The Church does speak to this. Abortion and infanticide are intrinsic evils. Pre-emptive war can be just. Pope Benedict XVI, when speaking at the United Nations earlier this year, affirmed that sovereign nations have a duty to protect its citizens (to keep them free and not harm them). He also noted that other nations have an obligation to intervene when a nation does not live up to its responsibility. The context of the Holy Father’s words was a chiding of the assembled nations for allowing Iraq under Hussein to become so problematic that military intervention was necessary. He saw the war as a failure, but not necessarily as unjust.


Abortion and pre-emptive war are not at the same moral level. Pre-emptive war can be a just war. George Weigel speaks to this from the Catholic perspective. In short, a state that does not secure at least a minimal level of normative life and/or threatens other sovereign states (by being a “rogue regime”) forfeits the larger society’s normal respect of its sovereignty. The larger society has a responsibility to deny such states the capacity to create lethal disorder (both at home and abroad). Military intervention should be avoided, if possible, but it can be just. It is intrinsically evil to target innocents, but innocents killed by accident are not an intrinsic evil.


Senator Obama is on record as supporting pre-emptive war. He rejected the Iraq war but has spoken numerous times about pre-emptive war against Pakistan if it continues to shelter Al Qaeda.


Pope John Paul II did not specifically state that the Iraqi War was not just. He spoke to how even just wars must be avoided, and that even just wars are a defeat for humanity. The Church offers guidance regarding whether a war is just or not but it is clear that the final determination is left to governments. In 2003 Pope John Paul II declared that “War is never just another means that one can choose to employ for settling differences between nations” and restated that “war cannot be decided upon . . . except as the very last option and in accordance with very strict conditions.” It should always be noted that his words were only partially aimed at the United States and primarily aimed at Iraq.

One can respect Bishop Botean but it is legitimate to consider whether he overstepped his bounds by declaring an action to be a mortal sin when the Holy Father did not. He is certainly correct that all war is “morally incompatible with the Person and Way of Jesus Christ”. But that would also include violence used in direct self-defense (of an individual or of a nation (an example of the latter would be our response to Pearl Harbor)).

Are all Republican politicians REALLY pro-life? Of course not. I don’t see anyone claiming that all of them are. Generally speaking most Republicans are pro-life while most Democrats are pro-abortion. One could certainly write in a vote for Ron Paul or vote for another third party candidate. But if one is voting among the major candidates one evaluates their positions on life issues. Even if one rejects the Catholic allowance of pre-emptive wars possibly being just, both major candidates support the right of a nation to engage in a pre-emptive war. McCain is wrong on embryonic stem cell research, though he does not go so far as Obama (who supports cloning). McCain has moved towards us on abortion and now supports a human life amendment, and has promised to appoint justices who support ‘original intent’ interpretations of the Constitution (which would not support Roe). Obama has promised to past the “Freedom of Choice Act” which would nullify all laws that in some way restrict abortion (including infanticide like partial-birth abortion and the killing of infants born alive) and to appoint justices that promise to uphold Roe.

Then, of course, there are the numbers. 4,000 babies murdered in the womb each day. Our country runs with the blood of the innocents. And one candidate wants to force taxpayers to pay for all future abortions because women have a "right" to murder them.

Dear John:

I must completely disagree with your claim that a pre-emptive war can be just. Furthermore, George Weigel is, in my opinion, very biased on the question of the Iraq War, and his opinion carries zero weight for me on this issue, but my opinion aside, he does not speak with any ecclesial authority. I respectfully and humbly suggest that you continue to hammer away with the arguments of proportionality and moral equivalence (or the lack thereof). Those arguments are very compelling and far more persuasive.

In peace,

Ryan

Ryan,

I stand by my points. We will have to agree to disagree.

Regarding George Weigel, he really only expresses the classic viewpoint, which seems to have been forgotten after Pope John XXIII (or thereabouts). St. Thomas Aquinas taught that there were times when the first use of war was justified (for example, to stop systematic and organized wickedness or to prevent innocents from coming to harm). Pope John Paul II spoke in 1992 to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization in Rome and emphasized the moral duty of “humanitarian intervention” in situations of an (impending or ongoing) genocide (and other nasty stuff). He did not specify on who the duty fell or how to fulfill it but, rather, left that an open question, perhaps one for the international community to determine. The theology Weigel advances is certainly not formal Catholic Teaching. But neither does formal Catholic Teaching exclude it. His is a legitimate theological opinion within Catholicism.

John

We have definitely drifted from the topic of this thread with the preemptive war issue.

However, in the interest of fairness and truth if you listened to the debates Obama has come out in favor of pre-emptive "wars."
His defense of Israel (Iran)
His plan to increase our commitment Afghanistan (strikes in Pakistan)

He most likely will want to take a more active role in the wars in Africa (Congo, Sudan, Nigeria, Eritrea, Ethiopia) as he has a more personal interest.

This brings us back to the intrinsic evil of abortion......

Fr Deacon Paul

Yes...all other points being diversions and anguished justifications for voting for a man who supports the killing of the unborn and infanticide.

Even if one were to regard preemptive war and abortion as moral equivalents (which they are not), the comparative body count in either case is sufficient to consider abortion as the greater evil since more death and destruction (albeit done clinically behind closed doors) has been wrought through abortion than all the wars fought in the 20th century, including the Holocaust.

The Democratic Party favors and encourages this barbaric practice and pledges to throw the weight of government along with its financial resources to supporting it here and exporting it abroad.

Republicans oppose it and will defund it.

Any questions?

Fr. Deacon Daniel

Saying that your disturbed by a candidate's pro-abortion position, but that you like everything else about him, is rather like saying "My next door neighbor is a cannibal, but other than that he's a good man"

Problem is that both "neighbors" are cannibals.. one feasts on unborn babies and the other feasts on everyone else (and babies collaterally)...

One of the more ridiculous comparisons I've run across...

An example of exaggeration or hyperbole-sure, but I totally disagree that it's ridiculous.

I agree with Father Deacon Daniel. The comparison is ridiculous and irresponsible. One may disagree with the Republican Party on many issues (and I certainly do). But nothing they have done adds up to the support and blessing that Democrats have given to the murder of 4,000 babies each day. Our country runs deep with the blood of the innocents and those who voted for pro-abortion candidates are covered with it.