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.
P

Pork_Roll

Guest
usccb.org/sdwp/international/callafrica/2011-03-24BishopHubbardtoNationalSecurityAdvisor.pdf
In Catholic teaching the use of force must always be a last resort that serves a just cause. The Catechism of the Catholic Church limits just cause to cases in which “the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations [is] lasting, grave and certain.” (#2309) The just cause articulated in UN Security Council Resolution 1973 to demand “a ceasefire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians” appears to meet this criterion in our judgment. Since the protection of civilians is paramount, a key question is: Will the coalition actions stay focused on this limited goal and mission?
Click to expand...
I didn’t know that our church supported revolutions. Maybe we should have one here and see if the USCCB stands behind us. Somehow I doubt they will.

The catechism refers to a just was as being a defensive war. While Gaddafi is an awful dictator, I’m not sure that in itself is reason enough to go to war over injustices.
 
Pork_Roll said:
usccb.org/sdwp/international/callafrica/2011-03-24BishopHubbardtoNationalSecurityAdvisor.pdfI didn’t know that our church supported revolutions. Maybe we should have one here and see if the USCCB stands behind us. Somehow I doubt they will.

The catechism refers to a just was as being a defensive war. While Gaddafi is an awful dictator, I’m not sure that in itself is reason enough to go to war over injustices.
Click to expand...
I don’t know why you wouldn’t think the Church would support a just revolution against a tyrannical and unjust government. There’s plenty of room for such support under the just war doctrine. A revolution against an unjust ruler by the populace can indeed, be considered a defensive war. If I had been subject to over 40 years of unjust rule by a maniacle dictator who threatened to punish any and all opposition with the severest of penalties, I would rise up, too. The fight in Libya may or may not be a conflict which democratic nations want to be involved in, but the Libyan opposition cause is certainly a just one.
 
. The fight in Libya may or may not be a conflict which democratic nations want to be involved in, but the Libyan opposition cause is certainly a just one.
Click to expand...
I’m not so sure it’s that simple. For one, dictatorships are not reason enough to go to war. Gaddafi must be doing grave harm to his people. There are benevolent dictatorships which are certainly better than the dictatorship of relativism. Prove using catholic history that the church has ever supported a revolution.
 
Pork_Roll said:
I’m not so sure it’s that simple. For one, dictatorships are not reason enough to go to war. Gaddafi must be doing grave harm to his people. There are benevolent dictatorships which are certainly better than the dictatorship of relativism. Prove using catholic history that the church has ever supported a revolution.
Click to expand...
Gaddafi is not a benevolent dictator. The Libyan people are perfectly within their rights to overthrow Gaddafi’s unjust rule.

"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. "

-St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II-IIae q. 42
 
Pork_Roll said:
I’m not so sure it’s that simple. For one, dictatorships are not reason enough to go to war. Gaddafi must be doing grave harm to his people. There are benevolent dictatorships which are certainly better than the dictatorship of relativism. Prove using catholic history that the church has ever supported a revolution.
Click to expand...
Gaddafi has been doing grave harm to his people for almost 40 years. I would maintain that all dicatorships, to some degree, are always violent. Authorities may not always resort to physical violence and intimidation, but they do always rely on the fear and threat of violence. This is a psychological intimidation of the populace , which is no less violent in its own way than pulling fingernails. Dicatorships may at times be benevolent towards the populace, as long as they do not pose a threat, but the point is that they are first and foremost always benevolent towards themselves first.
 
Just or not the Constitution spells out the criteria the President needs to follow. He failed to do so and should be impeached.
 
"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.
Click to expand...
Interesting… It looks like this war could be justified if it can be demonstrated that the resulting war doesn’t create more evil. I think this is the difficult point to prove. The Bishop also pointed this out.

However, does sedition in this quotation imply warfare or insurrection?

Thanks for the post.
 
