Vanity -- What is Catholic Belief as to Just War Theory?

none ^ | March 23, 2004 | self

[Desdemona]

You will never hear the Pope or the Vatican come out and say that a war was positive.

True. It's hard to believe, but Pope Pius XII in 1942 condemned the war against Germany. In the same address, he condemned Germany and everything that they were doing. He had no use for the war and in 1943 German priests paid the price. Thousands were murdered in the death camps. Now we know that Pius XII backed off and organized a huge underground rescue effort, but he still preached against war.

Peace is still the preferable option, but realistically, sometimes you just have to stand up and defend with force.

[WOSG]

"Pardon me? The Catholic Church has traditionally stood against divorce."

Yes.

"True, the Catholic Church still stands against divorce, but even most Catholic countries now allow it. "

So? Name a "protestant" counry that disallows divorce.

This is a function of modernism, not the Church.
btw, protestants have higher divorce rates than catholics in the US.

[johnb2004]

My point was that just because something has not been formally declared infallible, does not necessarily make that teaching fallible.Artificial birth control is such an example. It is intrinsically evil.

[bobjam]

Actually, I'm a conservative Anglican. Rowan Williams's opinion of the war is more pacifist that the Pope's. But then again, the Anglican Church doesn't teach that the Archbishop of Canterbury is infallable. The First Vatican Council decreed that the Pope, "when speaking to matters of faith and morals" is infallable. The decree said nothing about the statement needing to be ex-cathedra. Pope John Paul II said that it would be immoral for the Coalition of the Willing to use force to remove Hussein. Because the Pope chose to frame his opposition to the war as a matter of morals, he is therefore, according to Roman Catholic dogma, infallable. He could have said that there might be a better way to remove Hussein, or that it was his opinion that military force would cause more harm than good, but instead he put it in a moral context. The Catholic Church is therefore functionally pacifist.

[madprof98]

Very well put. The problem with Church teachings on violence is the tendency of Catholics to take any little "exception" and make it into the rule. Hence, any and every war becomes a just war--and if both parties are at least nominally Christian, it is declared just by both sides, and a Warrior God is invoked by both. The notion that the Church would prefer peace (on the ground that Jesus taught us to prefer peace) is simply disregarded or dismissed as hopelessly unrealistic.

[dangus]

First off, the Pope did not explicitly state that the war in Iraq was wrong. He made statements which were reasonably (and likely correctly) taken as meaning the war was wrong, but which can hardly be called laying down doctrine. I presented to my pastor the actual statements, which contrasted greatly from press reports.
Secondly, if he said, "War for oil is wrong; therefore I resolutely oppose the Iraq war," then the doctrinal statement is that "war for oil is wrong," but the statement "I resolutely oppose the Iraq war" could still never be doctrine.
Thirdly, even if the Pope declared "I infallibly insist, from the throne of St. Peter, that the war in Iraq is immoral and unjust" his proclamation would be null and void, as he must be an anti-pope, a pretender to the throne, as he has no authority to state so. (I'm not sure if that scenario is possible.)
Lastly, while I don't have time to research Vatican 1, I have heard a devestatingly wide range of opinions as to when infallibility can be considered invoked. ALL of them, however, insisted he had to be speaking ex cathedra. I don't claim to be an expert on ecclesiology, but if your statement were true, than I would suggest that something in the doctrine implied facts that you did not pick up on.

[dangus]

I'd even ask, "Name a Catholic country in the world today." People still talk about France being a Catholic counry, even though it has been officially anti-clerical for 200 years!

[dangus]

Or I could simply put it this way:
Name me a single Church expert who has ever referred to the Pope's opinions on the war as infallible.

[dangus]

"Regarding exorcism, the Pharisees believed that eating with dirty hands could cause disease. Jesus disagreed, believing that disease was caused by demons inhabiting the body. Most people now see the truth of the Pharisee position."

That is singularly the most bizarre statement I have ever heard.

[presidio9]

That is singularly the most bizarre statement I have ever heard.

Go back and check his posting history. He is a a living breathing reservoir of bizarre comments.

[Inyokern]

Jesus was talking about spiritual sickness. "Wash the inside of the cup, so that the outside may become clean as well."

