Arguably, A Just War

[Mercy me]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1158043' date='Jan 7 2007, 10:28 AM']
Jesus didn't change it? He stopped the adulterous woman from being executed didn't he?

Do people actually think that two popes and the Vatican ignore Church history when making any proclamation about a moral issue?
[/quote]

No, He didn't but it was the Law of Moses that was chnaged not the laws of the society. He didn't say that it was wrong for a society to execute criminals. He didn't say anything about the execution of those with whom He himself was executed. That is why I said that He didn't change that teaching. Societies have that the right ot execute criminals. I am not debating the death penalty, I am just citing it as an example of where the Vatican gives an opinion.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1158739' date='Jan 8 2007, 01:59 AM']
Again Knight, you're off the mark. It does not matter how long it has been since the Israelites were captured and taken away from their land. It cannot be considered a first strike to take back what was theirs originally.

It doesn't have to be one war.

Maybe you can find a working example
[/quote]


Indeed it can, your logic is in error. The Israelites being removed by force of war was a past event, and different event in history, when compared to the return of the Israelites to the promised land. The first event had and beginning and an end to the event. The start would have been the Israelites and the invaders in open combat. The end to this event in history would be the Israelites losing the war and being removed from the promised land. That would have been the close or the end of that war.

Hundreds of years later, the Israelites return this was a completely different time in history and events. It would have its own unique NEW beginning and a new end. The beginning of this event, this war was a preemptive first strike in this new war, commanded by God to retake the promised land. The end of this even was the Israelites living in the promised land.

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1158753' date='Jan 8 2007, 02:21 AM']
Holy cow is that flimsy. You really gonna stick with that one? Custer's last stand was a first strike from the indians then?

How about another example Knight? You said that God commanded the Israelites into preemptive wars (plural) Surely you have an example that doesn't include oppressors coming back to recapture their slaves.
[/quote]


The Israelites were not slaves. I have given you two prefect examples it is you who has failed to proof yourself. Not I.

[rkwright]

I'm not sure that it really matters who struck first between the Israelites and whoever.... if the Vatican has said 'no' why isn't that enough??

[KnightofChrist]

That is the Israelites were not slaves at the time God protected, and attacked the Egyptians first.

[Jaime]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1158763' date='Jan 8 2007, 01:36 AM']
Indeed it can, your logic is in error. The Israelites being removed by force of war was a past event, and different event in history, when compared to the return of the Israelites to the promised land. The first event had and beginning and an end to the event. The start would have been the Israelites and the invaders in open combat. The end to this event in history would be the Israelites losing the war and being removed from the promised land. That would have been the close or the end of that war.

Hundreds of years later, the Israelites return this was a completely different time in history and events. It would have its own unique NEW beginning and a new end. The beginning of this event, this war was a preemptive first strike in this new war, commanded by God to retake the promised land. The end of this even was the Israelites living in the promised land.
The Israelites were not slaves. I have given you two prefect examples it is you who has failed to proof yourself. Not I.
[/quote]

Ok let's go with your flawed logic for the moment. Then, unless you have other examples, a first strike can be justifiable under the conditions of

a huge army bearing down on you when you're trapped
you're taking back something you already own


Neither of these apply to Iraq

Now if you can find an example of the Israelites attacking a land and conquering what wasn't theirs already, you may have a point

Otherwise you're just spinning history to make your point


And you have yet to justify how you can dissent from what the Vatican has stated

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1158772' date='Jan 8 2007, 02:41 AM']
And you have yet to justify how you can dissent from what the Vatican has stated
[/quote]

Socrates and I have not dissented from Holy Mother Church. You are stating a out right falsehood when you state otherwise. "[color="#FF0000"][b]The official Church has not declared the war in Iraq to be unjust. The determination of the justification of any particular war is outside of the prudential judgment of the Church, though she may defend certain moral principles involved in war. This judgment is left to the principle authority of the States or Countries involved, who evaluate the particular circumstances given them, acknowledge the guidance of the Church, and seek the common good known through the principles of Nature and Grace. Therefore the laity is left to legitimately support or reject this war as just or unjust, because of the difficulty involved in evaluating the circumstances and measures taken.[/b][/color]"

[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/sites/site_view.cfm?Example=6189&recnum=3056&task=showexample"]Source[/url]

Edited January 8, 2007 by KnightofChrist

[Aloysius]

The Gulf War began with Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait. For about a decade after we got him out of Kuwait, there was peace on the condition that he destroy all his WMDs and not seek any more. It is documented that he broke that promise, ergo the war resumed. That's not so much pre-emption as it is a response to an agressor who invaded Kuwait and then lied about what he did with his WMDs. anyone who breaks a condition of peace is becoming an agressor in war.

