The American experiment and Catholic Just War Doctrine

[vern_humphrey]

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

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.

Again, no bearing on the question – despite your comparing American patriots with the KKK.

 

[mapleoak]

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?”

This can apply to how one casts their vote as well.

 

[Ender]

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

I cannot believe this is correct. I am aware of the requirement that the right to go to war belongs to the state and not the individual. Aquinas explains the three requirements of a just war (Summa Theologica II-II, 30,1):

“First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged. …”

But he continues:

*"… For it is not the business of a private individual to declare war, because he can seek for redress of his rights from the tribunal of his superior."

*This is the whole point of a revolution: the individual has lost his rights due to the actions of his superior and there is no one to whom he can appeal. I have not yet found a specific statement that addresses this point but I cannot believe that there are no circumstances where it is just to revolt against a wicked government. It is too illogical to believe otherwise.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I think your cart and horse are miss aligned

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?

This can not happen because the majority are under Natural Moral Law. If the majority voted to become Islam based that would make many need to leave but not fight

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?

It is the majority who either go against the minority or minority 1 verses minority 2

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.

Their are no evil forms of government. Evil men can operate a government. Justice is to be treated fairly, not to have every wrong righted. ie OJ Simpson was fairly tried so he received justice, even though he received no US punishment for his action

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.

Each man has inalienable rights which in both flight and fight. Many choose the wrong one. Jesus shows us how to live under tyranny, however we are not to assist tyranny.

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 from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of 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 shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.- Thomas Jefferson 1776

Just War doctrine is really a different thing. It is based on your nation going into armed conflict which involves killing others for a greater good which will be achieved or is likely to be achieved. Is there a greater good? is it sufficient for the deaths needed? is success likely? These are just war issues

 

[SoCalRC]

Ender:
This is the whole point of a revolution: the individual has lost his rights due to the actions of his superior and there is no one to whom he can appeal. I have not yet found a specific statement that addresses this point but I cannot believe that there are no circumstances where it is just to revolt against a wicked government. It is too illogical to believe otherwise.

St. Augustine thought he had. Matt 5:38-42 and Luke 6:27-31.

Remember, early Christians were, by and large, pacifists. Look at Tertullian’s comments regarding being Christian and being a solider - he advised that you either quite the army, or prepare to be martyred for refusing to fight. By St. Augustine’s time the quandry is that it had worked. Christians had gone from being violently victimized by Rome to, well, being Rome. Suddenly we had territory to protect, so Just War doctrine explained that while we don’t have an individual right to violently resist evil, we have a right to use violence for the protection of the collective group - reasoned as an application of Loving one’s Neighbor.

The idea that we would upsurp our rulers on personal initiative was pretty alien. Look at St. Thomas Acquinas’ thinking on the role of God in assigning rule.

 

[SoCalRC]

Again, no bearing on the question – despite your comparing American patriots with the KKK.

I’m sorry, I forgot that nuanced arguments aren’t your forte. The point was that choosing the ‘right’ side in hindsight is always easier than in foresight. Consider the civil war. In hindsight it is viewed as a war against a horrible evil. But for many at the time the morality was more complex. Even today I’ve met a fair number of your peers who refer to it as the “war of northern aggression”.

This is why the criteria for Just War have always been quite strict. One could debate if Christ, and later the Church are correct. But it remains a fact that “God helps those who help themselves” is a quote from Ben Franklin, not the bible. In fact, the Bible tells us that the man who trusts in himself instead of God is a “fool”.

 

[vern_humphrey]

In fact, what Saint Thomas Acquinas said is this:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.

That’s straight out of the Catechism. Individual and societies have the right to defend themselves. The Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto did have a right to defend themselves against the Nazis. The American Colonies did have a right to defend themselves against the usurpations of the British Crown. The Irish did have a right to throw off British rule – as did many other former colonies.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’m sorry, I forgot that nuanced arguments aren’t your forte. The point was that choosing the ‘right’ side in hindsight is always easier than in foresight. Consider the civil war. In hindsight it is viewed as a war against a horrible evil. But for many at the time the morality was more complex. Even today I’ve met a fair number of your peers who refer to it as the “war of northern aggression”.

Ah, more of the old anti-southerner, anti-hillbilly bigorty, eh?

This is why the criteria for Just War have always been quite strict. One could debate if Christ, and later the Church are correct. But it remains a fact that “God helps those who help themselves” is a quote from Ben Franklin, not the bible. In fact, the Bible tells us that the man who trusts in himself instead of God is a “fool”.

