Why We Fight

[Lonevoice]

gilliam:

I think you need to purchase a Catechism

Yup, I was thinking the same thing.

 

[FightingFat]

Hey Matt, I think the problem is there seems to be a special American edition of the Catechism!

 

[Matt25]

FightingFat:

Hey Matt, I think the problem is there seems to be a special American edition of the Catechism!

That would explain the special American version of Catholicism.

 

[FightingFat]

Matt25:

That would explain the special American version of Catholicism.

That must be it!

 

[gilliam]

Matt25:

That would explain the special American version of Catholicism.

Nope, Matt is just ignoring it:

“2321 The prohibition of murder does not abrogate the right to render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. Legitimate defense is a grave duty for whoever is responsible for the lives of others or the common good”

The Catholic Catechism

 

[Norwich]

gilliam:

Nope, Matt is just ignoring it:

“2321 The prohibition of murder does not abrogate the right to render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. Legitimate defense is a grave duty for whoever is responsible for the lives of others or the common good”

The Catholic Catechism

Yep, that’s the same as ours, except we can spell defence. By the way I suspect it’s that word DEFENCE that seems to be the problem, DEFENCE means defending yourself against an agressor. I can’t see how regime change can be classed as defence against an agressor. Did Iraq threaten with WMD’s obviously not, they didn’t have any, and, despite all the protestations being made and the attemts to change history Iraq was not considered a co-conspiritor with AL-Qieda, the CIA said that, not me.
Now? well thats different, by invading Iraq we have created the very thing we claimed to be fighting in Iraq. Up to that point Al-Qieda (remember them, they’re the ones who attacked America) were holed up in Afganistan, now they are everywhere. Its called opening Pandora’s box.

 

[Matt25]

gilliam:

Nope, Matt is just ignoring it:

“2321 The prohibition of murder does not abrogate the right to render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. Legitimate defense is a grave duty for whoever is responsible for the lives of others or the common good”

The Catholic Catechism

Legitimate defence and war are not synonyms for each other. Non-violent means of defence exist and are not contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church. Unlike pre-emptive war.

 

[gilliam]

Matt25:

Legitimate defence and war are not synonyms for each other. Non-violent means of defence exist and are not contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church. Unlike pre-emptive war.

Actually, this quote is from the just war section of the catechism, it shows an exception to never war. Yes, there are non violent means of defense and there are violent means, which are used as a last resort. Catholic dogma is that we accept that there may be times when the only defense is via violent means. To say otherwise is heresy.

 

[Matt25]

gilliam:

Actually, this quote is from the just war section of the catechism, it shows an exception to never war. Yes, there are non violent means of defense and there are violent means, which are used as a last resort. Catholic dogma is that we accept that there may be times when the only defense is via violent means. To say otherwise is heresy.

paxchristiusa.org/pc_conscience_teaching.asp

Catholic Church Teachings
Catholic Church doctrine for many centuries advanced “just war theory”- that wars could be conducted if they met certain conditions. During the twentieth century, when new horrors of absolute warfare haunted the planet and killed tens of millions, the Catholic Church acknowledged that Catholic faith could lead one to reject war. Numerous statements from the Vatican and the U.S. Catholic bishops have asserted the right of conscientious objection for those for whom military participation would be a violation of “deeply held moral convictions.”

                           U.S. military policy states that a conscientious                                objector must reject all war. The Catholic Church                                has gone further, calling for recognition of and                                legal protection for selective conscientious objectors:                                those who reject war or military participation under                                certain circumstances (such as serving in a capacity                                where one is responsible for using nuclear weapons)                                or a particular war (such as a war of aggression                                or one that does not meet just war criteria). (An                                example of the latter might be the potential war                                against Iraq, which the U.S. bishops in November                                2002 said does not meet just war criteria ([usccb.org/bishops/iraq.htm](http://www.usccb.org/bishops/iraq.htm).)                                
                           
                           The U.S. Bishops’ Declaration on Conscientious                                Objection and Selective Conscientious Objection                                (1971) states,* "In the light of the Gospel                                and from an analysis of the church’s teaching                                on conscience, it is clear that a Catholic can be                                a conscientious objector to war in general or to                                a particular war ‘because of religious training                                and belief.’ . . .we should regard conscientious                                objection and selective conscientious objection                                as positive indicators within the Church of a sound                                moral awareness and respect for human life."                                *
                           
                           Over and over, this position has been reaffirmed,                                including in the bishops’ November 2002 statement                                on Iraq: "We also support those who seek to                                exercise their right to conscientious objection                                and selective conscientious objection." 

