War

[mlchance]

…Just be honest enough to admit that that’s what you’re doing.

What an impressive snit fit! Do you have that saved in a file for cut-and-paste, or was it improvised?

Now let’s look at the facts that remain:

1. That the war against Iraq was an unjust war is not a matter that is binding on the conscience of Catholics.
2. Those responsible for the prudential judgment about going to war with Iraq obviously thought the war was justifiable.
3. The four- to five-year-old judgments of John Paul II, then Cardinal Ratzinger, et cetera (made before the full complicity of the UN, France, Germany, et cetera, with Hussein’s corrupt regime were revealed), certainly merit our attention, but the fact also remains that not a single one of them was either capable of or responsible for the prudential judgment about going to war against Iraq.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[rr1213]

Assume for a moment that the US war in Iraq does not qualify as a “just war”. Does Catholic dogma insist that soldiers cannot fight in an unjust war? In other words, if the soldiers are fighting justly according to the laws of war, then isn’t the moral sin of the unjust war on the shoulders of their leaders as opposed to the faithful grunt in the trenches?

Neither Christ, Paul nor John the Baptist chose to condemn Roman legionaires, even when given the opportunity, …and I seriously doubt that any of the wars fought by Rome would have qualified as being “just wars”.

 

[mlchance]

Does Catholic dogma insist that soldiers cannot fight in an unjust war?

Good question, for which I don’t really have a good answer. I wrestled with something similar to this when I was soldier in the U.S. Army during the First Gulf War. While not Catholic at the time, I had my reservations about the war. I investigated thoroughly the Army’s regulations regarding conscientious objection, and arrived at this conclusion: Even if the First Gulf War were unjust, I could not justify abandoning my fellow soldiers. Had it become necessary, the most I would’ve done is applied for conscientious objector status to be assigned to noncombat duty, such as working with medics.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Legal_Eagle]

What an impressive snit fit!

Thank, you.

Do you have that saved in a file for cut-and-paste, or was it improvised?

Actually, it was improvised on the spot just for you.

1. That the war against Iraq was an unjust war is not a matter that is binding on the conscience of Catholics.

So then on what basis do we learn from the Church about anything? Do we accept or reject the moral judgments of the Magistrium based upon our own opinions and politicial preferences? Do we only pay attention to what our Shepards say when they speak ex cathedra, much like children who won’t brush their teeth until threatened with a spanking? Either we believe in a Church with Apostolic teaching authority, and allow our consciences to be formed by its teaching, or we do not. If not, then may we please stop pretending that what our Shepards say is important.

1. Those responsible for the prudential judgment about going to war with Iraq obviously thought the war was justifiable.

So then by that logic no war could ever be unjust so long as the civilian authority who was responsible for launching it sincerely believed it to be just. Nifty. That means that if I’m the President, and I honestly think that it’s okay, then its okay. Sort like if the Queen blows her nose into the tablecloth then its proper etiquette to blow one’s nose into the tablecloth. I like it.

1. The four- to five-year-old judgments of John Paul II, then Cardinal Ratzinger, et cetera (made before the full complicity of the UN, France, Germany, et cetera, with Hussein’s corrupt regime were revealed), certainly merit our attention, but the fact also remains that not a single one of them was either capable of or responsible for the prudential judgment about going to war against Iraq.

Oh, come on. Do you really want to start talking about full complicity with Saddam’s regime? There’s plenty of complicitiy to go around. The man was executed for crimes committed while he was a recipient our military aid, for crying out loud. Besides, have any of the people you mentioned ever said anywhere, “Gee, now that we know all the facts, maybe we were wrong”? Uhhhh…no. In fact, just the opposite. You should read Pope Benedict’s World Day of Peace Statement for 2005.

I never cease to be amazed by two things. 1) Most people will pick their politics over their faith every single time. 2) Those same people will work awfully hard to convicne themselves that they have not done so.

