Question on the morality of being in the Army/fighting in a war?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kouyate42
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Kouyate42

Guest
As per the thread title, this is a question about both being a soldier and also about war in general.

Back in my old church, I met quite a few people whose work revolved around the Army, both as actual Army soldiers, and also in defence engineering and other combat-related jobs,

Something that struck me in talking to many of them was the many worries they had that their jobs and their responsibilities were in massive conflict with their Christian beliefs. The soldier I met often wondered if the battles he fought in were truly just.

Now I know there’s all sorts of religious people in the Army, but I’m wondering what sort of theology the Church and the Christian religion in general teaches regarding war and about the idea of Christians being involved in fighting.

A popular theory I’ve heard is the idea of ‘just war’ theory, similar in some ways to Islamic teachings.

Does anyone know anything about this?
 
One thing to bear in mind is that only a small minority of military specialties are involved with dispensing death and destruction. I was in the United States Air Force for almost 11 years, and after basic training, I never fired a weapon again.
 
Catholic teaching does provide for the circumstance of a “Just War” but this is rare. In the present day there is almost no reason for military forces to be anything but defense based, according to the Catechism:
2307 The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war.105
2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.
However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."106
2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
  • the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
  • all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
  • there must be serious prospects of success;
  • the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.
The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
2310 Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense.
Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.107
2311 Public authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms; these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way.108
2312 The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. "The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties."109
2313 Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely.
Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out. Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide.
2314 "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation."110 A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes.
2315 The accumulation of arms strikes many as a paradoxically suitable way of deterring potential adversaries from war. They see it as the most effective means of ensuring peace among nations. This method of deterrence gives rise to strong moral reservations. The arms race does not ensure peace. Far from eliminating the causes of war, it risks aggravating them. Spending enormous sums to produce ever new types of weapons impedes efforts to aid needy populations;111 it thwarts the development of peoples. Over-armament multiplies reasons for conflict and increases the danger of escalation.
2316 The production and the sale of arms affect the common good of nations and of the international community. Hence public authorities have the right and duty to regulate them. The short-term pursuit of private or collective interests cannot legitimate undertakings that promote violence and conflict among nations and compromise the international juridical order.
2317 Injustice, excessive economic or social inequalities, envy, distrust, and pride raging among men and nations constantly threaten peace and cause wars. Everything done to overcome these disorders contributes to building up peace and avoiding war…
 
As per the thread title, this is a question about both being a soldier and also about war in general.

Back in my old church, I met quite a few people whose work revolved around the Army, both as actual Army soldiers, and also in defence engineering and other combat-related jobs,

Something that struck me in talking to many of them was the many worries they had that their jobs and their responsibilities were in massive conflict with their Christian beliefs. The soldier I met often wondered if the battles he fought in were truly just.

Now I know there’s all sorts of religious people in the Army, but I’m wondering what sort of theology the Church and the Christian religion in general teaches regarding war and about the idea of Christians being involved in fighting.

A popular theory I’ve heard is the idea of ‘just war’ theory, similar in some ways to Islamic teachings.

Does anyone know anything about this?
There is nothing immoral about being in the armed forces.

CCC 2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.

However, “as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed.”

CCC 2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
  • the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
  • all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
  • there must be serious prospects of success;
  • the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

CCC 2310 Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense.

Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.

CCC 2311 Public authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms; these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way.

CCC 2312 The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. “The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties.”

CCC 2313 Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely.

Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out. Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide.

CCC 2314 “Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation.” A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes.
 
As per the thread title, this is a question about both being a soldier and also about war in general.

Back in my old church, I met quite a few people whose work revolved around the Army, both as actual Army soldiers, and also in defence engineering and other combat-related jobs,

Something that struck me in talking to many of them was the many worries they had that their jobs and their responsibilities were in massive conflict with their Christian beliefs. The soldier I met often wondered if the battles he fought in were truly just.

Now I know there’s all sorts of religious people in the Army, but I’m wondering what sort of theology the Church and the Christian religion in general teaches regarding war and about the idea of Christians being involved in fighting.

A popular theory I’ve heard is the idea of ‘just war’ theory, similar in some ways to Islamic teachings.

Does anyone know anything about this?
Unfortunately, most military action could not be called “just”. I now believe that any act to support an unjust military action is immoral. The exception would be care for the wounded, and also supporting the spiritual and emotional needs of combatants. Anyone signing up agrees to support military action to the best of his or her ability, regardless of the moral probity of the action. The only exceptions to this are outlined in the UCMJ.

I disagree with those who say that a non-combat job is OK. Such jobs are vital to the support of the mission, and a critical part of it. Therefore, they directly support the action.
 
Unfortunately, most military action could not be called “just”. I now believe that any act to support an unjust military action is immoral. The exception would be care for the wounded, and also supporting the spiritual and emotional needs of combatants. Anyone signing up agrees to support military action to the best of his or her ability, regardless of the moral probity of the action. The only exceptions to this are outlined in the UCMJ.