Actually he was much more literal than that, as quoted by Mark:

Mar 7:1 Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem.
Mar 7:2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.
Mar 7:3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash [their] hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.
Mar 7:4 And [when they come] from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, [as] the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.
Mar 7:5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?
Mar 7:6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with [their] lips, but their heart is far from me.
Mar 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men.
Mar 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, [as] the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

Jesus clearly instructed his followers that it was not necessary to wash their hands before eating.

Of course, if Mark had actually known anything about Judaism, he would have known that the Pharisees did not believe they were following a tradition but in fact were following an oral instruction given to the Jews by the Lord at Mount Sinai along with the written Torah. The Pharisees believed that the Lord had instructed them to wash their hands before eating, and this was hundreds of years before anyone knew anything about germs.

Today, EVERYONE washes before meals, in accordance with the practice of the Pharisees and contrary to the teachings of Jesus.

[Dajjal]

The 10 commandments have never been defined as infallible in the ways you listed.

The Council of Trent formally declared that Catholics are bound by the Ten Commandments. There was a Medieval / Renaissance / some-Protestant heresy that a Christian lived in the Spirit and was free of the Law; he had only to follow the Two Loves (God above all things and neighbor as self). Trent declared this to be false, and said that Catholics are required to obey the Ten Commandments.

(Don't ask me to look up the citation.)

[bobjam]

There are two different concepts of church pacifism we are dealing with. The first is absolute pacifism- people who believe that there is no justification for war whatsoever. That belief is rooted in their understanding of how to apply the New Testament to Christian living today. There are few Christian groups that hold this view (certain Amish and Mennonite groups come to mind). The second is functional pacifism. These are the people who believe that war might be justified in theory, however no war they have faced has met their justification criteria. Many believe actually belive that war was not a justifiable method of stopping Hitler. Most significant Christian denominations are functionally pacifist. The ones that are not are the Evangelicals.

The Roman Catholic Church, many Eastern Orthodox Churches and the members of the National Council of Churches all opposed the Second Gulf War on the grounds that it was not justified. Many are ambiguous about the campaign in Afghanistan. If Hussein's atrocities didn't warrant military action, then what would? The Catholic standard for justifiable war has now been set so high that the Catholic Church might as well be functionally pacifist.

[dangus]

Again, you picture the Pope as an absolute tyrrant, who is identical to the Church in all things at all times, and you accept the hysterical rantings of the liberal press as a perfect representation of what the Pope said. Until you drop these notions, there's no point dicussing this further.

[presidio9]

Today, EVERYONE washes before meals, in accordance with the practice of the Pharisees and contrary to the teachings of Jesus.

I confess to not washing my hands before most meals. Sometimes I don't even wash my hands when using the restroom. I wash my hands when they are dirty. Period.

[presidio9]

The Roman Catholic Church, many Eastern Orthodox Churches and the members of the National Council of Churches all opposed the Second Gulf War on the grounds that it was not justified. Many are ambiguous about the campaign in Afghanistan. If Hussein's atrocities didn't warrant military action, then what would? The Catholic standard for justifiable war has now been set so high that the Catholic Church might as well be functionally pacifist.

True pacifist religions bar their members from participating in military actions. The Church did not call the Gulf War immoral. It did not require that Catholics not participate. It implored the participants re-think their actions, and it gave the opinion that war would not solve the Middle East's problems. It so happens that I am a Catholic and yet I disagree with the Church's opinion. But I understand why the Vatican voiced that opinion, and I am obliged to point out that it has thus far been correct.

[johnb2004]

Sometimes I don't even wash my hands when using the restroom.

Please tell me you are joking?

[presidio9]

Look, if I'm at home, and I go take a leak, and I don't actually piss on my hand, there is not much of a reason for me to wash them. I am not a germ freak ok? My penis is not intrinsically "dirty."

[Piranha]

Jews are not allowed to say the longer prayer after eating, the birkat hamazon, unless they have washed their hands and eaten bread prior to eating. Otherwise, they are limited to much shorter blessings.

[Piranha]

I should add that the washing I am discussing involves pouring water on one's hands from an unlipped vessel (i.e., a cup without a pouring spout) and saying a blessing over washing the hands. Jewish stores sell vessels that are used for these purposes, typically holding about one quart of water and having two handles so that the vessel can be switched easily from hand to hand. An hygeinic washing with soap and water has no specific religious significance in Judaism, just compliance with general rules to take care of oneself.