 

[otjm]

So then on what basis do we learn from the Church about anything? Do we accept or reject the moral judgments of the Magistrium based upon our own opinions and politicial preferences? Do we only pay attention to what our Shepards say when they speak ex cathedra, much like children who won’t brush their teeth until threatened with a spanking? Either we believe in a Church with Apostolic teaching authority, and allow our consciences to be formed by its teaching, or we do not. If not, then may we please stop pretending that what our Shepards say is important.

We do it the same way we have been doing it for the last 2000 years or so. We understand that there are moral judgements which are binding - for example, that abortion is intrinsically evil; and we sort the rest out in terms the level of the teaching and other information we have with which to work.

For those who want simple black and white answers to real world questions, it comes as a great shock that there is not a “one size fits all” answer. Therein lies our personal responsbility. Some want to put a quarter in, pull the handle and get their anwer. Morality on many issues simply doesn’t work that way. It should be obvious to all that the Pope is a moral authority; but that does not mean that he is infallible every time he makes a statement; war is to be avoided if at all possible, but he rarely has all the facts, or necessarily even the majority of relevant facts, as to all aspects. It should seem obvious that he will do all he can to lead all - individual soldiers to country leaders - to a peaceful resolution. But to presume that when he comes out strongly against a war that he is binding in conscience all who may be involved is simplistic at best.

I will go back to what I had urged in an original post; look for the article by George Weigel about Just War Theory. Much of the discussion herein could be answered by his article.

 

[mlchance]

Do we only pay attention to what our Shepards say when they speak ex cathedra, much like children who won’t brush their teeth until threatened with a spanking?

Just as I thought. You’re incapable of having an intelligent conversation on the subject. Two posts in a row from you in response to me, and the only thing substantive you’ve to offer are insults. How boringly typical and completely unworthy of further attention.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[rr1213]

Good question, for which I don’t really have a good answer. I wrestled with something similar to this when I was soldier in the U.S. Army during the First Gulf War. While not Catholic at the time, I had my reservations about the war. I investigated thoroughly the Army’s regulations regarding conscientious objection, and arrived at this conclusion: Even if the First Gulf War were unjust, I could not justify abandoning my fellow soldiers. Had it become necessary, the most I would’ve done is applied for conscientious objector status to be assigned to noncombat duty, such as working with medics.

– Mark L. Chance.

If the First Gulf War doesn’t qualify as a “just war”, I’m not sure what war would other than perhaps WW2 or Vietnam’s invasion of Cambodia to end Pol Pot’s reign of terror (although, no doubt, Vietnam was motivated more by geopolitical considerations than respect for human rights…it is pretty bad when you have to cheer on Vietnam as beng the “good guys” in a conflict).

As a soldier, you would know that international law does make a distinction between whether a war is justified and whether a war, justified or not, is fought using just means. Some soldiers in Hitler’s war machine fought in an honorable fashion even though their cause was not just. (Many others of course did not fight honorably but instead committed war crimes, or what would later be characterized as war crimes). In contrast, the involvement of the US in WW2 was just, yet our firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo involved the indiscriminate killing of non-combatants and, therefore, was not justified by most just war analysis. I am curious if there is a similar distinction made by the Catholic Church regarding just war doctrine. I suppose I need to research the matter.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Good question, for which I don’t really have a good answer. I wrestled with something similar to this when I was soldier in the U.S. Army during the First Gulf War. While not Catholic at the time, I had my reservations about the war. I investigated thoroughly the Army’s regulations regarding conscientious objection, and arrived at this conclusion: Even if the First Gulf War were unjust, I could not justify abandoning my fellow soldiers. Had it become necessary, the most I would’ve done is applied for conscientious objector status to be assigned to noncombat duty, such as working with medics.

– Mark L. Chance.

Good discussion.

I am simply curious as to who exactly is the final arbiter as to what is a just war and what is not … and if “it” [the character of a war ]changes from time to time.

So, if someone says that going into Iraq was unjust, but it would be unjust to leave once we are there, well, what is it??? Just or unjust? Or does it depend? What does it depend on? Can it (the justness) vary?

