraq’s neighbors opposed the US invasion.

1. all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

Other means had not been exhausted. UN inspectors were still in Iraq doing their job. Iraq did in fact provide documentation on what they did with their WMD’s. Bush rejected it.

1. there must be serious prospects of success;

Here’s my biggest reason. I saw no chance of success for peace, after taking down Saddam. As I stated before, Islamic law, requires Islamic solutions and in the case of Iraq, we have two different Islamic groups, i.e. Sunni and Shia, who have been killing each other for centuries. We would get caught in the middle of a civil war, not only between Sunni and Shia, but also between waring tribes. Iraq is essentially a land of tribes with flags, not a united nation in the sense of Western Nations.

1. the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition" [CCC 2309].

As I stated before, blowing up entire blocks of people, to kill one man, Saddam Hussein, was a reckless use of military power. In addition to the 100,000 plus Iraqis who were killed during the initial invasion, the war in Iraq has produced evils that we couldn’t imagine.

War is evil and it is violent, have no doubt about it. When people are involved in the act of killing, immoral acts are going to surface. Once immoral acts are committed, and US forces have committed them, then the lesson, (from Mark Kurlansky’s book, “NonViolence,”) “Those who go to war, will end up becoming like their enemy,” proves itself to be true.

This was an unnecessary war, which did not have to be fought. I believed it before the war began and I especially believe it now.

Jim

 

[Orionthehunter]

War is evil and it is violent, have no doubt about it. When people are involved in the act of killing, immoral acts are going to surface. Once immoral acts are committed, and US forces have committed them, then the lesson, (from Mark Kurlansky’s book, “NonViolence,”) “Those who go to war, will end up becoming like their enemy,” proves itself to be true.

While I agree that war isn’t pretty and there are acts of evil in every war, Mr. Kurlansky is not an objective voice of reason in my mind. He didn’t think that the American Revolution, Civil War or WWII were morally justified. And he never expresses any empathy for:

1. The resistance forces inside France and Germany against Hitler (many of whom were Catholics and Jews fighting against being annihilated)
2. The plight of American slaves
3. The people being killed by in the killing fields of Cambodia
4. The human experimentation by the Germans and Japanese during WWII
5. The millions killed by Stalin or Mao

To take the position that non-violence requires one to be accepting of these atrocities and abuses or shouldn’t actively oppose and sometimes using force is way outside of Church teaching.

 

[Ender]

"Ender:

does the Church teach that Catholics have a moral duty to be non-violent?

Yes. Violence is physical force used to injure or harm done by violating individual rights. But not all force is violent. Police using deadly force to protect or subdue a threat to society isn’t violence. And a country using its military to protect its citizens or the rights of others isn’t violence.

You have created a new definition for violence and it makes communication next to impossible. In discussions of the death penalty I have had people insist that an execution by lethal injection is a violent act and now you are claiming that war (in self defense) is not. Essentially what is being claimed by both positions is that just actions are not violent and unjust actions are but the word violence has no moral content. If person A shoots person B that is a violent act regardless of whether it is justified as an act of self defense or an unjustifiable cold blooded murder. The justification of the action doesn’t change its essential nature.

Both you and JimR-OCDS are judging the action (intervention) as either as morally right or morally wrong.

I am trying to ignore Iraq entirely (for the moment). I am claiming that:

• war is always violent
• war is not always morally wrong
• therefore it is a mistake of fact to claim that Catholics are morally obliged to avoid all war
• this demonstrates that Gandhi and Fr. Dear are mistaken in claiming that Catholics are morally obliged to be non-violent

I really never expected to have to debate whether or not war was violent.

Ender

 

[Orionthehunter]

You have created a new definition for violence and it makes communication next to impossible. In discussions of the death penalty I have had people insist that an execution by lethal injection is a violent act and now you are claiming that war (in self defense) is not. Essentially what is being claimed by both positions is that just actions are not violent and unjust actions are but the word violence has no moral content. If person A shoots person B that is a violent act regardless of whether it is justified as an act of self defense or an unjustifiable cold blooded murder. The justification of the action doesn’t change its essential nature.
I am trying to ignore Iraq entirely (for the moment). I am claiming that:

• war is always violent
• war is not always morally wrong
• therefore it is a mistake of fact to claim that Catholics are morally obliged to avoid all war
• this demonstrates that Gandhi and Fr. Dear are mistaken in claiming that Catholics are morally obliged to be non-violent

I really never expected to have to debate whether or not war was violent.

Ender

Ender, I should have referenced directly the dictionary:

Websters definition of Violence:

1. Physical force used so as to injure
2. Powerful force, as of a hurricane
3. Harm done as in violating rights, etc.
4. Violent act or deed

Words gain meaning by context which gives connotation.

Let’s look at a single act. I shoot somebody.

If I did it with the intent to injure or murder, I committed a violent act or deed.

If I did with the intent to suppress their capacity to kill me or another, I used legitimate force to stop an evil.

