Posted on 10/24/2001 5:44:31 AM PDT by Aquinasfan
Whether it is always sinful to wage war?
Objection 1. It would seem that it is always sinful to wage war. Because punishment is not inflicted except for sin. Now those who wage war are threatened by Our Lord with punishment, according to Mt. 26:52: "All that take the sword shall perish with the sword." Therefore all wars are unlawful.
Objection 2. Further, whatever is contrary to a Divine precept is a sin. But war is contrary to a Divine precept, for it is written (Mt. 5:39): " But I say to you not to resist evil"; and (Rm. 12:19): "Not revenging yourselves, my dearly beloved, but give place unto wrath." Therefore war is always sinful.
Objection 3. Further, nothing, except sin, is contrary to an act of virtue. But war is contrary to peace. Therefore war is always a sin.
Objection 4. Further, the exercise of a lawful thing is itself lawful, as is evident in scientific exercises. But warlike exercises which take place in tournaments are forbidden by the Church, since those who are slain in these trials are deprived of ecclesiastical burial. Therefore it seems that war is a sin in itself.
On the contrary, Augustine says in a sermon on the son of the centurion [Ep. ad Marcel. cxxxviii]: "If the Christian Religion forbade war altogether, those who sought salutary advice in the Gospel would rather have been counselled to cast aside their arms, and to give up soldiering altogether. On the contrary, they were told: 'Do violence to no man . . . and be content with your pay' [Lk. 3:14. If he commanded them to be content with their pay, he did not forbid soldiering."
I answer that, In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary. First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged. For it is not the business of a private individual to declare war, because he can seek for redress of his rights from the tribunal of his superior. Moreover it is not the business of a private individual to summon together the people, which has to be done in wartime. And as the care of the common weal is committed to those who are in authority, it is their business to watch over the common weal of the city, kingdom or province subject to them. And just as it is lawful for them to have recourse to the sword in defending that common weal against internal disturbances, when they punish evil-doers, according to the words of the Apostle (Rm. 13:4): "He beareth not the sword in vain: for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil"; so too, it is their business to have recourse to the sword of war in defending the common weal against external enemies. Hence it is said to those who are in authority (Ps. 81:4): "Rescue the poor: and deliver the needy out of the hand of the sinner"; and for this reason Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 75): "The natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority."
Secondly, 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."
Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil. Hence Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. [The words quoted are to be found not in St. Augustine's works, but Can. Apud. Caus. xxiii, qu. 1): "True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandizement, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good." For it may happen that the war is declared by the legitimate authority, and for a just cause, and yet be rendered unlawful through a wicked intention. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 74): "The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war."
Reply to Objection 1. As Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 70): "To take the sword is to arm oneself in order to take the life of anyone, without the command or permission of superior or lawful authority." On the other hand, to have recourse to the sword (as a private person) by the authority of the sovereign or judge, or (as a public person) through zeal for justice, and by the authority, so to speak, of God, is not to "take the sword," but to use it as commissioned by another, wherefore it does not deserve punishment. And yet even those who make sinful use of the sword are not always slain with the sword, yet they always perish with their own sword, because, unless they repent, they are punished eternally for their sinful use of the sword.
Reply to Objection 2. Such like precepts, as Augustine observes (De Serm. Dom. in Monte i, 19), should always be borne in readiness of mind, so that we be ready to obey them, and, if necessary, to refrain from resistance or self-defense. Nevertheless it is necessary sometimes for a man to act otherwise for the common good, or for the good of those with whom he is fighting. Hence Augustine says (Ep. ad Marcellin. cxxxviii): "Those whom we have to punish with a kindly severity, it is necessary to handle in many ways against their will. For when we are stripping a man of the lawlessness of sin, it is good for him to be vanquished, since nothing is more hopeless than the happiness of sinners, whence arises a guilty impunity, and an evil will, like an internal enemy."
Reply to Objection 3. Those who wage war justly aim at peace, and so they are not opposed to peace, except to the evil peace, which Our Lord "came not to send upon earth" (Mt. 10:34). Hence Augustine says (Ep. ad Bonif. clxxxix): "We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace. Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may vanquish those whom you war against, and bring them to the prosperity of peace."
Reply to Objection 4. Manly exercises in warlike feats of arms are not all forbidden, but those which are inordinate and perilous, and end in slaying or plundering. On olden times warlike exercises presented no such danger, and hence they were called "exercises of arms" or "bloodless wars," as Jerome states in an epistle [Reference incorrect: cf. Veget., De Re Milit. i].
