It seems to me that In Hoc Signo, Vinces (in sign you shall win) ascribing that The great Constantine’s victory is due to the intervention of Christ is contradicting to what Jesus taught us “to love for one’s enemies”.Constantine, one of the greatest Roman emperors, was formerly devoted to the cult of the Unconquered Sun. His religious views changed radically in 312, when he was in Italy fighting Maxentius. Before the battle, he saw a cross superimposed on the sun, with the inscription: In Hoc Signo, Vinces (in sign you shall win). He ordered his men to go into battle with the cross painted on their shields, and they quickly defeated their enemies of the Milvian Bridge, outside Rome. Ascribing his victory to the intervention of Christ, he promulgated the Edict of Milan (313) that ended three centuries of persecution and granted permanent freedom to the church.
What are the circumstances to be considered moral to engage in war?Peter once asked Jesus, “Lord when my brother wrongs me, how often must I forgive him? Seven times?” “No,” Jesus replied, “not seven times; I say, seventy times seven times*"* (Mt 18:21).
Wars are usually fought for political or religious reasons, and yet when a serial killer kills a particular type of victim he often gets a harsher punishment than if he killed randomly. He certainly isn’t excused for the murder/s once he gives a reason.1st, they are 2 different things. One is a War, the latter is speaking of personal entities.
See the Catechism para 2307 ff.It seems to me that In Hoc Signo, Vinces (in sign you shall win) ascribing that The great Constantine’s victory is due to the intervention of Christ is contradicting to what Jesus taught us “to love for one’s enemies”.
What are the circumstances to be considered moral to engage in war?
Intent really, while they are all physical evils, the culpability of intent on them varies. A serial killer gets pleasure out of the death, this intent is more harsh and direct then someone who killed a man who was raping his child or wife. Culpabilty in War is a entirely differant action.Wars are usually fought for political or religious reasons, and yet when a serial killer kills a particular type of victim he often gets a harsher punishment than if he killed randomly. He certainly isn’t excused for the murder/s once he gives a reason.
On the other hand, we excuse killing and on occasion having innocent casualties as a result of bombings and such events, as long as these criminal actions are done by a country and for a well defined reason.
Why does this huge difference exist between killing as one man presumably in his own country, versus killing in a large gang of men in uniform overseas?
Are you saying that Constantine The Great’s claim was not true? Otherwise, engaging in war after trying all possible peaceful means of settlement didn’t work, is an “exemption” of love.See the Catechism para 2307 ff.
What claim, exactly, do you mean? Sorry… just want to be clear. Thanks.Are you saying that Constantine The Great’s claim was not true? Otherwise, engaging in war after trying all possible peaceful means of settlement didn’t work, is an “exemption” of love.
This one.What claim, exactly, do you mean? Sorry… just want to be clear. Thanks.
Constantine, one of the greatest Roman emperors, was formerly devoted to the cult of the Unconquered Sun. His religious views changed radically in 312, when he was in Italy fighting Maxentius. Before the battle, he saw a cross superimposed on the sun, with the inscription: In Hoc Signo, Vinces (in sign you shall win). He ordered his men to go into battle with the cross painted on their shields, and they quickly defeated their enemies of the Milvian Bridge, outside Rome. Ascribing his victory to the intervention of Christ, he promulgated the Edict of Milan (313) that ended three centuries of persecution and granted permanent freedom to the church.
Thanks. Ascribing his victory to Christ is possibly different than saying Christ wanted war. And of course it says nothing about what other means may have been tried to avoid war.This one.
Thank you. How about this one?Thanks. Ascribing his victory to Christ is possibly different than saying Christ wanted war. And of course it says nothing about what other means may have been tried to avoid war.
Also, of course, the source for this account is not Constantine himself.
It seems to me that it is contrary to Jesus’ command that you must “Love your enemies and pray for those who prosecute you” (Mt 5:43). Otherwise, I am missing something.St Augustine set these Principles down about 1500 years ago.
Principles of the Just War
Search also for the Weinberger Doctrine.
- A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
- A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
- A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient–see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with “right” intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
- A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
- The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
- The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
- The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.
I have always pondered about if going to war is correct or not. Eventhough the last post seems to have an explanation for war. Let’s remember that these are human beings writting their ideas, but, i really favor God’s commandments: You shall not kill.Thank you. How about this one?
It seems to me that it is contrary to Jesus’ command that you must “Love your enemies and pray for those who prosecute you” (Mt 5:43). Otherwise, I am missing something.
That has nothing to do with Constantine.Thank you. How about this one?
It seems to me that it is contrary to Jesus’ command that you must “Love your enemies and pray for those who prosecute you” (Mt 5:43). Otherwise, I am missing something.
It can be, according to Catholic moral teaching, but it need not be. Catholic are free to be pacifists or to adhere to Catholic moral teaching regarding “just wars”.Can killing be morally justified by law enforcement e.g. soldiers, police, etc.?