USCCB Committee says UN Security Council Resolution 1973 meets just war criteria

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pork_Roll
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It seems that few have read the actual document. The bishops hardly say that the Libyan intervention qualifies as a just war. Rather, it reiterates the Holy Father’s concern and breaks down the tradition of just war theory. As someone else stated, it does not make a conclusion either way. As such, the title of the thread is an overstatement of what the bishops said. I believe their purpose was to remind politicians and policy makers that moral reasoning must be taken into consideration before military action is used.
 
Just or not the Constitution spells out the criteria the President needs to follow. He failed to do so and should be impeached.
Then Bush 41 would’ve had to be impeached as well.

However, Article VI of the Constitution gives the president the authority to use military force in accord with the UN treaty ratified by congress in 1948.

Jim
 
Roman Catholic Doctrine Vs. The Doctrinal Teaching of the Word of God

Eternal life is a merited reward [1821, 2010]. - Roman Catholicism
Eternal life is the free gift of God (Romans 6:23)

No one can know if he will attain eternal life [1036, 2005] - Roman Catholicism
The believer can know that he has eternal life by the Word of God (1 John 5:13)

The Roman Catholic Church is necessary for salvation [846]. - Roman Catholicism
There is salvation in no one but the Lord Jesus Christ, “for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12)

Purgatory is necessary to atone for sin and clean the soul [1030-1031]. - Roman Catholicism
Purgatory does not exist. Jesus made purification for sins on the cross (Hebrews 1:3)

Mary was preserved from all stain of original sin from the first instant of her conception (the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception) [490-492].
Mary, a descendant of Adam, was born in sin (Psalm 51:5; Romans 5:12)

Mary is the Mother of the Church [963, 975]. - Roman Catholicism
Mary was the earthly mother of Jesus ( John 2:1)

The Magisterium is the authoritative teacher of the Church. [85-87]. - Roman Catholicism
The Holy Spirit is the authoritative teacher of the church (John 14:26; John 16:13, I John 2:27)

The pope, as the Bishop of Rome, is the successor of Peter [882, 936] - Roman Catholicism
Peter had no successor, nor was he a pope.

The pope is infallible in his authoritative teaching [891]. - Roman Catholicism
God alone is infallible (Numbers 23:19)

Scripture and Tradition together are the Word of God [81, 85, 97, 182]. - Roman Catholicism
Scripture is the Word of God (John 10:35, 2 Timothy 3:15-17, 2 Peter 1:20-21). Tradition is the words of men (Mark 7:1-13).

The sacrificial work of redemption is continually carried out through the Sacrifice of the Mass. [1364,1405, 1846]. - Roman Catholicism
The sacrificial work of redemption was finished when Christ gave His life for us on the cross (Ephesians 1:7, Hebrews 1:3).

God desires that consecrated bread and wine be worshiped as divine. [1378-1381] - Roman Catholicism
God forbids the worship of any object, even t hose intended to represent Him (Exodus 20:4-5, Isaiah 42:8)

Justification is lost through mortal sin [1033, 1855, 1874] - Roman Catholicism
Justification cannot be lost. Those whom God justifies will be saved from the wrath of God (Romans 5:8-9).

Justification is furthered by sacraments and good works [1212, 1392, 2010] - Roman Catholicism
Justification is the imputation of the perfect righteousness of God (2 Corinthians 5:21). In Christ the believer has been made complete (Colossians 2:10).

Salvation is attained by cooperating with grace through faith, good works, and participation in the sacraments [183, 1129, 1815, 2002]. - Roman Catholicism
Salvation is attained by grace through faith apart from works (Ephesians 2:8-9). Good works are the result, not the cause, of salvation (Ephesians 2:10).

Mary, “the All-Holy,” lived a perfectly sinless life [411, 493]. - Roman Catholicism
Mary was a sinner; God alone is sinless (Luke 18:19, Romans 3:23, Revelation 15:4).

Mary was a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Christ [496-511]. - Roman Catholicism
Mary remained a virgin until after the birth of Jesus (Matthew 1:25). Later she had other children (Matthew 13:55-56, Psalm 69:8).

Each Sacrifice of the Mass appeases God’s wrath against sin [1371, 1414]. - Roman Catholicism
The once-for-all sacrifice of the cross fully appeased God’s wrath against sin. (Hebrews 10:12-18).

The Bishops, with the Pope, as their head, rule the universal church. [883, 894-896]. - Roman Catholicism
Christ, the head of the body is the Head of the Church. (Colossians 1:18).

The faithful receive the benefits of the cross in fullest measure through the Sacrifice of the Mass [1366, 1407]. - Roman Catholicism
Believers receive the benefits of the cross in fullest measure in Christ through faith (Ephesians 1:3-14).

God has exalted Mary in heavenly glory as Queen of Heaven and Earth [966]. She is to be praised with special devotion [971, 2675]. - Roman Catholicism
The name of the Lord is to be praised, for He alone is exalted above heaven and earth (Psalm 148:13). God commands, “You shall have no other gods before Me.” (Exodus 20:3).

Mary is the co-mediator to whom we can entrust all our cares and petitions 9 968-970, 2677] - Roman Catholicism
Christ Jesus is the one mediator to whom we can entrust all our cares and petitions (1 Timothy 2:5, John 14:13-14, 1 Peter 5:7).

