Are We In A Just War?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='MorphRC' date='Aug 3 2004, 10:40 PM'] The pope said the Iraq War is Unjust.

Therefore its unjust.

Either follow the Pope or follow your President. [/quote]
I will defer to Cardinal Ratzinger who said, "Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or [i][b]on the decision to wage war[/b][/i], he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. [b][i]There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty[/i][/b], but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia." [Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, [u]Letter to the US Bishops on Communion[/u], no. 3]

I hold that the war in Iraq is just, because, as I indicated in a previous post, it meets all six of the fundamental principles of the [i]Just War[/i] doctrine.

God bless,
Todd

Edited August 4, 2004 by Apotheoun

[qfnol31]

Why we don't necessarily have to follow the Pope's decree that the war is unjust:

[quote]It is only in connection with doctrinal authority as such that, practically speaking, this question of infallibility arises; that is to say, when we speak of the Church's infallibility we mean, at least primarily and principally, what is sometimes called active as distinguished from passive infallibility.[/quote]

[quote]We mean in other words that the Church is infallible in her objective definitive teaching regarding faith and morals, not that believers are infallible in their subjective interpretation of her teaching. This is obvious in the case of individuals, any one of whom may err in his understanding of the Church's teaching; nor is the general or even unanimous consent of the faithful in believing a distinct and independent organ of infallibility.[/quote]

[quote][I]nfallibility means more than exemption from actual error; it means exemption from the possibility of error...[/quote]

[quote]Having established the general doctrine of the Church's infallibility, we naturally proceed to ask what are the organs through which the voice of infallible authority makes itself heard. We have already seen that it is only in the episcopal body which has succeeded to the college of Apostles that infallible authority resides, and that it is possible for the authority to be effectively exercised bythis body, dispersed throughout the world, but united in bonds of communion with Peter's successor, who is its visible head and centre. During the interval from the council of the Apostles at Jerusalem to that of their successors at Nicaea this ordinary everyday exercise of episcopal authority was found to be sufficiently effective for the needs of the time, but when a crisis like the Arian heresy arose, its effectiveness was discovered to be inadequate, as was indeed inevitable by reason of the practical difficulty of verifying that fact of moral unanimity, once any considerable volume of dissent had to be faced.[/quote]

[quote]And while for subsequent ages down to our own day it continues to be theoretically true that the Church may, by the exercise of this ordinary teaching authority arrive at a final and infallible decision regarding doctrinal questions, it is true at the same time that in practice it may be impossible to prove conclusively that such unanimity as may exist has a strictly definitive value in any particular case, unless it has been embodied in a decree of an ecumenical council, or in the ex cathedra teaching of the pope, or, at least, in some definite formula such as the Athanasian Creed. Hence, for practical purposes and in so far as the special question of infallibility is concerned, we may neglect the so called magisterium ordinarium ("ordinary magisterium") and confine our attention to ecumenical councils and the pope.[/quote]

[quote][I]nfallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but only to his ex cathedra teaching; and the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree:

The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher ar allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal.

Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible (see below, IV).

Further it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority, in other words that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense (see DEFINITION). These are well-recognized formulas by means of which the defining intention may be manifested.

Finally for an ex cathedra decision it must be clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church. To demand internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck (naufragium fidei) according to the expression used by Pius IX in defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. Theoretically, this intention might be made sufficiently clear in a papal decision which is addressed only to a particular Church; but in present day conditions, when it is so easy to communicate with the most distant parts of the earth and to secure a literally universal promulgation of papal acts, the presumption is that unless the pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he does not intend his doctrinal teaching to be held by all the faithful as ex cathedra and infallible.[/quote]

This is all from NewAdvent.org

Therefore, from this I'd say that the Pope in saying that the Iraq War was unjust was not speaking infallibly.

[MorphRC]

Thanks Zach.

Apo. You can follow your President. Thats your choice, and now I know what you can follow when the Pope speaks, its obviously fine with the Pope that you choose to ignore his comments.

This still doesnt change the fact, its an illegal war.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='MorphRC' date='Aug 3 2004, 10:03 PM'][quote name='Apotheoun' date='Aug 3 2004, 02:29 PM']The war in Iraq is a [i]Just War[/i], because it clearly meets all the requirements for a [i]Just War[/i].

First, the war is being prosecuted by a [i]legitimate and sovereign power[/i]. It must be remembered that the United Nations is not a sovereign power; instead, it is a consultative body, and so it has no power beyond that given to it by its member States. The United Nations cannot make war on anyone, because it has no standing army, nor does it have any powers to enforce its own enactments. No country has surrendered its sovereign right to act in its own defense, or in the defense of those in need, to the United Nations. In addition, the moral legitimacy of the United Nations to act is quite limited, because many of its member States do not possess democratic or representative governments of any kind, nor do countries like China, Sudan, Cuba, etc., even respect the fundamental human rights and freedoms of their own citizens.

