www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Just war, pacifists, suicide bombers, and terrorists

Will try to do that in the future. Was responding to a previous question about the Catholic teaching on just war. Hard to do that in a "25 or words less" format.

St Louis are you at tin can sailor?

Poland was a threat to Nazi Germany?
I guess their horsemen, who they sent out to fight the invading tanks, must really have been scary. :rolleyes:
Give me a break...

To support the war in Iraq would mean a judgement call that the Bush Administration is more trustworthy, wise, and concerned about peace and the common good than the Holy See, which opposed the American invasion.
Personally I think that those who still support the war, in spite of the USA's ever shifting rationale, are eager to believe anything that justifies that war. I mean, what would it take to change a die-hard neocon's mind? One comes to believe that it isn't really something open to reason with them, that there is something else going on.
-Daniel

I didn't support this war to start with, and still don't. I think it's a waste of resources, lives, and will not lessen terrorism. It also seems to me the war has been mismanaged. However, we are in this war and need to resolve it. Just walking away would cause a disaster greater than I even want to think about.

I am a Vietnam Era Navy Veteran. Served in the Naval Security Group from 1968-72 doing support for the Fleet and Marine units around the world to particularly include Vietnam. I enjoy reading military history very much, in particular on the Civil War, was a Union reenactor for about seven years serving as a gunner in an artillery unit, Battery B, 3rd Pennsylvania Volunteers, Light Artillery. Took part in many living histories, i.e., reenactments to include the major anniversary events 135th at Antietam and Gettysburg where there were upwards of 20,000 Civil War reenactors so that a full scale depiction of what actually happened on those battlefields could be realized. Unbelievable experience when 300 cannon go off simultaneously. Picks you up off of the ground.

Navy History has always been one of my loves, especially the history of battleships. Just finished reading the Battle of Leyte Gulf.

In today's Church the Barque of Peter needs to be a Battleship in order to repel the attacks (assaults on faith and reason) from both outside and within the Church.

My youngest son and I enjoyed putting detailed ship models together. Would take us about six months to do it properly with all of the painting to include hull work required before the glueing began. The models were 1/300 size, so they were relatively large. The picture on the site is of the biggest battleship ever constructed, the last model that my son and I did. I'm currently homeschooling that boy in the Catholic faith via the Seton Program whose director attends Byzantine Divine Liturgies on a regular basis. Two of his pre-HS religion classes were on Byzantine Church history and Icons.

I disagree. It�s not an �either - or� situation. The response of Iraq to the Holy Father�s call for non-violence must always be the first consideration in any discussion about the War. The Holy Father was not just addressing the United States. He was also addressing Iraq (to comply with the peace accord it signed). Too often some of the pacifists reduce the decision to something that makes it look like President Bush was picking on a poor, beloved, benevolent dictator. Hussein was a real threat. He had 12 years to comply with the peace agreement he signed. He did not.

A discussion about the Iraq War simply cannot be reduced to a �either Pope good and Bush bad� or �Pope bad and Bush good� equation. It is perfectly in line with Catholic teaching (as well as simple logic) to believe that BOTH the Holy Father was and President Bush is trustworthy, wise, and concerned about peace and the common good. One can acknowledge this and accept this while still disagreeing on the process to be used to get Hussein to comply with the peace agreement he signed.

The Holy Father called both sides to a final, peaceful resolution of Gulf War I, even after 12 years of stalemated negotiations. OK, fine. But what happens when one side (Hussein) refuses to comply or work peacefully towards that solution? The Holy Father does not give any specific teaching in that area. He stays with the basic teaching that if both sides worked towards a peaceful situation then the use of violence would never be required. What was the West to do? Sit back and watch Hussein continue to murder thousands of Iraqis each year, doing things like feeding children into meat grinders while their parents watched; paying $25,000 to the families of each Palestinian suicide bomber; giving millions to Islamist terrorist organizations to be used to attack the West; making billions of dollars from the United Nations �Oil for Palaces� scandal? How long does one put up with this? Is it always wrong to use force to end such evil? If yes, why is it wrong to use force to end such evil but not wrong when the police in London use force to break up a terror cell (which is just a tiny version of something as large as the problem of Hussein in Iraq)? In the end one must acknowledge a difference in the role of one who advocates a moral objective (peace) and one who is responsible for accomplishing that moral objective (within the political reality of the world situation).

No, the �Pope is good so therefore Bush must be bad� analogy just doesn�t work. One can disagree with the use of force to liberate Iraq while at the same time believing that the both the Holy Father and the President are trustworthy, wise, and concerned about peace and the common good.

