Why not update the Just War Doctrine?

[sedonaman]

Why hasn’t the Just War Doctrine part of the Catechism been updated?

As we have witnessed in the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the recent Iraq War, and even the American Civil War, public support for a conflict can diminish over time. This is due to a real or perceived endless nature of the conflict. As part of the decision to go to war, the Just War Doctrine requires that there be a reasonable chance of success and that the responsibility for making this determination rests with those responsible for the common good.

"JUSTICE IN WAR

“Once the decision to go to war has been reached, a new set of issues is placed in focus. These have to do with how the war is conducted.”

Pursuant to a reasonable chance of success, and noting that public authorities have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense, the Doctrine therefore should include statements to the effect that those in military service carrying out the decision have a right to, and must be accorded by those responsible for the common good, the necessary:

• materiel to ensure a reasonable chance of success for the decision, and
• moral support to ensure a reasonable chance of success for the decision.

 

[ahollars]

Public support has nothing to do with whether or not a war is just.

Reasonable success is not limited to timelines decided by those who are not held responsible. How long a war lasts has nothing to do with whether or not it is successful.

Conduct of a war has nothing to do with just war either. A cause for war may be just, but the conduct of it may still be immoral. Where to draw the line is open for debate, but I’ve made my decision.

The only thing forbidden by the Church (and the Geneva Conventions as well) is the killing of innocents. This is eliminated as much as possible by forbidding the use of indiscriminate weapons. Aside from that, vitually anything goes for anyone fighting on the battlefield.

Prisoners who chose to continue the fight even while in captivity are not protected under the Geneva Conventions (Yes, go back and read it if you disagree). They are subject to subduing until they again surrender any action or weapons they posses, including imminent information that could be used directly to continue the fight.

Yes, I said it. I support the waterboarding used by the CIA.

I have no qualms about what I would do to protect my own children, and I support the men who acted on my behalf.

That’s my story. I believe there is no need to update the Just War Doctrine.

:knight2:

 

[sedonaman]

Public support has nothing to do with whether or not a war is just.

Reasonable success is not limited to timelines decided by those who are not held responsible. How long a war lasts has nothing to do with whether or not it is successful.

Conduct of a war has nothing to do with just war either. A cause for war may be just, but the conduct of it may still be immoral. Where to draw the line is open for debate, but I’ve made my decision.

The only thing forbidden by the Church (and the Geneva Conventions as well) is the killing of innocents. This is eliminated as much as possible by forbidding the use of indiscriminate weapons. Aside from that, vitually anything goes for anyone fighting on the battlefield.

Prisoners who chose to continue the fight even while in captivity are not protected under the Geneva Conventions (Yes, go back and read it if you disagree). They are subject to subduing until they again surrender any action or weapons they posses, including imminent information that could be used directly to continue the fight.

Yes, I said it. I support the waterboarding used by the CIA.

I have no qualms about what I would do to protect my own children, and I support the men who acted on my behalf.

That’s my story. I believe there is no need to update the Just War Doctrine.

You missed my whole point.

 

[ahollars]

You missed my whole point.

I’m listening…

 

[sedonaman]

I’m listening…

Go back and re-read it carefully.

 

[ahollars]

Go back and re-read it carefully.

If we’re saying the same thing, then what’s the problem?

 

[sedonaman]

If we’re saying the same thing, then what’s the problem?

I don’t think we are.

 

[Mark77]

Go back and re-read it carefully.

What is your point?

**What would you rewrite in the Catechism regarding just war?
**
(Remember, the Catechism was written under the direction of Papa Johannes Paulus II and the supervision of then Cardinal Ratzinger, now Papa Benedictus XVI. Two pretty smart and devout Servants of servants!!!).

Why do we always think we’re smarter than the Church???

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

Mark

 

[sedonaman]

What is your point?

**What would you rewrite in the Catechism regarding just war?
**
(Remember, the Catechism was written under the direction of Papa Johannes Paulus II and the supervision of then Cardinal Ratzinger, now Papa Benedictus XVI. Two pretty smart and devout Servants of servants!!!).

Why do we always think we’re smarter than the Church???

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

Mark

OK, let me repeat my post in answer to what I would change:

Pursuant to a reasonable chance of success, and noting that public authorities have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense, the Doctrine therefore should include statements to the effect that those in military service carrying out the decision have a right to, and must be accorded by those responsible for the common good, the necessary:

- materiel to ensure a reasonable chance of success for the decision, and

• moral support to ensure a reasonable chance of success for the decision.

I don’t know what more I can say about the questionable morality of sending soldiers into a war and then denying them the resources to ensure a reasonable chance of success. If you [the rhetorical “you”] do, you are violating the requirement of a reasonable chance of success. Capice?

 

[JanetF]

In what way have soldiers been denied the resources to succeed?

 

[ahollars]

OK, let me repeat my post in answer to what I would change:

I don’t know what more I can say about the questionable morality of sending soldiers into a war and then denying them the resources to ensure a reasonable chance of success. If you [the rhetorical “you”] do, you are violating the requirement of a reasonable chance of success. Capice?

That still leaves the question, “which resources are being denied?” Are we talking about something specific, or is this a philosophical disagreement?

Korea became unjust because the President Truman ordered General MacArthur to stop when he was winning. North Korea would not exist if we had moved all the way to China. Don’t believe me, ask the older generation of South Koreans. I’ve been there twice.

Vietnam became unjust for the same reason, with a different President and different General.

I am surprised you mentioned the American Civil War. There is no question that it was necessary for us to change as a nation. What exactly was unjust about that?

I am a veteran who has had his turn in the Persian Gulf nations. I have seen many things with my own eyes that the media completely ignored. The Iraq War was not unjust, and yes, it was necessary for the safety of nations in the region, which we were already defending.

Point is, unjust war is not something the United States has a history of propagating, contrary to whatever you heard from your foreign affairs professor at college. States have the right to mandate service in defense when necessary. In the USA, it’s called selective service, and yes, we still have a draft. I see nothing wrong with that. Why do you?