Thus, I reject your premise that I bolded above. The word violence connotes and has a context that implies an evil. The rationale or justification does change its nature.

Ender, I think this “debate” is relevant. JimR-OCDS in many ways equates the use of force as violence. This is a common context used by pacifists and Fr. Dear. There is nothing wrong with this as it is their intent to do so from their prism.

The context with which you describe the justification for war or use of force is different. You use it in the context of an intent to suppress or eliminate an evil (denial of human rights). In my mind, your allowing violence and force to be the same causes confusion and misunderstanding.

There is violent (intent to injure and violate human rights) force which is never permitted and there is legitimate force which is permitted.

Thus, as Catholics, we are called to be non-violent as in not "causing harm as in violating human rights or with the intent to injure (note just because injury or death is a by-product of war or force, it isn’t the intent. The intent is to eliminate an abuse or threat).

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

I also refer you to 2304 which I posted previously.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

QUOTE

While I agree that war isn’t pretty and there are acts of evil in every war, Mr. Kurlansky is not an objective voice of reason in my mind. He didn’t think that the American Revolution, Civil War or WWII were morally justified. And he never expresses any empathy for:

Actually the American Revolution did not fit under the Just War Doctrine. The War was fought over taxation and representation, against a legitimate government, and it was fought in favor of property owners, not all the people. In fact, the revolution did not have the support of the majority of Americans, in the beginning. Lynching of people who remained loyal to the British were common. Also, read about the Shays Rebellion to see how the founding father’s viewed taxation, when it wasn’t the political powers who would be paying.

1. The resistance forces inside France and Germany against Hitler (many of whom were Catholics and Jews fighting against being annihilated)

This would fit under the Just War doctrine, I don’t a problem with fighting necessary wars. However, Kurlansky does give examples of where the use of nonviolence during WWII, saved more lives than the use of violence. Also, I don’t agree completely with Kurlansky. I took him to be a little anti-Catholic, especially where he mentions nothing about Pope John Paul II’s role in getting the Soviet Union out of Poland. He also give no credit to Ronald Reagan in his part for taking down the Soviet Union, except that it was done without firing a shot.

1. The plight of American slaves

There is plenty of speculation on whether the slavery couldve been abolished without war. But we’ll never know.

1. The people being killed by in the killing fields of Cambodia

1. The human experimentation by the Germans and Japanese during WWII

1. The millions killed by Stalin or Mao

These may or may not fit into the Just War Doctrine. I never denied that there is no just wars, but that all wars are evil, even though sometimes necessary. In war there is evil even on our part.

To take the position that non-violence requires one to be accepting of these atrocities and abuses or shouldn’t actively oppose and sometimes using force is way outside of Church teaching.

No, this isn’t the position of “nonviolence.” Accepting atrocities and abuses while doing nothing is “pacifism.” Nonviolence is activism against injustice, but without the use of violence.

Jim

 

[Ender]

Websters definition of Violence:

1. Physical force used so as to injure
2. Powerful force, as of a hurricane
3. Harm done as in violating rights, etc.
4. Violent act or deed

I think we both agree with definitions 1, 2, and 4, the sticking point seems to be 3. I see this definition as an addition to the other three; it makes the category of violent actions even more inclusive. That is, it brings in actions than do not meet the other criteria. You appear to use it to diminish the extent of the others by holding that unless an action meets criteria 3 the other criteria don’t matter. These definitions are not dependent on one another; if an action meets any of the criteria it is a violent act. I also think that the “violence” in 3 is figurative (as in “violated”), not literal.

The word violence connotes and has a context that implies an evil.

This is true only of definition 3; what is there to indicate that this is the controlling definition? Clearly 2 is independent of 3 and there is nothing that implies that 1 and 4 are not equally independent. If the definitions are in some way dependent why would you not assume that the first one modified the others?

JimR-OCDS in many ways equates the use of force as violence. This is a common context used by pacifists and Fr. Dear. … The context with which you describe the justification for war or use of force is different. You use it in the context of an intent to suppress or eliminate an evil (denial of human rights).

I think I’m using “violent” the same way Fr. Dear is; I feel sure that he believes all wars (defensive or otherwise) are violent.

I keep trying to get to some point on which we agree. I would have expected that point was “all war is violent” but that’s not the case … so that’s all I’m trying to do now - resolve this question.

Ender

 

[JimR-OCDS]

• this demonstrates that Gandhi and Fr. Dear are mistaken in claiming that Catholics are morally obliged to be non-violent

I don’t believe that Gandhi, (I have not heard or read Fr. Dear) are saying this. In fact, Gandhi himself said that nonviolence was only permissible by those who are spiritually strong. He also taught, which is part of Hinduism, to do nothing to stop brutality against another human being would be immoral. However, the action to stop the brutality must first through nonviolent means.

