Posted on 10/04/2020 3:11:22 PM PDT by ebb tide
It is “very difficult” nowadays to speak of the possibility of a “just war,” Francis writes in his third and longest (45,000 words) encyclical Fratelli Tutti (Brothers All, October 4).
In footnote 242, he claims, “Saint Augustine, who forged a concept of ‘just war’ that we no longer uphold in our own day, also said that ‘it is a higher glory still to stay war itself with a word, than to slay men with the sword, and to procure or maintain peace by peace, not by war’.”
This is true, nevertheless, Augustine's just-war-criteria are objective and not subject to a lazy "we no longer uphold in our days."
In his lightweight encyclical, Francis mostly footnotes his own documents and messages, sometimes, he quotes post-conciliar popes or Thomas Aquinas.
Eight times, he refers to the erroneous Abu Dhabi document arguing that the encyclical develops "some of the great themes" raised therein.
Francis reiterates his private opinion that the death penalty "is inadmissible,” which again is false, and even claims that "there can be no stepping back from this [wrong] position."
He campaigns for the abolition of the death penalty and life imprisonment which he calls “a secret death penalty.” Both positions may be legitimate political positions, but politics should be kept out of an encyclical.
Ping
> It is “very difficult” nowadays to speak of the possibility of a “just war,” Francis writes... <
There have been many foolish and unnecessary wars in my lifetime. But if Francis were pope in1944, I suppose he would have said “An invasion of France is not just. Leave the Nazis be!”
Brothers All? Where are Francis’ PC sensitivities? What about sisters and LGBTQ Catholics?
Murph, I think the cartoon in the orginal post is quite appropriate according to the comment immediately above.
What say you?
Who's "we"?
Catechism of the Catholic Church
2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war. However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."
2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. the gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. the power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.
The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
2310 Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense.
Those 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.
Whew, for a moment I thought Francis became a fan of Little Richard :)
El Capo del Tutti Frutti.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.