But the doctrine of pre-emption is certainly troubling on many levels. The Church's tradition does not allow strict pre-emption the way the Talmud would, and it never should. We don't have to wait for them to nuke us, but we must be provoked in some way before we attack if we wish to hold on to our Christian morality.

I see Iraq in itself as a reactive war which opened a pandora's box with its justifications for pre-emptive wars. the already slightly questionable on a level of principal Bush doctrine cannot be allowed to mutate into our invasion of any and all countries we have suspicion of.

[Jaime]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1158793' date='Jan 8 2007, 03:41 AM']
Socrates and I have not dissented from Holy Mother Church. You are stating a out right falsehood when you state otherwise. "[color="#FF0000"][b]The official Church has not declared the war in Iraq to be unjust. The determination of the justification of any particular war is outside of the prudential judgment of the Church, though she may defend certain moral principles involved in war. This judgment is left to the principle authority of the States or Countries involved, who evaluate the particular circumstances given them, acknowledge the guidance of the Church, and seek the common good known through the principles of Nature and Grace. Therefore the laity is left to legitimately support or reject this war as just or unjust, because of the difficulty involved in evaluating the circumstances and measures taken.[/b][/color]"

[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/sites/site_view.cfm?Example=6189&recnum=3056&task=showexample"]Source[/url]
[/quote]

Ok let me get this straight

Catholicculture speaks for the Church but the VATICAN does not.


Let me quote again from an official representative from the Vatican

[quote]Evil Cannot Justify Evil, Says President of Council for Justice and Peace

ROME, MARCH 11, 2003 (Zenit.org).- A unilateral attack by the United States on Iraq would be a "war of aggression," says the president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.

Archbishop Renato Martino contended that, contrary to what happened in 1991 with the invasion of Kuwait, on this occasion "there is no aggression and so this preventive war is, in itself, a war of aggression."

"Sept. 11 wounded all Americans terribly, but evil cannot be justified by evil," the archbishop stressed in statements to the Italian weekly newspaper Rinascita.

Archbishop Martino, for 16 years the Holy See's permanent observer to the United Nations, thinks that terrorism must be combated by addressing "the causes that produce it." [/quote]

Feel free to support the war and try to justify it. But no one can argue that a first strike doctrine (especially this one) can fall within the CCC or Just War.

You haven't shown it. You've only shown your opinion

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1159522' date='Jan 9 2007, 12:30 AM']
Ok let me get this straight

Catholicculture speaks for the Church but the VATICAN does not.[/quote]

Trying to make a conflict where none exist does not make a conflict. Catholic Culture is not dissenting from Holy Mother Church. There is no Catholic Culture vs. Holy Mother Church debate here. The source link which I posted is a review for a website which has stated some of the many same things which you have "the pope says this, or that there for the war in unjust." I am also sure the Catholic Culture is aware of the pope's comments.

So why did they state what they did? Because it is the official teaching of Holy Mother Church. The war in Iraq [i]may[/i] very well be unjust, but so far Holy Mother Church has not officially taught it to be unjust. As Socrates has pointed out the Pope Himself has allude to this fact, "The Pope said there may be a legitimate diversity of opinion regrading the waging of wars. A "diversity of opinion" means Catholics may legitimately debate this issue." The Pope would not say such a thing if the Iraq war was or is officially unjust.

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1159522' date='Jan 9 2007, 12:30 AM']Let me quote again from an official representative from the Vatican[/quote]

The Iraq war was not and is not unilateral. The Iraq war was not a preventive war. It was ether as Aloysius points out, "The Gulf War began with Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait. For about a decade after we got him out of Kuwait, there was peace on the condition that he destroy all his WMDs and not seek any more. It is documented that he broke that promise, ergo the war resumed. That's not so much pre-emption as it is a response to an aggressor who invaded Kuwait and then lied about what he did with his WMDs. anyone who breaks a condition of peace is becoming an aggressor in war." or the was is a preemptive war, which from what I first thought is different from a preventive war.