There are such people on both sides of the issue. From my perspective I am amazed that some of the pacifists cannot get past a discussion of the rightness or wrongness of the need to use force against Hussein. Guess what? The decision was made and we used force to remove Hussein two years ago. We are two years into what the president originally told us was probably a 5-10 year effort. It�s time for those opposed to the war to say �I disagreed with the decision but it was made and I think that we now need to go in X direction�. Prior to our entry into WWI and WWII there were pacifists who argued against American involvement. But once the decision was made those opposed to war (or at least most of them) accepted that they lost the argument on the decision to go to war and moved on. Instead of continually re-arguing the morality of the use of force to remove Hussein it would be far better to agree to disagree on that issue and instead address the question: �What next?� Do the pacifists really think that the best thing to do now is to pull out of Iraq and let the effort towards democracy fall apart and be replaced by an Iran-style Islamist dictatorship?

I am not a �neocon� but more of a traditional conservative. But some of the neo-cons positions are being proved correct each day. America�s willingness to oppose evil with the use of force in Iraq has indeed made a difference. Libya did a turn about and gave up its effort to develop nuclear weapons. Afghanistan held elections and has started on what will be a very bumpy path towards real democracy. Iraq held its first free elections in generations with an incredible number of people participating and is actually working towards a constitution. Syria is pulling out of Lebanon because they fear American might. Lebanon held elections, imperfect as they were. Egypt is taking a step towards democracy with the upcoming fall election. Saudi Arabia is shaken, if not yet moved. Bush�s telling the Iranian people that we stand with them in the fight for freedom and democracy is yeast for a possible not overly violent overthrow of the mullahs in Iran. Europe is slowly waking up and realizing that the Islamic terrorists won�t go away if they just ignore them. All of these are directly related to America�s willingness not just to carry a big stick but to use it once in awhile.

I�m not eager to believe anything that justifies the war. I can see with my own eyes what is happening in the world and evaluate it for myself. I can conclude that what we are doing is right and just, even if some mistakes are made. I can respect that others may disagree. Except for some fringe people on the different sides of this issue, I don�t consider those opposed to the war to be somehow brainwashed or not open to reason. I would trust and hope that they can also not consider me to be brainwashed or not open to reason.

Admin

I believe it is also part of Catholic teaching that government leaders, not the Pope, are the ones who ultimately bear the responsibility for deciding whether or not to go to war. The Pope can (and should!) advise and offer his opinion, but it's not his call. For better or worse, it's up to the President.

That is a good point, TG.

Still, I think JP2 was a man I would listen to if I were so unfortunate as the president to be in a position to making go-to-war decisions, - not just because JP2 was Pope but because he was wise and moral and a survivor of the most horrible events of the 20th century. There is wisdom in a man who sees horror and finds peace. If JP2 questioned what you were doing as a world leader and urged you continue to pursue some more solutions before going to war, then it was advice worth taking... in the end, if you were forced to war, then at least you be more confident that you had to do it and that it was "just." To me, even thought the theory may be sound, particularly to those who follow Aquinas closely, the application is difficult in many circumstances. From the Cold War on, the old traditional model of declaring war was largely abandoned.

I'm from an old military family - service is a high calling to us. As many of you know, I lost my young cousin in Afghanistan and he was a good kid who went for the right reasons. He re-enlisted after 9/11. His uncles are cops and firemen - they worked at Ground Zero and they all came home, which was a blessing, and they worked there after under very unpleasant conditions (and much of it voluntary). And I've got a lot of friends and relatives who have been to Iraq not once - but twice - for Gulf I and now again. These are (and were) all "just" people.

War itself to me and to probably most Christians will always be an outgrowth of human brokenness and sin that we have to deal with with as much Christian charity as possible, even when we have to defend ourselves by fighting back. How you carry out war when engaged in it or forced into it is what matters to me, much moreso than justifying any given war itself. Some wars seem more clearcut than others, of course - when you have a madman like Hitler spreading across Europe and blowing up convoys and killing people by the millions who didn't fit his eugenic mold, then it's pretty easy to see who the bad guy is. I know my dad joined the Army Air Corps in WW2 (and served with distinction, having received a Bronze star, a Purple heart, and having survived a couple harrowing plane crashes) for the right reasons. His older brother went to Canada to join the RCAF because he saw America aiding England, but still officially staying out, at a time when the right side to join was clear, and as a trained pilot (and even as the child of Irish parents who had no love for England) he thought England needed help of guys like him. (How often do you hear of young American men going to Canada so they can fight in a war? It was a very different time.)

I like the part of the Liturgy where we pray for the civil authorities and the military because, really, that's where the rubber hits the road as they say. Good point, TG.