Second, the war is being fought for a [i]just cause[/i], i.e., for the removal of a tyrant who tortured and killed thousands of his own people. As St. Thomas indicates, punishment for evil committed is a just cause for going to war, for as he puts it, ". . . a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault. Wherefore Augustine says (QQ. in Hept., qu. x, super Jos.): 'A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly.'" [[u]Summa Theologica[/u], Secunda Secundæ Partis, Question 40, Article 1] During the 1980s Saddam Hussein had entire towns and villages in the Kurdish region of Iraq gassed with chemical weapons, thus killing thousands of innocent men, women, and children. In addition, after the original Gulf War the Saddam regime persecuted, tortured, and killed thousands of Shia in the south and Kurds in the north. There is no statute of limitations on murder; and so, Saddam's, and his cronies, removal from power is required by the moral law, and should have been done more than 20 years ago. Saddam was a danger to his own people and to all the nations surrounding Iraq. When the United States, or any country for that matter, has the physical ability to remove a tyrant who is torturing and murdering thousands of innocent people within his own country, and yet fails to act in defense of the innocent, such an omission of action is a grave sin against charity.

Third, the war is being fought for a [i]right intention[/i], i.e., for the removal of a tyrant and the establishment of some type of self-government by the Iraqi people. The United States does not have any right to control the oil reserves in Iraq, and those who argue that this is the reason for the war, have the burden of proof in showing that this is the sole intention of the civil authorities in the American government. The United States is spending more than 87 billion dollars to rebuild Iraq, and this does not count any oil monies that belong to the Iraqi people.

Fourth, as I said in a previous post, the principle of [i]last resort[/i] does not require that the legitimate public authorities debate whether or not to act in defense of the common good in a consultative body, like the United Nations, for 20 or 30 years. What it requires is that all [i]reasonable[/i] means be exhausted prior to action; and in addition, it must be borne in mind that this element of the [i]Just War[/i] doctrine is a prudential judgment of the legitimate and sovereign public authorities. Thus, the actions of the United States meet this criteria of last resort under the [i]Just War[/i] doctrine, because the United States gave Saddam Hussein 12 years to comply with the various United Nations Security Council resolutions, and sadly, he failed to do what he was required to do.

Fifth, the [i]reasonable chance for success[/i] element of the [i]Just War[/i] doctrine has been met already, in that Saddam is now out of power. This, like all of the criteria for a [i]Just War[/i], is a prudential judgment of the legitimate public authorities, i.e., of those charged with defending the common good of society.

Sixth and finally, the principle of [i]proportionality[/i] was met because the amount of force used by the United States was proportionate to the ends desired. American troops did not go in and level the country, nor did the United States government indiscriminately bomb entire populations. The legitimate public authorities limited themselves to those means necessary to remove an evil dictator from power, and the harm caused during the war did not exceed the evils already existing in Iraq.

God bless,
Todd[/quote]

The Pope condemned it!

How the heck is it just?????

its for oil, land, and bases in the middle east.

The US told the UN to get lost, so not all diplomatic ties were exhausted. The reason for war was OIL, LAND and a foothold in the middle east. It had nothing to do with freeing the iraq people, or getting rid of saddam.

Also. Since the Pope Condemned this, and your supporting it, shouldnt u be warned for negativity against the current magisterium, geez I got 3![/quote]
MorphRC,

I will no longer respond to any of your posts on this topic, because it is clear that we will not come to an agreement. Moreover, you have used abusive language, you have called the President names, and you have not responded to any posts with a logical argument, but only with invective against those that disagree with you. As the Lord said, "Hear and understand: not what goes into the mouth defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man." [Matt. 15:10-11]

In my posts about Mr. Kerry's positions on moral issues, I have never called him names, nor will I do that, because [i]ad hominem[/i] attacks cloud the real issues involved and are ultimately counterproductive.

God bless,
Todd

Edited August 4, 2004 by Apotheoun

[MorphRC]

I have not used abusive language. Dont try and pull that one. Bush is a terrorist in my opinion. A GOD GIVEN CHOICE I will also add. Your logic is, the words and reasons Bush gives you, that is how you come over. So do not try and make yourself on some higher moral ground than me. Bush is in it for Oil. If you cant see that, then it seems you've taken his lies hook, line and sinker.

And Kerry aint much better.

[MorphRC]

[url="http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/international/alert.htm"]http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/international/alert.htm[/url]

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='crusader1234' date='Aug 3 2004, 09:34 PM'] Hey Aloysius, Apotheoun, and all of you other guys who think the war is unjust.