                                                                                                      **[

](javascript:history.go(-1))**

 

[Matt25]

catholicpeacefellowship.org/sopI2/sop12.htm

The Catholic Church clearly affirms the rights of conscientious objectors. The Second Vatican Council, the Church’s highest teaching authority, made this affirmation in the Pastoral Constitution of the Church in the Modern World. It declared, “we cannot but express our admiration for all who forgo the use of violence to vindicate their rights and resort to other means of defense which are available, provided it can be done without harm to the rights and duties of others and of the community” (Guadium et Spes, n. 78). It also declared “that laws should make humane provision for the case of conscientious objectors who refuse to carry arms, provided they accept some other form of community service” (Guadium et Spes, n. 79). The Catholic bishops of the United States also affirmed the rights of conscientious objectors in their pastoral letter on war and peace (The Challenge of Peace, n. 233). *The Catechism of the Catholic Church *reiterates this same teaching: “Public authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms; these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way” (para. 2311).

When it comes to the rights of conscientious objectors to war in any form, there is basic agreement between U.S. law and the teaching of the Catholic Church. Tension arises mainly from the federal regulations which do not allow enough time for young men to properly discern their consciences.

In addition to supporting conscientious objectors to all wars, the Catholic Church supports those who determine that they cannot in conscience fight in a particular war, “selective conscientious objectors” (SCOs). Such a determination is made on the teaching that a war is just only if certain criteria are met: it must be waged as a last resort, with a just intention, for the sake of peace, with probability of success, without disproportionate destruction, and so on (The Challenge of Peace, nn. 85-100). Applying these criteria, the U.S. Catholic bishops determined in 1971 that the war in Vietnam had become unjust, and they held in 1983 that any first-strike use of nuclear weapons is unjust. From this just-war teaching, it follows that people who conscientiously judge a particular war to be unjust have the right not to be inducted into fighting that war (The Challenge of Peace, n. 233).

losangelesmission.com/ed/articles/2003/0403cz.htm

May a Catholic be a pacifist?

The Vatican Council’s recognition of a right to conscientious objection to war, though merely pastoral in character, is far reaching in effect. According to a 1996 article by Tom Cornell in the magazine Salt of the Earth, before the council, most theologians, priests, and bishops would have rejected any idea that an individual could be a conscientious objector. Though Cardinal Ottaviani had asserted, after World War II, bellum omnino interdicendum (“war is to be entirely condemned”), he, nevertheless, thought judgment as to the justice of any individual war could not be left to individuals; it was a matter for the Church and governments to decide But, by 1965, Ottaviani had changed his mind.

Though one of the leading “conservatives” at the council, Cardional Ottaviani, according to Cornell, championed recognition of the right to conscientious objection in the schema that became known as Gaudium et Spes, despite opposition from American bishops, led by Cardinal Francis Spellman of New York. Not only that, but, in part, because of Ottaviani, the council came to assert that “any act of war aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of entire cities or of extensive areas along with their population is a crime against God and man himself. It merits unequivocal and unhesitating condemnation.”

It is said that, despite his general unpopularity with the council fathers, Ottaviani was given the longest and loudest ovation at the council, for his influence carried the day for the schema that became known as Gaudium et Spes. It also carried the day for what, to many before the council, seemed unthinkable – the ecclesiastical support for an individual’s right to object in conscience to a war. Without abandoning the just war tradition, the Church, it seemed, had said that a Catholic, in good conscience, could be a pacifist.

 

[gilliam]

There is a big difference between being a conciencious objector and deliberately not protecting the innocent if you have the power and obligation to.

Individuals can be conciencious objectors. I cannot think of a situation where a civil authority has that luxury.

Same for parents, if your child is in danger, you can’t just sit back and watch someone club them to death.

 

[HagiaSophia]

gilliam:

There is a big difference between being a conciencious objector and deliberately not protecting the innocent if you have the power and obligation to.

Individuals can be conciencious objectors. I cannot think of a situation where a civil authority has that luxury.

Same for parents, if your child is in danger, you can’t just sit back and watch someone club them to death.

It is interesting to note that in 1956 Pius XII states that lay Catholics could not be conscientious objectors; “war is too grave a matter to leave up to individual conscience.”

“… The Second Vatican Council changed this to allow for conscientious objection — that is, the legal recognition of the objection to all wars. Since then, the Church has been pressing for legal recognition of “selective conscientious objection”: the objection on “just war theory” grounds that some wars may be just, but the one in question is not. Without such legal recognition, selective conscientious objectors are treated as criminals…”

 

[gilliam]

As long as everyone understands we are Catholics, not Quakers.

 

[HagiaSophia]

gilliam:

As long as everyone understands we are Catholics, not Quakers.

I found it quite interesting that the pope as Secretary of State and Bishop of Rome understood that evil must be confronted sometimes militarily --he saw both the Nazi’s and the Reds…and close up.

 

[Matt25]

gilliam:

As long as everyone understands we are Catholics, not Quakers.

Pacifism has maintained a continuous witness within the Church since the earliest times. It is not contrary to any revealed truth or dogma of the faith. We are not Quakers. Catholic Pacifists, however disagreeable you may find it are Catholics who are Pacifist.

You seem to believe that the only way to resist violence and evil is to use counter-violence, counter-evil. The Church affirms that war is always an evil. How many people did Our Lord kill to defend himself?