I disagree with those who say that a non-combat job is OK. Such jobs are vital to the support of the mission, and a critical part of it. Therefore, they directly support the action.
"The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good."

The Church teaches that deciding if a war is just or not is up to the Government sending the armed forces into conflict and the Church says that non-combat support of the military in such operations is not immoral.
The Church teaching trumps your personal opinions on this.
 
"The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good."

The Church teaches that deciding if a war is just or not is up to the Government sending the armed forces into conflict and the Church says that non-combat support of the military in such operations is not immoral.
The Church teaching trumps your personal opinions on this.
Wasn’t that the question they considered at Nuremberg? Whether individuals in a military have a responsibility for the morality of the actions they were ordered to perform? You are claiming the Church would have been in the side of the Nazis who claimed “I was only following orders”.
 
"The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good."

The Church teaches that deciding if a war is just or not is up to the Government sending the armed forces into conflict and the Church says that non-combat support of the military in such operations is not immoral.
I dunno… it could be said that all Christians have a responsibility to look after the common good.

Certainly the US bishops have supported the idea of selective conscientious objection, an individual who is not totally opposed to ever participating in the military. Such an individual might object to a particular war as unjust, or to a particular means of combat as unjust.
We are not only concerned about the status of the conscientious objector, but also concerned about that of the Selective Conscientious Objector. His status is complicated by the fact that his claim for exemption is not upheld by law. The American bishops spoke at some length in their pastoral letter of November, 1968, Human Life in Our Day, of the Selective Conscientious Objector, recommending —
a modification of the Selective Service Act making it possible, although, not easy, for so-called selective conscientious objectors to refuse—without fear of imprisonment or loss of citizenship—to serve in wars which they consider unjust or in branches of service (e.g., the strategic nuclear forces) which would subject them to the performance of actions contrary to deeply held moral convictions about indiscriminate killing. In reaffirming this recommendation, we are reminded of the number of individuals who have suffered imprisonment or have left the country because they felt compelled to follow their conscience rather than the law. In a continuing pastoral concern for their welfare, we urge civil officials, as part of a revision of the law as regards to the Selective Conscientious Objector, to consider granting amnesty to those who have suffered imprisonment and give those who have left the country an opportunity to demonstrate that they are sincere objectors.
old.usccb.org/sdwp/peace/objector.shtml

NB: the document dates from the era when the US had a military draft, and persons were involuntarily conscripted into the military. That situation has not existed for 35 years.
 
Something that struck me in talking to many of them was the many worries they had that their jobs and their responsibilities were in massive conflict with their Christian beliefs. The soldier I met often wondered if the battles he fought in were truly just. ?
I am not familiar with the laws in the UK regarding military service. But in the US, if you in the military service, you are forfeiting the right to decide whether or not to participate in any given war. This is seen as a necessary requirement of an effective military.

In the US, if anyone has qualms about turning over that decision to government and military leaders, they shouldn’t join the military. I am not sure if the situation is the same in the UK, but it may be worth looking into.
 
I am not familiar with the laws in the UK regarding military service. But in the US, if you in the military service, you are forfeiting the right to decide whether or not to participate in any given war. This is seen as a necessary requirement of an effective military.

In the US, if anyone has qualms about turning over that decision to government and military leaders, they shouldn’t join the military. I am not sure if the situation is the same in the UK, but it may be worth looking into.
It’s not quite that simple. Each individual is responsible for compliance with the Law of Armed Conflict. While this does not provide an excuse to separate from the service if a member doesn’t agree with a specific conflict, it does require members to comply with the LOAC in how the conflict is conducted. An individual member is not excused for committing a violation because he or she is just following orders. With that, an individual member is required to refuse to obey an order that is illegal and would result in an LOAC violation. Of course, a member carries out that responsibility at his or her own risk, as all orders are presumed to be legal unless demonstrated otherwise.

In my 21 year military career, I, personally only ran into one questionable situation: the bombardment of Serbian targets during the liberation attempt over Kosovo. I believed that the effort was not legal, as it did not receive Congressional approval, nor did it receive UNSC approval. It did receive NATO blessing, but, since it did not involve a military threat to any NATO member, I believed they did not have the authority to authorize the action. Having said that, my personal contributions were not such that I’d be directly accountable for a war crime, nor am I aware of any specific violations of LOAC, but the whole thing was dirty.

As for declining to participate, actually a person can file for conscientious objector status at anytime. but the objection has to be against war, in general, not against a specific conflict. And obviously, the time to raise those concerns is not as the objector’s unit is mobilizing for deployment.
 
Henry V, Act 4 Scene 1
BATES
Ay, or more than we should seek after; for we know
enough, if we know we are the kings subjects: if
his cause be wrong, our obedience to the king wipes
the crime of it out of us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top