As Catholics, we are supposed to (ex cathedra eh?) listen to the Pope on matters of faith even when they aren't ex cathedra.

The Pope said the war wasn't just - thereforew we have to listen to that.

If you want to argue that this isn't a matter of faith, then you are seriously wrong... supporting an unjust war is a sin, therefore the Pope's comments made supporting the war a sin.

If you think you know more than the Pope about whats Kosher and what isn't, be my guest and call the war just. [/quote]
Your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding about how the teaching authority of the Magisterium operates. We are not required to subscribe to the Pope's prudential judgments as [i]de fide[/i] doctrines. I have posted this quotation from Cardinal Ratzinger several times now, but here it is again, "Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia." [Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, [u]Letter to the US Bishops on Communion[/u], no. 3] The distinction made by Cardinal Ratzinger in this letter is not new, but is a part of the traditional doctrine of the Church. Now, clearly we must be respectful of the Pope and of his comments, but in prudential matters like capital punishment and whether or not to go to war, we may legitimately disagree with the Holy Father.

Edited August 4, 2004 by Apotheoun

[MorphRC]

I love that. The Pope says its unjust. An unjust war has to be a mortal sin. Yet americans support, and catholics..

[MorphRC]

And you apo. accusing me of no logic..LOL!

[Apotheoun]

[i]Argumentum ad hominem[/i] is contrary to Christian charity, and as the [u]Code of Canon Law[/u] indicates: "No one may unlawfully harm the good reputation which a person enjoys . . ." [[u]Code of Canon Law[/u], canon 220]

Edited August 4, 2004 by Apotheoun

[MorphRC]

You purposely trying to get me banned eh?

[Apotheoun]

The following is from the USCCB's 19 March 2003 statement on the Iraq war: "[i]The role of conscience[/i]. While we have warned of the potential moral dangers of embarking on this war, we have also been clear that there are no easy answers. War has serious consequences, so could the failure to act. People of good will may and do disagree on how to interpret just war teaching and how to apply just war norms to the controverted facts of this case. We understand and respect the difficult moral choices that must be made by our President and others who bear the responsibility of making these grave decisions involving our nation's and the world's security (Catechism #2309). We affirm the words of the Catechism: "[t]hose who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace" (#2310). We also affirm that "[p]ublic authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms" (#2311). We support those who have accepted the call to serve their country in a conscientious way in the armed services and we reiterate our long-standing support for those who pursue conscientious objection and selective conscientious objection." [USCCB [u]Statement on War with Iraq[/u], March 19, 2003]

You will notice that in the Bishops statement they nowhere call the war with Iraq intrinsically immoral or unjust.

[url="http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/peace/stm31903.htm"]http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/peace/stm31903.htm[/url]

Edited August 4, 2004 by Apotheoun

[MorphRC]

[quote]People of good will may and do disagree on how to interpret just war teaching and how to apply just war norms to the controverted facts of this case.[/quote]

The same facts that turned out to be utter lies.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='MorphRC' date='Aug 4 2004, 12:52 AM'] You purposely trying to get me banned eh? [/quote]
Although I said I would not respond to your posts on this topic, I will respond to this one. No, I am not trying to get you banned. What I am trying to do, is to get you to be civil, and not resort to [i]ad hominem[/i] attacks. That kind of argumentation makes you appear small minded, and I know that that isn't the case, because I have respect for you as a person. I will say this, I normally enjoy reading your posts, and find them informative. But my main point is this, we should treat everyone, even those we don't agree with, with charity and respect. Calling the President names solves nothing. I was not pleased when President Clinton was in office, but I refused to call him names, because name calling solves nothing. Certainly, I disagreed with the majority of his positions, especially on moral issues, and I didn't refrain from speaking about my disagreement with him very forthrightly, but I didn't resort to [i]ad hominem[/i] attacks against him. I don't think people should be calling President Bush names, nor do I think people should be calling John Kerry names, nor anyone else. What good is name calling?

But as I said, I don't want you banned, and in fact I normally agree with your posts and find them insightful. On this particular topic we clearly don't agree, but we don't have to hold the same position on this topic, because I agree with what Cardinal Ratzinger said, "There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia." [Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, [u]Letter to the US Bishops on Communion[/u], no. 3] I believe that the war in Iraq is just, and I have stated my reasons for holding that position, but I don't expect everyone at Phatmass to necessarily agree with me, the only thing I desire is that people inform their conscience on this issue.

God bless,
Todd

Edited August 4, 2004 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

MorphRC,

If I have said anything that has personally offended you, I apologize.

God bless,
Todd