Pork_Roll said:
I didn’t know that our church supported revolutions. Maybe we should have one here and see if the USCCB stands behind us. Somehow I doubt they will.
Click to expand...
The personal opinions of some committee at the USCCB, even if approved by a bishop, do not constitute Church teaching. The Church has no position on our participation in this conflict … just as she had no position on Iraq. This is a political statement, not a moral judgment.

Ender
 
The personal opinions of some committee at the USCCB, even if approved by a bishop, do not constitute Church teaching. The Church has no position on our participation in this conflict … just as she had no position on Iraq. This is a political statement, not a moral judgment.
Click to expand...
The church does take positions on the implementation of catholic teaching all the time. The church says abortion shouldn’t be legalized. Someone can argue that more evil is permitted when abortion is made illegal (I don’t believe that and neither does the church).

In this case, I’m trying to determine if an armed revolution can be legitimized. Clearly at some point it can be. There is this whole grey area between good and just intent and prudent judgement which is why we can legitimately differ with the opinion’s of the church. But, that quote from St. Thomas Aquinas didn’t answer completely how much violence can be justified in overthrowing a despotic regime, if at all.

Can the individual be considered the legitimate authority to use force to stop and evil dictator? This basically is vigilantism which is another grey area.
 
I my reading the USCCB declares the conditions for just war, and assk whether they are fulfilled or not. No answer is given to the questions
 
I my reading the USCCB declares the conditions for just war, and assk whether they are fulfilled or not. No answer is given to the questions
Click to expand...
Is it the responsibility of the individual to overthrow a wicked regime? I would think the proper authority in this case would be the military and not the citizen.
 
Pork_Roll said:
Is it the responsibility of the individual to overthrow a wicked regime? I would think the proper authority in this case would be the military and not the citizen.
Click to expand...
What about the American War of Independence? Was that the American Army at Lexington and Concord or was it a citizen militia? I think the latter.
 
KevinAK said:
Just or not the Constitution spells out the criteria the President needs to follow. He failed to do so and should be impeached.
Click to expand...
Yeah. Just don’t hold your breath waiting for the ultra-rightwing to bring articles of impeachment against him. 🤷
 
What about the American War of Independence? Was that the American Army at Lexington and Concord or was it a citizen militia? I think the latter.
Click to expand...
You could make a better case for the American revolution. There probably needs to be a legitimate authority to overthrow a government. Technically, we are not there to topple Momar but to defend the rebels.
 
Pork_Roll said:
You could make a better case for the American revolution. There probably needs to be a legitimate authority to overthrow a government.
Click to expand...
There was none at the start of the American War of Independence with any authority to ovethrown the Crown.
 
Pork_Roll said:
Is it the responsibility of the individual to overthrow a wicked regime? I would think the proper authority in this case would be the military and not the citizen.
Click to expand...
It’s absolutely NOT the military’s job to determine when a government needs to be overthrown and then make it happen. And none of us should want that. I think our system is pretty good, which is that the military’s purpose is to defend the country from external threats - and that the military is 100% civilian controlled.

Pax,
OA
 
There was none at the start of the American War of Independence with any authority to ovethrown the Crown
Click to expand...
The declaration of independence was signed by the representative government of the 13 colonies. As far as I can tell, these Libyan rebels are not local or provincial government but a rag-tag rebellion consisting of Al Qaeda and muslim brotherhood elements.
 
It’s absolutely NOT the military’s job to determine when a government needs to be overthrown and then make it happen. And none of us should want that. I think our system is pretty good, which is that the military’s purpose is to defend the country from external threats - and that the military is 100% civilian controlled.
Click to expand...
I took an oath to defend the constitution. In the event of a despotic evil president or dictator taking power of our country, it would fall on the military to overthrow the president if there were no other options. We don’t take oaths to defend the president right or wrong.

That being said, I wouldn’t hold my breath if that ever happened. Many in the military do as they are told and don’t use right judgment.
 
Pork_Roll said:
Many in the military do as they are told and don’t use right judgment.
Click to expand...
To nearly all in the military, following orders IS using right judgment! There’s USP Leavenworth for those who don’t use right judgment!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top