 

[gilliam]

Matt25:

You seem to believe that the only way to resist violence and evil is to use counter-violence, counter-evil. ?

And you seem to be putting words I never said into my mouth.

The Church affirms that war is always an evil.

You are incorrect here. The Church affirms that there are evils and injustices that accompany all war, but a Just war is not evil, it is just.

 

[Matt25]

gilliam:

You are incorrect here. The Church affirms that there are evils and injustices that accompany all war, but a Just war is not evil, it is just.

In his New Years Message 2005, the Holy Father said~
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/peace/documents/hf_jp-ii_mes_20041216_xxxviii-world-day-for-peace_en.html

…To attain the good of peace there must be a clear and conscious acknowledgment that violence is an unacceptable evil and that it never solves problems. “Violence is a lie, for it goes against the truth of our faith, the truth of our humanity. Violence destroys what it claims to defend: the dignity, the life, the freedom of human beings”(4)…

1. No man or woman of good will can renounce the struggle to overcome evil with good. This fight can be fought effectively only with the weapons of love.* When good overcomes evil, love prevails and where love prevails, there peace prevails*. …

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/2003/january/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20030113_diplomatic-corps_en.html

NO TO WAR"! War is not always inevitable. It is always a defeat for humanity.

zenit.org/english/war/visualizza.phtml?sid=16362

When John Paul II received the new ambassador of the Philippines to the Vatican today, he made it clear that peace cannot result from violence and conflict.

“The pillars of peace in your land, as everywhere else, are justice and forgiveness,” the Pontiff said when he received the credential letters of Francisco Acevedo Alba.

It is the “justice that ensures full respect for rights and responsibilities, and equitable distribution of benefits and burdens; and the forgiveness that heals and rebuilds troubled human relations from their foundations,” the Holy Father said.

In the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the Holy Father said the world “cannot think that justice and forgiveness will come as the result of violence and conflict; they are moral virtues that entail our personal and collective responsibility to choose what leads to the common good and avoid all that denies or distorts the truth of our being.”

 

[Matt25]

If I understand the Just War Doctrine correctly only one party to a conflict can be Just. War would always be an evil then if only because one party would be waging it unjustly.

Furthermore there is no guarantee that the good guys will win. A Just War would have an evil outcome if evil triumphed would it not?

Even if the provisions for waging war by both sides were in lines with JW principles people, including non-combatants would still be killed or injured. Property would still be destroyed, economic activity would still be disrupted. These are undoubted evils.

It must be supposed that all violence is contrary to the desire of God who is love. Since war is violence, even if just can it really be said to be what God would want his beloved children to be doing.

There are other factors to think about. I recommend Guadiam et Spes Part II Chapter 5 cin.org/v2modwor.html

One thing that countries like ours need to consider is the huge, vast, staggering sums of money that we spend each year on weapons and weapons technology in a world in which 30 000 people die every day from hunger. Even if the Invasion of Iraq saved thousands of lives (I do not admit this) think of the number of the starving who might yet be alive if we had spent the money instead on effective poverty relief.

"Whatever be the facts about this method of deterrence, men should be convinced that the arms race in which an already considerable number of countries are engaged is not a safe way to preserve a steady peace, nor is the so-called balance resulting from this race a sure and authentic peace. Rather than being eliminated thereby, the causes of war are in danger of being gradually aggravated.** While extravagant sums are being spent for the furnishing of ever new weapons, an adequate remedy cannot be provided for the multiple miseries afflicting the whole modern world.** Disagreements between nations are not really and radically healed; on the contrary, they spread the infection to other parts of the earth. New approaches based on reformed attitudes must be taken to remove this trap and to emancipate the world from its crushing anxiety through the restoration of genuine peace.

Therefore, we say it again: the arms race is an utterly treacherous trap for humanity, and one which ensnares the poor to an intolerable degree. It is much to be feared that if this race persists, it will eventually spawn all the lethal ruin whose path it is now making ready. Warned by the calamities which the human race has made possible, let us make use of the interlude granted us from above and for which we are thankful, to become more conscious of our own responsibility and to find means for resolving our disputes in a manner more worthy of man.** Divine Providence urgently demands of us that we free ourselves from the age-old slavery of war. If we refuse to make this effort, we do not know where we will be led by the evil road we have set upon."**

 

[gilliam]

Matt25:

If I understand the Just War Doctrine correctly only one party to a conflict can be Just. War would always be an evil then if only because one party would be waging it unjustly.

Interesting vantage point. But to combat evil is a good. So you could also say that every just war would be a good since one party would be combatting evil.

Anyway, the Church looks at a just war as a good

 

[Matt25]

gilliam:

Interesting vantage point. But to combat evil is a good. So you could also say that every just war would be a good since one party would be combatting evil.

Anyway, the Church looks at a just war as a good

Where has the Church said in so many words that Just War is a positive good?

Do you agree with the Holy Father that War is always a defeat for humanity?

If so how can a defeat constitute a good?

If not why not?