Which you interpret to mean that an oppressed people should just lie down and let their enemies kill them?

 

[RWMorris]

I think your cart and horse are miss aligned
This can not happen because the majority are under Natural Moral Law. If the majority voted to become Islam based that would make many need to leave but not fight
It is the majority who either go against the minority or minority 1 verses minority 2

I’m not following you here. Are you saying, “Since the majority has the most people, their rights supersede the minority’s?”

Their are no evil forms of government. Evil men can operate a government. Justice is to be treated fairly, not to have every wrong righted. ie OJ Simpson was fairly tried so he received justice, even though he received no US punishment for his action

That is not what some Catholic leaders have said about socialism. Socialism, by its very definition, breaks several of the Ten Commandments,

It exalts theft as an ethic and overlooks the human right of freedom.

• *Father Robert Sirico, President of the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty in Grand Rapids, Michigan *

Socialism considers the individual person simply as an element, a molecule within the social organism, so that the good of the individual is completely subordinated to the functioning of the socio-economic mechanism. Socialism likewise maintains that the good of the individual can be realized without reference to his free choice, to the unique and exclusive responsibility which he exercises in the face of good or evil.

• Paulus PP. II, Centesimus Annus

I could go on.

Each man has inalienable rights which in both flight and fight. Many choose the wrong one. Jesus shows us how to live under tyranny, however we are not to assist tyranny.

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 from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of 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 shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.- Thomas Jefferson 1776

Just War doctrine is really a different thing. It is based on your nation going into armed conflict which involves killing others for a greater good which will be achieved or is likely to be achieved. Is there a greater good? is it sufficient for the deaths needed? is success likely? These are just war issues

I do not agree, the individual has the right to defend himself. And a minority can’t get much smaller than the individual.

 

[SoCalRC]

Ah, more of the old anti-southerner, anti-hillbilly bigorty, eh?

There may be “bigorty”, but it has nothing to do with geography.

Which you interpret to mean that an oppressed people should just lie down and let their enemies kill them?

No, we are to resist evil with every fiber of our being. Look closely at the scripture references above. Jesus did not suggest submission, nor did he suggest violent retaliation. He suggests a third way. Non violence is not nec. pacifism, nor is it particularly safe. But it is resistance that trusts in God instead of the myth of redemptive violence.

In also has proven to be surprisingly effective, but none the less, many self described Christians find Christ’s message ‘too impractical’ and find it easier to put their faith in their fists. This is a very human reaction. It is a non trivial leap of faith. Consider your agreement with the comforting presence of firepower in another thread. I went the opposite direction, bypassing even a sidearm. My only real protection in combat was a red cross.

It was far from perfect, I was wounded twice, but it was the only way I could balance my sense of duty to my country with the certainty of my concience.

 

[Genesis315]

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?

Yes, if it is an authentic right that is being trampled (rights are a very Catholic idea–but they flow from the concept of duty–rights exist so duties can be fulfilled–or as John Paul II said, true freedom is the freedom to do what’s right).

Some of the great Catholic political philosophers like St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Robert Bellarmine say it is the right of the people to overthrow an unjust government (such as a tyranny).

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I’m not following you here. Are you saying, “Since the majority has the most people, their rights supersede the minority’s?”

No , none of the parties can be void of Natural Moral Law. Thus a majority will follow Natural Moral Law

That is not what some Catholic leaders have said about socialism. Socialism, by its very definition, breaks several of the Ten Commandments,

I could go on.

and you should, if you go on long enough you will see they refer to specific types of Communism in which religion was held as a problem which should be eliminated. On that regard their use of term socialism does match what most of us call socialism. for example the US tax rate is over 40% so most of us consider that socialism as it involves government in each facet of our lives ( to include religion)

I do not agree, the individual has the right to defend himself. And a minority can’t get much smaller than the individual.

Certainly the individual has the right to defend themselves, however that is not what just war is about

Just War principles
-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 modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.catholic.com/library/Just_war_Doctrine_1.asp

 

[vern_humphrey]

There may be “bigorty”, but it has nothing to do with geography.

Originally posted by SoCalRC

Even today I’ve met a fair number of your peers who refer to it as the “war of northern aggression”.

(My emphasis.)

That’s geographical bigotry – and we hillbillies are considered a “protected class” in some states.

No, we are to resist evil with every fiber of our being. Look closely at the scripture references above. Jesus did not suggest submission, nor did he suggest violent retaliation. He suggests a third way. Non violence is not nec. pacifism, nor is it particularly safe. But it is resistance that trusts in God instead of the myth of redemptive violence.