Is precision of wording important? If going to war is undesirable, then does that make it an unjust war, or does it merely signify that non-combatants are going to be killed and that is a bad thing?

Is it legitimate to twist other people’s words, which happens with both “just war” and with “capital punishment”?

Is it legitimate debate protocol or good manners to twist or misconstrue someone else’s words?

 

[Ferdinand_Mary]

Participants are strongly reminded that charity is essential to our discussions here.

If you wish to review the subject, please see Charity for specifics, or CAF rules for an overview, both of which are located in the Rules of the Road sub-forum.

If the charity level does not increase immediately, this thread will be closed.

Mane Nobiscum Domine,
Ferdinand Mary

 

[mlchance]

If the First Gulf War doesn’t qualify as a “just war”, I’m not sure what war would…

I’m not saying the First Gulf War wasn’t a just war, but that at the time, when I was younger and both more naive and cynical than today, I had my doubts. Today I’m certain beyond a reasonable doubt that both wars against a Iraq were just.

As a soldier, you would know that international law does make a distinction between whether a war is justified and whether a war, justified or not, is fought using just means…

Quite so, and the example of the Wehrmacht during WWII is a good one. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that the First Gulf War was unjust, that I knew it was unjust, and that I was ordered into combat. I could disobey the order and suffer the consequences, which would at least have involved a dishonorable discharge (but, in time of war, could easily include prison time and, in extreme situations, execution). Would I have been required to accept punishment in order to avoid fighting in an unjust war? No, and any culpability that may be imputed to me for not disobeying the order would certainly be mitigated by the fact that possibly severe punishment would result from my disobedience. Martyrdom is certainly noble, but it is not obligatory.

These considerations are separate from those involving obeying an illegal order. While fighting in an unjust war, I might have been ordered to, say, deliberately target civilians. Such an act, however, is not only immoral, it is also contrary to both domestic and international law. The U.S. Armed Forces recognize clearly that no soldier is obliged to follow an illegal order.

As can be seen, there is a great deal more to the issue of just war than merely citing the Pope or a cardinal, and then accusing those who disagree with being faithless Catholics.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[rr1213]

As can be seen, there is a great deal more to the issue of just war than merely citing the Pope or a cardinal, and then accusing those who disagree with being faithless Catholics.

– Mark L. Chance.

Agreed

 

[Legal_Eagle]

For those who want simple black and white answers to real world questions, it comes as a great shock that there is not a “one size fits all” answer. Therein lies our personal responsbility. Some want to put a quarter in, pull the handle and get their anwer. Morality on many issues simply doesn’t work that way. It should be obvious to all that the Pope is a moral authority; but that does not mean that he is infallible every time he makes a statement; war is to be avoided if at all possible, but he rarely has all the facts, or necessarily even the majority of relevant facts, as to all aspects. It should seem obvious that he will do all he can to lead all - individual soldiers to country leaders - to a peaceful resolution. But to presume that when he comes out strongly against a war that he is binding in conscience all who may be involved is simplistic at best.

There is no question that not every moral issue is a black and white cookie cutter issue. In fact most aren’t. No sensible adult would assert such a position. There are many, many moral and political issues that the Church’s social teaching speaks to that good, honest faithful Catholics could reasonably come down on either side of. You and I both could spend hours naming them.

BUT the war in Iraq simply is not one of them no matter what luminaries like Mr. Weigle may say. The overwhelming majority of the Magistirum that have taken a position on the war have said that they believe that the war was unjust. My point is simply this. When the Magistrium is as uniform in its opinion as it is on this issue, those who disagree have a heavier responsibility–if they are to maintain that disagreement–than to simply say, “Oh well, it’s not binding.” That’s what I see many people (on both the right and the left) doing.

Do we have a duty to think for ourselves? Absolutely. And as much as Pope Benedict prizes intellectual rigor, I think he expects us to do no less. What frustrates me to no end is to see Catholics wave the opinions of the Church and her leaders around like a banner when it suits them to do so, and then flatly ignore it, or pretend that it is of no consequence, it when it does not.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Good discussion.

