The American experiment and Catholic Just War Doctrine

  • Thread starter Thread starter RWMorris
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It isn’t. The point is that one has to be careful not to embrace evil for even ‘good’ ends. Rome went to considerable lengths to try to prevent the US’s foray into preventive, unilateral war, but violence was not an allowable tactic. Killing all the signatories of the PNAC mission statement, who seemingly had been fantasizing about a US invasion of Iraq since the mid to early 90s, might well have saved hundreds of thousands of innocent lives, but evil means lead to evil ends.

Frankly, I agree with Pope Benedict. This type of moral relativism, the widespread trend of tolerating grave evils for the sake of a few isolated ‘moral’ goals, is quite likely the greatest threat to the Church today.
But, what about outside the context of this particular war?
 
*2265

Quote:
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 think the issue is the prudential judgment concerning when to enact such measures. For example do the targets have the option to simply move and thus leave no one dead or physically injured? Some will kill a trespasser or maybe a tax collector calming to save future generations from undue hardship. So they may believe such a killing just when it was not. How many people believe the US to be an unjust aggressor of Iraq?
My point was violence to save innocents is not always evil or inconsistent with the Gospel imperative.
 
Do you have sources/links for St. Thomas Aquinas’ and St. Robert Bellarmine’s statements to this effect?
(ST II-II, 42, 2 ad 3) “A tyrannical government is not just, because it is directed, not to the common good, but to the private good of the ruler, as the Philosopher states (Polit. iii, 5; Ethic. viii, 10). Consequently there is no sedition in disturbing a government of this kind, unless indeed the tyrant’s rule be disturbed so inordinately, that his subjects suffer greater harm from the consequent disturbance than from the tyrant’s government. Indeed it is the tyrant rather that is guilty of sedition, since he encourages discord and sedition among his subjects, that he may lord over them more securely; for this is tyranny, being conducive to the private good of the ruler, and to the injury of the multitude.

Ender
 
QUOD APOSTOLICI MUNERIS (On Socialism), Pope Leo XIII was the first in 1878, and the Church has never officially backed down. Several Popes since then have expanded those teachings; Quadragesimo Anno [1931] of Pius XI and in Mater et Magistra [1961] of John XXIII. Pope Paul II and our current Pope have also spoken out about the evils of socialism.
Thank you
The issue is do you and I mean “socialism” as these Popes did? I do not know anybody who uses the word in that context today and that is probably where our confusion lies. Today most refer to socialism as government influence of most or all activities(like 40% tax rates). However, when the Popes used the term they were referring to direct government ownership of all assets. The two are considerably different. To quote and unknown author " All communist are socialist but not all socialists are communist" and thus the problem the Popes were speaking of communal states which meant children were of the group, humanism was the religion, man was discouraged from using his will, etc…
hope that helps
 
Thank you
The issue is do you and I mean “socialism” as these Popes did? I do not know anybody who uses the word in that context today and that is probably where our confusion lies. Today most refer to socialism as government influence of most or all activities(like 40% tax rates). However, when the Popes used the term they were referring to direct government ownership of all assets. The two are considerably different. To quote and unknown author " All communist are socialist but not all socialists are communist" and thus the problem the Popes were speaking of communal states which meant children were of the group, humanism was the religion, man was discouraged from using his will, etc…
hope that helps
You are welcome

I don’t think there is a difference in socialism, only in degrees of effort. Modern socialists now accept that state ownership of all industry is a really stupid idea. So they seek to control through regulation & taxation. As far as social policies socialism hasn’t changed one bit. It is a path that ultimately leads to atheism, humanism, destruction of liberty, and finally death of the family. It is the opposite of conservatism

I’m not talking about Republicanism, so don’t go all political on me.
 
The United States has defacto dumped a lot of the Bill of Rights already … as a result of Supreme Court decisions and also as a result of everyone looking the other way (10th Amendment, for example).

But to officially abandon the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in a formal way would require a formal Constitutional Convention or at the least, an amendment which would have to be ratified by Congress and by the States … a very elaborate process.
 
The United States has defacto dumped a lot of the Bill of Rights already … as a result of Supreme Court decisions and also as a result of everyone looking the other way (10th Amendment, for example).

But to officially abandon the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in a formal way would require a formal Constitutional Convention or at the least, an amendment which would have to be ratified by Congress and by the States … a very elaborate process.
You are very, very correct. The first amendment has been distorted, almost beyond recognition. The second amendment has been abandoned by several states and cities. The 10th amendment was basically set aside by the Supreme Court itself. And very few people are saying much. Why should the government go to all the trouble to change the Constitution when they can just ignore it.
 
So who would you kill to stop the ethnic and tribal genocide?
You guard food convoys. You defeat attempts to stop and block the convoys. You protect people. You seek out and neutralize the leaders of the various violent groups.
It is actually an interesting comparison, since the situation is the perpetuation of a long cycle of violence.
Which it is why it can only be stopped with the defeat of one side or the other.
I was referring to the fact that nearly a billion people have been effected by non violent resistance movements in just the last few decades. But since you raised the point, if you think guns and might are the answer in Darfur, how can you vote GOP in good faith?
I assume you think your question has some meaning, but whatever it is, it escapes me.
Funny, the early Christians used this against Rome and seemed to not only survive extinction, but thrive and prosper.
No, they didn’t – and to say they did indicates a very shallow understanding of Christian history.

Christians prayed. But they also hid. They operated underground networks. They communicated in code. They used bribery, subterfuge, and secret networks of friends. And at times, they capitulated and then sprung back when the heat was off (that’s what the Donatist heresy is all about.)

Christians also vigorously proclaimed their loyalty to the Empire, and publicly prayed for the success of the Emperor’s Armies.

Christians served in the Army – in such numbers that a contender for the Imperial throne, Constantine, was able not only to attract support by favoring the Christians, but sap support from his opponent.
But, again, it is a huge leap of faith. You have to take the risk that following Christ, even at the cost of this life, will not go unrewarded. Of course it is much easier to cling to the life we see and know, even at the expense of others, but is that what Jesus did?
Jesus expected us to work, not to sit on our thumbs and allow evil to continue.
If you truly believe He is our Lord, how can you doubt that he had the power to preserve his own life?
Are you telling me that I don’t believe He could preserve His own life?

Please give me a quote justifying that false accusation.
Could he not have crushed his foes? But the example he set on the day of his own crucifixion was comletely different. He comforted the women, gave solice to the prisoner beside Him, and asked for the forgiveness of His persecutors.

You seem to be arguing that following that example is impractical because it can get you killed. But if you belief in His word, His new covenant, how does the ‘getting killed’ part really matter?
Again and again and again, you seek to recast your opponents’ arguments, accusing them of saying things they didn’t say, attributing to them positions they never took.

Would Jesus do a thing like that?😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top