There is a line in the Catechism which has been taken out of context to imply that only the government has the knowledge to determine if a war is unjust. The proper context is longstanding Catholic social teaching, which teaches the primacy of the informed conscience.
I mean, show me one unjust war in which the perpetrators declared "we are about to go to war to pursue our own imperialistic ambitions and to make a lot of money and take country B's resources".
No, they ALWAYS have highminded reasons. Heck, as someone pointed out here, even Hitler said that the poor Poles were a threat!
Interesting what the Administrator sees when he looks at the world. I see an ever-growing Islamist movement, fed daily by American and American-supported acts against Muslim people. I see chaos in Iraq and Afghanistan. I see thousands of dead civilians [of course, who is counting? Not us]. I see the Bush family with longstanding financial ties to the Saudi royals, who have funded radical Wahabbism throughout the world, a family that still has ties to oil money big time [as does the VP]. I see real genocide in Africa, which somehow doesn't inspire action. Shall I go on?
-Daniel

The world is suffering from its refusal to recognize the social reign of Jesus Christ the King as traditionally taught by Holy Mother Church. See the pre-Conciliar encyclicals, in particular,

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10supre.htm
E SUPREMI
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS X ON THE RESTORATION OF ALL THINGS IN CHRIST OCTOBER 4, 1903

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11PRIMA.HTM
ON THE FEAST OF CHRIST THE KING
QUAS PRIMAS
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS Xl DECEMBER 11, 1925.

One basic thing that must be remembered in regard to Islam is that the Quran does not teach "Love your enemies." Therein lies the problem. Accordingly, the final Islamic solution is very different from that of Christianity. The former coercively preaches convert or else with immediate dire natural consequences; the latter preaches convert out of unconditional love for the sake of a Kingdom not of this world, i.e., for eternity's sake. Jesus Christ did not threaten immediate death to those who would not listen to Him. Rather, He gave them every chance at repentence before drawing their final breath, just as the Good Thief experienced on the cross at Calvary. Jesus Christ loved His enemies forgiving them for committing the greatest sin ever - Deicide! The god of Islam and his prophet Mohammed preach elimination of the enemies of Islam.

Please note the deference to "competent authorities" in this brief explanation of traditional Catholic teaching on the just war. The Pope, in his capacity as Vicar of Christ on Earth, can use his office to influence against war. But IF the conditions for a just war are met, it is Catholic teaching that "competent authorities" have the final say.

Jus ad bellum refers, then, to the reasons that justify a country's going to war. As laid down in the Catholic tradition and given a definitive formulation by St. Thomas Aquinas, there are basic moral conditions that are required for the justification of war, and these conditions are closely intertwined with each other.

The first condition is a just cause, e.g., the protection and/or preservation of a nation and its values. It is the defense of self or others, done in order to protect the innocents against an unjust aggression. This just cause could also be the retaking of what was unjustly taken, or the punishment of another nation for a grave evil inflicted.

Secondly, it is required that the competent authorities declare the state of war and authorize the use of force. Whether this competent authority is a person or a body of men, it must be the duly authorized representative of a sovereign political entity. This stands to reason, since the authorization to use force implies the ability to control and terminate the same use. So, ultimately, the use of force is reserved to those persons or communities who have no political superior.

The third condition required is a right intention, i.e., the intent is in agreement with the just cause. The intention must not be simply for territorial expansion, intimidation, or coercion. All hatred of the enemy, implacable animosity, lust for vengeance, and desire to dominate are to be avoided. Those who are fighting a moral war should never say "vae victim�woe to the conquered." The aim of fighting a war should be to obtain peace. Such an explicit and objective aim is a positive indicator of the right intention of the combatant: to achieve a better stability, security, or peaceful interaction that cannot be obtained otherwise.

And if the competant authorities are rogues?
I'm not sure "competant" is even a word I would use to describe George W. Bush....
-Daniel

I thank God daily that more than 62,000,000 of your neighbors disagree with you.

The line in the catechism that has caused so much disinformation reads that deciding when the conditions for a just war have been met "belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good". It is quite a stretch to insist that the Catechism here indicates the political authority waging the war. Surely that is too self-interested a group to be trusted. If the Holy See does not "have responsibility for the common good" I don't know who does.
The new Pope, when he was head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said that this line needs to be revised in light of the misunderstandings the wording had caused. He also said, like the neoconservatives, that the just war teaching need revision, but unlike them he thought it need a more, not less restrictive reading:
There was not sufficient reasons to unleash a war in Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a 'just war'.
He stated in September of 2002 that:
The concept of 'preventive war' does not appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
That Catholics largely ignore the direction of the Holy See, which is international and disinterested, and follow the direction of nationalistic self-interest dismays me.
My assessment of George W. Bush as possibly incompetant is not uncharitable; on the contrary it is the most charitable interpretation of the man that I can muster. If he is competant then he is culpable. I have always suspected that he is a largely unwitting stooge for darker powers....
-Daniel