I am simply curious as to who exactly is the final arbiter as to what is a just war and what is not …

The final arbiter on all moral questions is God. But in making the decision to go to war, the Church recognizes it lacks both the expertise and information to make such decisions and wise leaves those determinations to the national authorities charged with such responsibilities.

and if “it” [the character of a war ]changes from time to time.

Indeed it can – contrast Lee’s Farewell to His Troops with Yamashita’s conduct in the Philippiines. Yamashita, long after he knew the Japanese were defeated continued to allow them to fight on – thus prolonging the suffering and death.

So, if someone says that going into Iraq was unjust, but it would be unjust to leave once we are there, well, what is it??? Just or unjust? Or does it depend? What does it depend on? Can it (the justness) vary?

John Paul the Great seemed to think so – he did oppose the decision to go to war, but then said we had to stay and finish the job.

Is precision of wording important? If going to war is undesirable, then does that make it an unjust war, or does it merely signify that non-combatants are going to be killed and that is a bad thing?

Anyone who thinks people – including non-combatants – will not be killed in a war is living in cloudland. The Just War criteria were developed with the full understanding that innocent people will die in war.

Is it legitimate to twist other people’s words, which happens with both “just war” and with “capital punishment”?

It’s not mandatory, but it seems awfully popular.

Is it legitimate debate protocol or good manners to twist or misconstrue someone else’s words?

That’s even more popular.

 

[otjm]

There is no question that not every moral issue is a black and white cookie cutter issue. In fact most aren’t. No sensible adult would assert such a position. There are many, many moral and political issues that the Church’s social teaching speaks to that good, honest faithful Catholics could reasonably come down on either side of. You and I both could spend hours naming them.

BUT the war in Iraq simply is not one of them no matter what luminaries like Mr. Weigle may say. The overwhelming majority of the Magistirum that have taken a position on the war have said that they believe that the war was unjust. My point is simply this. When the Magistrium is as uniform in its opinion as it is on this issue, those who disagree have a heavier responsibility–if they are to maintain that disagreement–than to simply say, “Oh well, it’s not binding.” That’s what I see many people (on both the right and the left) doing.

Do we have a duty to think for ourselves? Absolutely. And as much as Pope Benedict prizes intellectual rigor, I think he expects us to do no less. What frustrates me to no end is to see Catholics wave the opinions of the Church and her leaders around like a banner when it suits them to do so, and then flatly ignore it, or pretend that it is of no consequence, it when it does not.

I, too, share in the frustration of non-thinkers. But then, most people want simple answers to complex questions, and many, if not most, are not trained to think clearly through complex answers to come to conclusions.

Just a thought: I suspect that the vast majority of the Magisterium also condemned the War started by Germany, and Germany’s position both in starting it and prosecuting it further by rolling into the next country, and then the next… and no less a person then Benedict 16th himself was a memeber of Hitler’s army. Along with many others who fought.

Hve you read Weigle’s article? I think it bears reading, as I do believe that there are a number of people, in postions of authority or perceived authority, who do not really know much of what the Just War theory says, and are no more intellectually rigorous than Joe Lunchbox who packs an M-16, even though they may be a whole lot smarter.

He dissected, in the article, what some are passing off as the theory and showed how they have ignored a great deal of information on it.

 

[Legal_Eagle]

Just a thought: I suspect that the vast majority of the Magisterium also condemned the War started by Germany, and Germany’s position both in starting it and prosecuting it further by rolling into the next country, and then the next… and no less a person then Benedict 16th himself was a memeber of Hitler’s army. Along with many others who fought.

True. But, if you will recall the young Joseph Ratzinger actually deserted. Does all of this discussion add up to mean that Catholics who are members of the U.S. armed services today should refuse to fight in Iraq, or should have refused in 2003? I think so, yes. Most certainly, yes. But, I will readily agree that no one in authority other than Romanian Catholic Bishop John Michael Botean has said so. I don’t believe that either John Paul II or Benedict XVI, or any one with authority over U.S. Latin Rite Catholics have even hinted that U.S. Catholics must (or even should) refuse.