Christians are obligated first, to be nonviolent. This does not mean pacifism. It does not mean not using force when absolutely necessary. It means taking on the spirit of nonviolence and to use nonviolence before violence. Again, this takes the spiritually strong to carry it out in action.

Jim

 

[Ender]

Christians are obligated first, to be nonviolent. This does not mean pacifism. It does not mean not using force when absolutely necessary. It means taking on the spirit of nonviolence and to use nonviolence before violence.

I don’t think anyone is trying to justify the use of violence where it is not necessary; I am simply claiming that violence is defined by the nature of the action and has nothing to do with its justification. I think your definition would be clearer if you said that there are justifiable and unjustifiable uses of violence and resorting to violence prematurely is unjustifiable. I could live with that.

Ender

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I think your definition would be clearer if you said that there are justifiable and unjustifiable uses of violence and resorting to violence prematurely is unjustifiable. I could live with that.

Ender

I thought I did, my apologies if I was not clear. Also, I defined the difference between pacifism and nonviolence, early on.

I also stated that standing by and watching a person being brutalized and not doing anything, would be immoral.

The subject quickly turned to war, specifically the war in Iraq.

I do not believe the war in Iraq, was in accord with the Just War Doctrine.

There are very few wars that could fit under the Just War.

Also, throughout history, there are few instances where nonviolence was used and this is because the call to war is easier to sell than nonviolent means. However, in the instances where nonviolence was used, it was more successful than violence.

Jim

 

[Orionthehunter]

I think we both agree with definitions 1, 2, and 4, the sticking point seems to be 3. I see this definition as an addition to the other three; it makes the category of violent actions even more inclusive. That is, it brings in actions than do not meet the other criteria. You appear to use it to diminish the extent of the others by holding that unless an action meets criteria 3 the other criteria don’t matter. These definitions are not dependent on one another; if an action meets any of the criteria it is a violent act. I also think that the “violence” in 3 is figurative (as in “violated”), not literal. This is true only of definition 3; what is there to indicate that this is the controlling definition? Clearly 2 is independent of 3 and there is nothing that implies that 1 and 4 are not equally independent. If the definitions are in some way dependent why would you not assume that the first one modified the others? I think I’m using “violent” the same way Fr. Dear is; I feel sure that he believes all wars (defensive or otherwise) are violent.

I keep trying to get to some point on which we agree. I would have expected that point was “all war is violent” but that’s not the case … so that’s all I’m trying to do now - resolve this question.

Ender

I don’t think anyone is trying to justify the use of violence where it is not necessary; I am simply claiming that violence is defined by the nature of the action and has nothing to do with its justification. I think your definition would be clearer if you said that there are justifiable and unjustifiable uses of violence and resorting to violence prematurely is unjustifiable. I could live with that.

Ender

Ender, the word violent or violence or derivatives from the same Latin root (violentus) has an immediate negative connotation. This is my point. Note the following:

• To violate _________:
• _________ does violence to our sense of right, to the dignity of others, to the intent of the author.
• What do you think when you hear the phrases “act of violence, or crimes of violence”?
• Or, one could describe a person’s tone as “violent” or “impassioned”. Which do you think has a negative connotation.

The word violence is used 17 times in the Catechism and every time its context was related to a wrong. When they talk about just war, they use the words “force” or “action” etc.

Or from an online dictionary to help writers accurately portray thoughts and context.

violence
noun

1. The state or quality of being violent.

Thesaurus: brutality, destructiveness, ferocity, frenzy, savagery, turbulence, wildness; Antonym: passivity, peacefulness.
2. Violent behaviour.

Thesaurus: brutality, conflict, destructiveness, bloodshed, ferocity, fighting, frenzy, hostilities, savagery, terrorism.
Idiom: do violence to someone or something

To harm them or it physically.
To spoil or ruin them or it.
To distort their meaning or significance.
Etymology: 13c: from Latin violentus, from vis force.

 

[Ender]

the word violent or violence or derivatives from the same Latin root (violentus) has an immediate negative connotation. This is my point.

I understand the connotation but it seems a great stretch to insist that the word therefore only applies to wrong uses of force but not to force used rightly. This rule cannot be sensibly applied: take the battle of Midway. We were attacked by the Japanese so our war in response was justified, their war of aggression was not. If I apply your restriction on the word violent I could say that we won the battle through the non-violent means. It would mean that when they bombed, strafed, and torpedoed our carriers that was violent but when we bombed, strafed, and torpedoed theirs it wasn’t. I don’t believe there is a person alive who has gone through battle who would reject the word violent to describe his actions.

The word violence is used 17 times in the Catechism and every time its context was related to a wrong. When they talk about just war, they use the words “force” or “action” etc.

Yes, and I’m sure that the authors were happy to employ the negative connotation, just as they employed euphemisms with neutral connotations like “lethal force” instead of “kill” when that better suited their purpose. These are the devices of authors, not moral distinctions.

The word violent, regardless of its placement in the Catechism, contains no moral denotation. That has to come from the context of the action it describes.

Ender