Mary is the co-redeemer, for she participate with Christ in the painful act of redemption [618, 964, 968, 970]. - Roman Catholicism
Christ alone is the Redeemer, for He alone suffered and died for sin (1 Peter 1:18-19).

The sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated in the Sacrifice of the Mass [1323, 1382] - Roman Catholicism
The Sacrifice of the cross is finished (John 19:30).

Indulgences dispensed by the Church for acts of piety release sinners from temporal punishment [1471-1473]. - Roman Catholicism
Jesus releases believers from their sins by His blood. (Revelation 1:5).

The Magisterium has the right to define truth found only obscurely or implicitly in revelation. [66, 88, 2035, 2051]. - Roman Catholicism
No one has the right to go beyond what is written in Scripture (1 Corinthians 4:6, Proverbs 30:5-6).

Scripture and Tradition together are the Church’s supreme role of faith [80, 82]. - Roman Catholicism
Scripture is the church’s rule of faith (Mark 7:7-13, 2 Timothy 3:16-17).
 
Then Bush 41 would’ve had to be impeached as well.

However, Article VI of the Constitution gives the president the authority to use military force in accord with the UN treaty ratified by congress in 1948.

Jim
:confused:
usconstitution.net/const.html#Article6
Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
 
1holycatholic,
its the Supremacy clause.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;
The UN Charter ratified by Congress in 1948, is a treaty in which past and present president’s have used to give them the authority to uphold UN resolutions using US military force. Its debatable.

When George Bush went into Iraq, it was considered illegal because under the UN Charter, nations were not to act unilaterally on an action rejected by the UN.
Again, its debatable.

I’m not saying I agree with it, and I agree with Rep Denis Kucinich that it was an end-around to the intent of the Constitution.

However, its what past presidents and the current one use in justifying their Constitutional authority to go to war without congressional approval. Back in the 1st Gulf War some Democrats filed a lawsuit against the President for not getting Congressional approval before getting into the 1st Gulf War claiming he violated the Constitution. However, once those democrats saw they were on the wrong side of the politics of it, they dropped it.

Of course President Clinton used the NATO treaty under the same conditions in justifying the attack on Yugoslavia without getting Congressional approval. The majority parties on both sides remained silent because they had already allowed the previous president to act without Congressional approval for the same reason.

Hence, we’re where we’re at today. Unless Congress puts legislation into place in preventing future presidents from using UN and NATO treaties to justify military action, it will only get worse.

Jim
 
The UN Charter ratified by Congress in 1948, is a treaty in which past and present president’s have used to give them the authority to uphold UN resolutions using US military force. Its debatable.

When George Bush went into Iraq, it was considered illegal because under the UN Charter, nations were not to act unilaterally on an action rejected by the UN.
Again, its debatable.
Bush went into Iraq with the consent of Congress but without the consent of the UN. Obama went to war with Libya with the consent of the UN but without the consent of Congress. Of the two, I would prefer that the president be accountable to the Congress than to the UN.

It is surely true that we have not had a formal declaration of war since WWII despite being involved in a myriad of wars in the past decades. Presidents have become too indifferent to their Constitutional obligations … and congress has abetted them. It’s a bad situation that ought to be addressed, but one which congress seems loath to touch.

Ender
 
Ender
Bush went into Iraq with the consent of Congress but without the consent of the UN.
And under the agreements of the UN Charter, it was considered illegal, but of course its debatable.
Obama went to war with Libya with the consent of the UN but without the consent of Congress.
and again, debatable.
Of the two, I would prefer that the president be accountable to the Congress than to the UN.
Me too. But for anyone to suggest that Obama commited an impeachable act, is not being objectively fair.
It is surely true that we have not had a formal declaration of war since WWII despite being involved in a myriad of wars in the past decades. Presidents have become too indifferent to their Constitutional obligations … and congress has abetted them. It’s a bad situation that ought to be addressed, but one which congress seems loath to touch.
Its why Denis Kucinich and Ron Paul are on the same side in their desire to put legislation together to prevent presidents from ever using military force without Congressional Approval.

However, this isn’t the first time that such legislation has been brought up. It just never goes anywhere because the people who bring it up are considered extreme by their own party members, as in the case of Rob Paul and Denis Kucinich.

Personally, I believe military action in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya were mistakes. I do not believe the last two are justified under the Just War Doctrine.

The Libyan one especially being the side we’re helping will become worse than Qaddafi, especially for the West.

Jim
 
The UN Charter ratified by Congress in 1948, is a treaty in which past and present president’s have used to give them the authority to uphold UN resolutions using US military force. Its debatable.

When George Bush went into Iraq, it was considered illegal because under the UN Charter, nations were not to act unilaterally on an action rejected by the UN.
Again, its debatable.
Bush went into Iraq with the consent of Congress but without the consent of the UN. Obama went to war with Libya with the consent of the UN but without the consent of Congress. Of the two, I would prefer that the president be accountable to the Congress than to the UN.

It is surely true that we have not had a formal declaration of war since WWII despite being involved in a myriad of wars in the past decades. Presidents have become too indifferent to their Constitutional obligations … and congress has abetted them. It’s a bad situation that ought to be addressed, but one which congress seems loath to touch.

Ender
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top