Hve you read Weigle’s article? I think it bears reading, as I do believe that there are a number of people, in postions of authority or perceived authority, who do not really know much of what the Just War theory says, and are no more intellectually rigorous than Joe Lunchbox who packs an M-16, even though they may be a whole lot smarter.

I did read Weigle’s article, but it was quite some time ago, so I can’t recall any of the specific points he made off the top of my head. I can only recall that he ran his own analysis of the Just War Theory as laid out in the Catachisim and concluded that invading Iraq was just. I also recall that I disagreed with his conclusions. Then again, I suppose I’m a bit cynical. I practice law for a living, and believe me, anyone can take a formula like the Just War Theory, play with language, and spit out the conclusion they want to reach at the other end. It’s really a no brainer.

 

[otjm]

True. But, if you will recall the young Joseph Ratzinger actually deserted. Does all of this discussion add up to mean that Catholics who are members of the U.S. armed services today should refuse to fight in Iraq, or should have refused in 2003? I think so, yes. Most certainly, yes. But, I will readily agree that no one in authority other than Romanian Catholic Bishop John Michael Botean has said so. I don’t believe that either John Paul II or Benedict XVI, or any one with authority over U.S. Latin Rite Catholics have even hinted that U.S. Catholics must (or even should) refuse.

I think the string of intelligence information was inadequate (and for that we can thank those who have limited who we may recruit, plus those who decided that we could obtain adequate informatiion without “boots on the ground”) but both this administration and the previous one knew that Saddam had had BC ( the Israelis having removed his source of N by taking out his reactor) and he continued to refuse adequate inspections. Nothing indicated he had gotten rid of either in compliance with the UN directives. Did we have legitimate grounds for going back in based ion the unresolved First Gulf War? I believe we did, which is not to say that I agree it was a wise decision. Was it within the Just War theory? I think the point that Weigel makes is that many people who protest that it does not fall under the Just War theory simply don’t know much, if anything of what that theory constitutes, which leaves their “advice” suspect. Much of the anti-war rhetoric is driven by ideologies which have little or nothing to do with Just War; they are simply anti-war at all costs and for all reasons.

[Legal Eagle;1937068]I did read Weigle’s article, but it was quite some time ago, so I can’t recall any of the specific points he made off the top of my head. I can only recall that he ran his own analysis of the Just War Theory as laid out in the Catachisim and concluded that invading Iraq was just. I also recall that I disagreed with his conclusions. Then again, I suppose I’m a bit cynical. I practice law for a living, and believe me, anyone can take a formula like the Just War Theory, play with language, and spit out the conclusion they want to reach at the other end. It’s really a no brainer.I would suggest reading it again, as I think he is more intellectually honest than many of the protestors, and more intellectually rigrious than others. And no, I disagree that anyone can take a formula and make it spit out any conclusion they want. Excuse me, I practiced too. I do agree that one can make emotional arguements that will convince many; but that is not due to the arguer’s skill half so much as it is due to the intellectual laziness of so many who want simple answers to complex questions.

 

[Al_Masetti]

I think the string of intelligence information was inadequate (and for that we can thank those who have limited who we may recruit, plus those who decided that we could obtain adequate informatiion without “boots on the ground”) but both this administration and the previous one knew that Saddam had had BC ( the Israelis having removed his source of N by taking out his reactor) and he continued to refuse adequate inspections. Nothing indicated he had gotten rid of either in compliance with the UN directives. Did we have legitimate grounds for going back in based ion the unresolved First Gulf War? I believe we did, which is not to say that I agree it was a wise decision. Was it within the Just War theory? I think the point that Weigel makes is that many people who protest that it does not fall under the Just War theory simply don’t know much, if anything of what that theory constitutes, which leaves their “advice” suspect. Much of the anti-war rhetoric is driven by ideologies which have little or nothing to do with Just War; they are simply anti-war at all costs and for all reasons.

