Apotheoun Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 (edited) The United Nations is not a sovereign power; instead, it is merely a consultative body, and not a deliberative body. Thus, it has no authority to enforce its own acts, but depends entirely on the good will of its member states. Edited June 16, 2004 by Apotheoun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crusader1234 Posted June 16, 2004 Author Share Posted June 16, 2004 [quote]Honestly I can't see this one. I mean, I respect your decision not to support it, but Canada supports gay marriages, no? Does that mean that you can support them? [/quote] The Catechism states clearly that you arent supposed to support a war that doesnt meet the just war criteria or this criteria: [quote]The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good[/quote] As far as gay marriages, it doesnt say follow the leader. And Al, its not exactly clear in the Catechism who exactly has responsiblity for the common good. This could be viewed as the Pope, the UN, or yes the President. It all depends. I'm not sure what happened with the 2308 post, I sent that a long time ago and it only popped up just now Anyways, the World Wars both fit the criteria. The second one especially, and the use of the a-bomb, however destructive, might have been neccesary to stop it (as per part 4). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 [url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=13902"]Does this make it a just war?[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crusader1234 Posted June 16, 2004 Author Share Posted June 16, 2004 Nope. When they waged war it wasnt just. If they had waited until now it could have been, but it was uncertain at best to begin with. They acted too soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 (edited) [quote]Nope. When they waged war it wasnt just. If they had waited until now it could have been, but it was uncertain at best to begin with. They acted too soon.[/quote] That is your opinion, but I would point out that it is the common tradition of the Church that the proper governing authorities in the state or nation concerned, are charged with the defense of the common good, and so the prudential judgment about whether or not to go to war is theirs. Edited June 16, 2004 by Apotheoun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 [quote][T]he use of the a-bomb, however destructive, might have been neccesary to stop it (as per part 4).[/quote] It is never morally acceptable to intentionally kill the innocent. Thus, the atomic bombing of civilian populations (i.e., non-combatants) is never morally licit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crusader1234 Posted June 16, 2004 Author Share Posted June 16, 2004 While I'm not sure why you decided you needed to erase my t and add your own, I will remind you that I did say [i]might[/i]. I'm not as well versed in ww2 as I am in ww1, so I didnt want to say it was, but I do know that it had a large part in ending the war so it might have been o.k. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 [quote]While I'm not sure why you decided you needed to erase my t and add your own . . .[/quote] The reason I changed your little [ t ] to a capitol [ T ] was simply because I didn't quote the whole of your sentence. So, since I began the sentence midstream, I changed the [ t ] in order to let people know that I didn't quote your sentence in its entirety. Similarly, I ended the quotation from your post above with an ellipsis, once again to let people know that I didn't quote your original sentence in full. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crusader1234 Posted June 16, 2004 Author Share Posted June 16, 2004 Alright Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 [quote]. . . but I do know that it had a large part in ending the war so it might have been o.k. [/quote] One may never do evil that good may come of it, in other words, the ends do not justify the means. In war it is never morally acceptable to [i]intentionally[/i] kill civilians (non-combatants), nothing can ever make this morally licit. So, the [i]intentional[/i] bombing of civilian populations was, is, and always will be, gravely immoral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crusader1234 Posted June 16, 2004 Author Share Posted June 16, 2004 I know what you mean, but according to part 4 of #2309, [quote]-the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.[/quote] so, if this ended the Holocaust from progressing and Hitler from growing in power, then it could potentially be seen as not producing more evil than it would elimiate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 (edited) It's good to base your moral judgments on statements in the catechism, but you cannot found your moral judgment upon one statement in the Catechism lifted from its proper context. The Church has always taught that the killing of an innocent person is morally unacceptable. So, if the United States had had atomic weapons at the beginning of WW2 and had decided to kill Hitler by blowing up the entire city of Berlin, thus killing over a million innocent people in the process, it follows that the United States would have been just as guilty of committing a crime against humanity as Hitler was for killing millions of people in concentration camps in Germany. You cannot end one crime against humanity by committing another crime against humanity. You cannot save millions of innocent people by intentionally choosing to killing millions of other innocent people. This defies logic and morality. You may never intentionally kill an innocent human being, even if in doing so you may save hundreds of other people. This is an absolute moral doctrine, the commandment, "You shall not murder," applies in all times, places and circumstances. Edited June 16, 2004 by Apotheoun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crusader1234 Posted June 16, 2004 Author Share Posted June 16, 2004 (edited) That makes total sense to me, however, that sort of makes all war unjust... because in one way or another the purpose of the war is to avoid innocent lives being lost. Maybe you should write a veyr long paragraph or essay on Just War using references from all over the Catechism, the Bible, anything you want. Then I can understand better what yuo are getting at, because right now its late and I'm going to bed. Peace, Rich Edited June 16, 2004 by crusader1234 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 [quote]So, in a sense, no war would be just?[/quote] No, that doesn't logically follow. You may never [i]intentionally[/i] kill an [i]innocent[/i] person, but a [i]combatant[/i] in war is not considered to be [i]innocent[/i], any more than a person who breaks into your house and threatens to kill you or your family is [i]innocent[/i]. If someone enters your house and tries to kill a member of your family, you have a [i]right[/i], and in fact a [i]duty[/i], to stop them, even if you must use [i]lethal means[/i]. In such a case you would not be killing an [i]innocent[/i] person, but a [i]guilty[/i] one; and your act of self-defense would not be in any way criminal. You would be [i]innocent[/i] of any wrong doing in killing that person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crusader1234 Posted June 16, 2004 Author Share Posted June 16, 2004 Well, you left out the second half of my sentence, but that confirms what I thought after I posted that. I'd still like to hear from you (everyone around here thinks your smart) as to what exactly makes a war just. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now