He didn’t advise the Apostles that one who doesn’t have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one?

In also has proven to be surprisingly effective,

How’s it working in Darfur?

but none the less, many self described Christians find Christ’s message ‘too impractical’ and find it easier to put their faith in their fists. This is a very human reaction. It is a non trivial leap of faith. Consider your agreement with the comforting presence of firepower in another thread. I went the opposite direction, bypassing even a sidearm. My only real protection in combat was a red cross.

It was far from perfect, I was wounded twice, but it was the only way I could balance my sense of duty to my country with the certainty of my concience.

Good for you – but had everyone abandoned their arms, they would all be dead, would they not?

 

[SoCalRC]

How’s it working in Darfur?

So who would you kill to stop the ethnic and tribal genocide? It is actually an interesting comparison, since the situation is the perpetuation of a long cycle of violence.

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?

Good for you – but had everyone abandoned their arms, they would all be dead, would they not?

Funny, the early Christians used this against Rome and seemed to not only survive extinction, but thrive and prosper. 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?

If you truly believe He is our Lord, how can you doubt that he had the power to preserve his own life? 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?

 

[fix]

**[

2265

](http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3EpenWindow%28%27cr/2265.htm%27%29**

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.

Now, I would like to know how it is consistent with Christian morality to allow innocents to be killed when one has the possibility to stop it?

 

[SoCalRC]

**%between%**Now, I would like to know how it is consistent with Christian morality to allow innocents to be killed when one has the possibility to stop it?

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.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

*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. *

**%between%**Now, I would like to know how it is consistent with Christian morality to allow innocents to be killed when one has the possibility to stop it?

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?

 

[RWMorris]

Yes, if it is an authentic right that is being trampled (rights are a very Catholic idea–but they flow from the concept of duty–rights exist so duties can be fulfilled–or as John Paul II said, true freedom is the freedom to do what’s right).

Some of the great Catholic political philosophers like St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Robert Bellarmine say it is the right of the people to overthrow an unjust government (such as a tyranny).

Thank you, this is exactly how I feel.

Do you have sources/links for St. Thomas Aquinas’ and St. Robert Bellarmine’s statements to this effect?

 

[RWMorris]

No , none of the parties can be void of Natural Moral Law. Thus a majority will follow Natural Moral Law

You have completely lost me on this first point. You keep saying the majority will follow natural law. That seems ludicrous to me when we have literally hundreds of examples from history to show that that is not true. Please find another way to explain what you mean. Or maybe if some else understands, please feel free to step in and it explain it to me. I can be truly “thick” at times.

… and you should, if you go on long enough you will see they refer to specific types of Communism in which religion was held as a problem which should be eliminated. On that regard their use of term socialism does match what most of us call socialism. for example the US tax rate is over 40% so most of us consider that socialism as it involves government in each facet of our lives ( to include religion) Certainly the individual has the right to defend themselves, however that is not what just war is about

Actually they don’t. The Catholic Church made most of its most stern attacks on socialism in the 1800s, long before even the first socialist government ever existed. They had no examples to specifically refer to, just socialism in general. The Popes never mentioned a specific country or type because they didn’t exist yet. They were warning of socialism in general, and they were correct. Socialism is evil, with nothing to redeem it.

And our (American and European) experiments with socialist ideas are dangerous and will result in evil. The closer we get to socialism, the more cruel we become. First to go are the weak and defenseless, next the very defective and old that costs society too much, then the family collapses, and finally our liberty disappears. Hey, but we’ll have “free” health care.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

You have completely lost me on this first point. You keep saying the majority will follow natural law. That seems ludicrous to me when we have literally hundreds of examples from history to show that that is not true. Please find another way to explain what you mean. Or maybe if some else understands, please feel free to step in and it explain it to me. I can be truly “thick” at times.

Actually they don’t. The Catholic Church made most of its most stern attacks on socialism in the 1800s, long before even the first socialist government ever existed. They had no examples to specifically refer to, just socialism in general. The Popes never mentioned a specific country or type because they didn’t exist yet. They were warning of socialism in general, and they were correct. Socialism is evil, with nothing to redeem it.

And our (American and European) experiments with socialist ideas are dangerous and will result in evil. The closer we get to socialism, the more cruel we become. First to go are the weak and defenseless, next the very defective and old that costs society too much, then the family collapses, and finally our liberty disappears. Hey, but we’ll have “free” health care.

could you point out a Church teaching from the 1800’s?