The American experiment and Catholic Just War Doctrine

[RWMorris]

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.
– Thomas Jefferson

If a majority in a democracy decided to end individual liberty (revoke the Bill of Rights), what recourse does the minority have within the confines of Catholic Just War Doctrine?

 

[sheila0405]

huh? Can you give a bit more detail? Are you referring to a Civil War? Is a Civil War ever just?

 

[Genesis315]

It depends what rights we’re talking about–not all the rights in the Bill of Rights are God-given–some would better be termed privileges granted by the state.

 

[mom24boys]

It depends what rights we’re talking about–not all the rights in the Bill of Rights are God-given–some would better be termed privileges granted by the state.

Which of our rights are actually “privileges granted by the state”?

 

[Genesis315]

Which of our rights are actually “privileges granted by the state”?

For example, the right to a trial by jury (7th Amend.) is not some innate right. There are other ways judgment can be rendered justly and legitimately (and any manner is fine, as long as it is exercised justly–just like any form of government is fine as long as it governs justly).

 

[vern_humphrey]

Which of our rights are actually “privileges granted by the state”?

There are fundamental rights – such as the right to life – and procedural rights, such as the right to trial by jury. The case can be made that the latter are “priviliges granted by the state” since there are other ways of holding a fair trial.

However, ever since the Supreme Court took it upon itself to declare the unborn have no right to life, can we really say we have any rights any more that are not “privileges granted by the state”?

 

[RWMorris]

huh? Can you give a bit more detail? Are you referring to a Civil War? Is a Civil War ever just?

A civil war is one possibility, but I would tend to think of it as a revolutionary war, but these are just words. Is it ever permissible for a minority to take up arms against a tyrannical majority?

 

[vern_humphrey]

A civil war is one possibility, but I would tend to think of it as a revolutionary war, but these are just words. Is it ever permissible for a minority to take up arms against a tyrannical majority?

The answer to that is yes. We are not ants or bees, a collectivized species. We are individuals, with individual souls, needs and aspirations.

Therefore every individual has rights, and every individual has a duty to defend his rights when they are intollerably threatened – because by doing so, he really defends all human rights.

Similarly, a small group, unjustly tyrannized by a majority, has both a right and a duty to defend itself.

 

[RWMorris]

It depends what rights we’re talking about–not all the rights in the Bill of Rights are God-given–some would better be termed privileges granted by the state.

One could argue that the concept of God-given rights is a uniquely American concept; man’s unalienable rights is an American philosophical creation. You may not agree with this, and I hope you don’t. While our Constitution framed many of these rights in a uniquely American way, the underlying concepts are as old as man himself. I’m not sure if they are God-given, but they are certainly God-inspired.

Having said this, do we have a “right” to defend those rights under Catholic Just War Doctrine?

 

[vern_humphrey]

One could argue that the concept of God-given rights is a uniquely American concept; man’s unalienable rights is an American philosophical creation. You may not agree with this, and I hope you don’t. While our Constitution framed many of these rights in a uniquely American way, the underlying concepts are as old as man himself. I’m not sure if they are God-given, but they are certainly God-inspired.

Having said this, do we have a “right” to defend those rights under Catholic Just War Doctrine?

How would we not have a right to defend our rights? In the end, all evils done to man by man come down to violations of rights. And we clearly have a right to defend ourselves against evil.

 

[RWMorris]

…–just like any form of government is fine as long as it governs justly).

I’m not sure if I agree with this. Justice can be a rather abstract idea. One man’s justice is another man’s injustice. Just look at the many debates that rage in this country: gun control, immigration, abortion, public education, health care, etc. A democracy that allows the majority absolute power is just as much a tyranny as a minority holding absolute power.

There are some forms of government that are evil.

 

[RWMorris]

How would we not have a right to defend our rights? In the end, all evils done to man by man come down to violations of rights. And we clearly have a right to defend ourselves against evil.

I completely agree, but where in Just War Doctrine is this allowed? What if a democracy, such as the US, decides through perfectly legal (just?) means to do away with individual rights because “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one”? I know this may seem a frivolous argument to some, but the danger is always there.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I completely agree, but where in Just War Doctrine is this allowed? What if a democracy, such as the US, decides through perfectly legal (just?) means to do away with individual rights because “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one”? I know this may seem a frivolous argument to some, but the danger is always there.