[Legal Eagle;1937068]I did read Weigle’s article, but it was quite some time ago, so I can’t recall any of the specific points he made off the top of my head. I can only recall that he ran his own analysis of the Just War Theory as laid out in the Catachisim and concluded that invading Iraq was just. I also recall that I disagreed with his conclusions. Then again, I suppose I’m a bit cynical. I practice law for a living, and believe me, anyone can take a formula like the Just War Theory, play with language, and spit out the conclusion they want to reach at the other end. It’s really a no brainer.

I would suggest reading it again, as I think he is more intellectually honest than many of the protestors, and more intellectually rigrious than others. And no, I disagree that anyone can take a formula and make it spit out any conclusion they want. Excuse me, I practiced too. I do agree that one can make emotional arguements that will convince many; but that is not due to the arguer’s skill half so much as it is due to the intellectual laziness of so many who want simple answers to complex questions.

Read “Spying on the Bomb” by Jeffrey Richelson. He describes in great detail the Saddam Iraq nuclear weapons programs as well as the disinformation and concealment programs.

 

[otjm]

I would suggest reading it again, as I think he is more intellectually honest than many of the protestors, and more intellectually rigrious than others. And no, I disagree that anyone can take a formula and make it spit out any conclusion they want. Excuse me, I practiced too. I do agree that one can make emotional arguements that will convince many; but that is not due to the arguer’s skill half so much as it is due to the intellectual laziness of so many who want simple answers to complex questions.

Read “Spying on the Bomb” by Jeffrey Richelson. He describes in great detail the Saddam Iraq nuclear weapons programs as well as the disinformation and concealment programs.The Israelis were a tad bit more decisive in getting rid of the N of NBC, than we were of the BC.

Now it looks like Iran took a page or two from Saddam’s playbook…

 

[Al_Masetti]

Read “Spying on the Bomb” by Jeffrey Richelson. He describes in great detail the Saddam Iraq nuclear weapons programs as well as the disinformation and concealment programs.

The Israelis were a tad bit more decisive in getting rid of the N of NBC, than we were of the BC.

Now it looks like Iran took a page or two from Saddam’s playbook…

There is something screwy going on with the CAF computer system.

It took somebody else’s quote and put my name over it. And took my post and put someone else’s name on my post. Sorry if this seems confused.

I will report this to the CAF admin.

• Al

 

[Steven_Merten]

I think this is right on.
Why? If he’s correct that the US war in Iraq is an unjust war, then he’s also correct to assert the immorality of participation in it. Unjust wars are murder. The shepherd of a diocese has the authority and responsibility to teach and to clarify moral issues for his flock. Is this bishop out on a limb? Here, it’s appropriate to review the Church’s criteria for “legitimate defense by military force”
catholic.com/library/Just_war_Doctrine_1.asp
…and to point out that 2 popes were against the US invasion of Iraq on the grounds that it was not carried out as a last resort.

Hello miguel,

So do you think it was immoral for Pope Benedict XVI to join the German army in WWII? There are different opinions about whether or not the Iraq war is an unjust war. I would think all Catholics see the WWII Nazi war machine as fighting an unjust war. Do you think Pope Pius XII failed in his duty as Shepard when he did not bind the consciences of German and Italian Catholics to mortal sin for participating in Hitler’s evil unjust war?

One Catholic soul burning in hell for all eternity is far more loss of life than the combine loss of physical life cut short from all the wars in human history. If German and Italians fighting for Hitler were all murderers guilty of mortal sin, then one would have to wonder why Pope Pius XII and all the German and Italian clergy were not loudly and clearly leading Catholics to accept martyrdom rather than join Hitler’s army and thus damning tens of millions of German and Italian Catholics, including Pope Benedict XVI, souls to hell. Church leaders keeping their mouth shut to save the physical lives of Catholics and Jews is not an acceptable reason to stand by silent as tens of millions of Catholics march off to eternal damnation through joining Hitler’s army.

Many Catholics do not see fighting on the side of injustice, such as WWII German and Italian soldiers, as immoral. Do you? Can you give us a Church quote which states that it is mortal sin to fight on the side of injustice in an unjust war?