The important distinction between preemptive war and preventive war is a preemptive war is what happens when a state targets an enemy that represents an imminent threat of attack. Iraq did pose this threat, Saddam in fact had WMD and the ability to use them against his own people and others, and we had no reason to doubt that he would since he had in the past. There was in fact a terrorist base in the north of Iraq. After 9/11 Iraq was an imminent threat, the combined threat of WMD's and Terrorist was a risk too high to take. A preventive war is what happens when a state targets an enemy before they can become an imminent threat of attack. The attack on Pearl Harbor was a preventive war.

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1159522' date='Jan 9 2007, 12:30 AM']Feel free to support the war and try to justify it. But no one can argue that a first strike doctrine (especially this one) can fall within the CCC or Just War.

You haven't shown it. You've only shown your opinion
[/quote]

God is not unjust yet He in fact called on the Israelites to first strikes against the enemies of God. And even if that was the case an injustice in particular acts of war would not necessarily make the cause itself unjust. The war in Iraq may well be in unjust, as it maybe just. In fact Holy Mother Church does not officially teach that the war is Just nor does She officially teach that it is unjust. And that is not a matter of my opinion but fact.


[quote name='Aloysius' post='1158799' date='Jan 8 2007, 05:57 AM']
The Gulf War began with Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait. For about a decade after we got him out of Kuwait, there was peace on the condition that he destroy all his WMDs and not seek any more. It is documented that he broke that promise, ergo the war resumed. That's not so much pre-emption as it is a response to an agressor who invaded Kuwait and then lied about what he did with his WMDs. anyone who breaks a condition of peace is becoming an agressor in war.

But the doctrine of pre-emption is certainly troubling on many levels. The Church's tradition does not allow strict pre-emption the way the Talmud would, and it never should. We don't have to wait for them to nuke us, but we must be provoked in some way before we attack if we wish to hold on to our Christian morality.

I see Iraq in itself as a reactive war which opened a pandora's box with its justifications for pre-emptive wars. the already slightly questionable on a level of principal Bush doctrine cannot be allowed to mutate into our invasion of any and all countries we have suspicion of.
[/quote]

Good points which I did not make, thank you. Of course preemptive wars can be dangerous, but my point is simply because a war is preemptive does not make the war unjust by default.

[Jaime]

[quote]God is not unjust yet He in fact called on the Israelites to first strikes against the enemies of God. And even if that was the case an injustice in particular acts of war would not necessarily make the cause itself unjust. The war in Iraq may well be in unjust, as it maybe just. In fact Holy Mother Church does not officially teach that the war is Just nor does She officially teach that it is unjust. And that is not a matter of my opinion but fact.
[/quote]

In fact you have yet to give an examples of God calling the Israelites to attack first. You have shown them

defending themselves
reclaiming the land that was taken from them


where are the examples of those first strike Israelites?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1159982' date='Jan 9 2007, 03:18 PM']
In fact you have yet to give an examples of God calling the Israelites to attack first. You have shown them

defending themselves
reclaiming the land that was taken from them
where are the examples of those first strike Israelites?
[/quote]


Correction I have shown where God defended the Israelites by preemptively attacking the waring Egyptian army.

Also again simply because the Israelites were reclaiming land does not change the fact that when God commanded them to retake the promised land, it was a preemptive strike a first strike of [u]that[/u] war. As I tried to state previously, a war is defined by the start of open conflict and the end of open conflict. The war which removed the Israelites had its beginning and its end. The war which God commanded His people to retake the promised land was a [u]different[/u] war, a [u]different[/u] time. No one who was alive at the time when the Israelites were removed were alive when God commanded the Israelites to retake it.

Even using words such as "reclaim" or "retake" would suggest a new start, a new begining. They had to restart. The removal of the Israelites was a different event in space and time, it had its begining and end.
[u]
Hundreds of years later, generations later[/u] with a [u]new[/u] generation of people God orders a new war to retake the Promised Land, which was a preemptive attack, and first strike of that new war.

Preemptive wars are not necessarily unjust simply because they are Preemptive. Even if that was so a injustice in particular acts of war would not necessarily make the cause itself unjust.