“Legal” and “just” are two different things. At one time, it was legal to own slaves, segregate people by race, involuntarily sterilize the “feeble minded” and so on – in this country.

Probably the greatest document ever written on this subject addressed the question succinctly:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers form the consent of the governed.

That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

Now let’s look at the issue of Just War as discussed in the Catechism:

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.

Clearly, a tyrannical government can cause all of the four elements to come into play at once. And therefore the people have the right “to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government.”

 

[RWMorris]

“Legal” and “just” are two different things…

Amen! Abortion is clearly legal, but it is not just.

Clearly, a tyrannical government can cause all of the four elements to come into play at once. And therefore the people have the right “to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government.”

But what if there is no physical damage inflicted, there is no aggressor (just the government), and there are not serious prospects for success (as is the case during most wars of revolution)? I hate to sound legalistic, but there are many who would be in such situations.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Amen! Abortion is clearly legal, but it is not just.

But what if there is no physical damage inflicted,

What do you account “physical damage?” Is unjust imprisonment “physical damage?” It blighting the lives of the citizens, condemning generations to poverty “physical damage?”

there is no aggressor (just the government),

Consider the case of Darfur – an aggressor can come in many forms, including that of “unofficial” thugs and oppressors.

and there are not serious prospects for success (as is the case during most wars of revolution)?

I am reminded of an Irish politician who told the IRA, “You have no chance of winning.”

P. O’Neill replied, “That’s what the war is all about, isn’t it?”

I hate to sound legalistic, but there are many who would be in such situations.

There are a great many who live under oppressive governments, and whose descendents will live under them if nothing is done.

 

[RWMorris]

…There are a great many who live under oppressive governments, and whose descendents will live under them if nothing is done.

Well Vern, that leads me to a second question, and it is one that stands on a slippery slope. Is it ever permissible for another country to come to the aid of a minority that is being oppressed, such as Darfur?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Well Vern, that leads me to a second question, and it is one that stands on a slippery slope. Is it ever permissible for another country to come to the aid of a minority that is being oppressed, such as Darfur?

Certainly. Have we not come to the aid of many countries in the past – such as France, England, Kosovo and so on?

The question is, to what extent can we come to their aid? In the case of Darfur, I have said several times, “Anyone who wants to change what’s happening in Darfur had better be prepared to expend large quantities of ammunition.”

In other words, there is already a war in Darfur, and those who intervene can only deal with force by opposing it with counter-force. Now, would that intervention meet the standards for a “just war?” I leave that to you.

 

[SoCalRC]

If a majority in a democracy decided to end individual liberty (revoke the Bill of Rights), what recourse does the minority have within the confines of Catholic Just War Doctrine?

None. Since first proposed by St. Augustine Just War has been restricted to criteria including authorization by appopriate authority.

 

[vern_humphrey]

None. Since first proposed by St. Augustine Just War has been restricted to criteria including authorization by appopriate authority.

In fact, that has no bearing on the issue, since:

A tyrannical government forfiets its right to govern.

A people fighting for their rights have the right to form their own authority.

A good example is the American Revolution, where the Crown usurped the rights of the people and lost its right to govern, and the people formed the Congress to govern the new nation.

 

[SoCalRC]

In fact, that has no bearing on the issue, since:

Yes, it answered the precise question, so I can see how it has no bearing…

A people fighting for their rights have the right to form their own authority.

A good example is the American Revolution, where the Crown usurped the rights of the people and lost its right to govern, and the people formed the Congress to govern the new nation.

That is actually a surprisingly complicated example. At its inception, republicanism in America was actually a militant minority, provoking responses from Britian which, in turn, shaped public opinion. And there also was a fierce class battle within the revolutionary movement itself. In this case, the results are favorable and a nation was formed, but it is hard to tell the difference between, say, ‘Americas original Patriots’ and the Ku Klux Klan.

For example, Nova Scotia has a lot of descendants of “Black Loyalists”, slaves who fought for the British in return for promises of freedom and land grants. The idea that ‘right’ was on the side of the slave owners, not the slaves fighting for freedom, is the result of hindsight. History is always simpler when viewed this way.

Although we can fight the “right of rebellion” throughout history, it is not particularly obvious in Christianity. For example, can you show the basis for military revolt in Church doctrine? Early Christians believed exactly the opposite, at least with regards to Rome. Ultimately, there were rewarded by God, going from the oppressed to rule in just a few centuries.