I'm interested. Wish I could go to that lecture.
In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary. First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged.This is an important doctrine that has been ignored— again. Why are we so afraid to declare war in a Constitutional manner? Not declaring war has a deleterious effect on every side: logistics, combat and general morale. Let’s declare war against (Islamic) terrorists and get on with it. I don’t care what the UN or some other third-world dictator says.
Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault.Here we are finally able to align with the proper course. We have been unjustly attacked and have every right, as a nation, to declare war against these cowards. Let’s declare war!
Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil.Here we get into those despicable gray areas. The advancement of evil is apparent, but is our own “goodness” so apparent? We are afraid to even call evil by its name. We seem almost preoccupied by revenge rather than the advancement of peace.
Or is it just that we spread the false peace that Jesus warned against? Is our freedom given for licentiousness—sexual immorality, theft, idolatry, lying and murder? An America unrestrained by Christian morality is the greatest danger the world has ever known. Imagine Nero with nukes . . .
Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
This is an important doctrine that has been ignored— again. Why are we so afraid to declare war in a Constitutional manner? Not declaring war has a deleterious effect on every side: logistics, combat and general morale. Let’s declare war against (Islamic) terrorists and get on with it. I don’t care what the UN or some other third-world dictator says.I agree that we should declare war, if nothing else on Osama and his merry men. I would go for the Taliban too, since in all reality we are fighting a war with them. Might as well be official about it. I think this element of the Just war theory is met anyway, Bush clearly has Congress’s approval. There is no Christian requirement that a democratically elected Congress declare the war, it is still being waged by the proper government. We just should dot our Is and cross our Ts.
Here we get into those despicable gray areas. The advancement of evil is apparent, but is our own “goodness” so apparent? We are afraid to even call evil by its name. We seem almost preoccupied by revenge rather than the advancement of peace.Very true for some. With occasional exceptions, I do think that the government is going about this fairly well. They are putting effort into forming a better government, feeding the people (which I admit is the right thing to do even though I detested it at first), and targeting the leadership that is most responsible for that evil. There will be gray areas, black ops and all that.
One big just war question remains for me, and that is the prospect for victory. My big beef with Clinton’s follies was that the things he did in response to terrorism had no, absolutely no, chance of winning the fight. They only prolonged it and increased suffering.
We don’t know what all Bush & Co. have planned for down the road, but we need to do more then we see coming now. We need to take down the roots of terrorism and recognize that we have many perpetual enemies in some parts of the world. Calling people who do nothing to help us allies won’t get us anywhere. Appeasing one group of terrorists to aid our fight against another group won’t help either. We seem to be operating about 20 years behind the times. Once the terrorist groups had all of their cells in one country, and you could kill them by concentrating your efforts on that one country. Today you can’t do that, these terrorists intermingle. Dismantle the groups in Afghanistan and their refugees just turn up in another country and start using the established terrorist apparatus there. We need to take a global view of this thing, and remove it globally, rather then locally.
An America unrestrained by Christian morality is the greatest danger the world has ever known. Imagine Nero with nukes . . .Yes. Islam can’t beat us. Communism can’t. Secular humanism can.
Dominus Vobiscum
patent +AMDG
Bookmarked. That's a long one. Anything in there about civil war?Not much, it is a bit of a different subject and IMHO depends a great deal on whether you are a monarchist or democrat. The article does contain this up front:
However, a people in revolution, in the rare instance of an effort to re-establish civil government which has practically vanished from the community except in name, or to vitalize constitutional rights reserved specifically or residuarily to the people, is conceded to be in like juridical case with a State, as far as protecting its fundamental rights by force of arms. Grote insisted that war was a more or less continuous condition of conflict between those contending by force; and so indeed it is; but even Grote, when seeking to determine the grounds of right and wrong in such a condition, necessarily moved the question back to the right to acts of force in either contending party, and so justified the more accepted juridical definition of a contest at arms between contending states. The judicial condition of the contending parties to the war is spoken of as a state of belligerency, while the term war more properly applies to the series of hostile acts of force exercised in the contention. To present here the position of Catholic philosophy in this regard, it will be convenient to discuss in sequence:
Dominus Vobiscum
patent +AMDG
Speaking of Kreeft, have you read Ecumenical Jihad? I wonder if he's changed any of his opinions with regard to finding common ground with Islam.
I guess I consider Mohammed as simply one of the most successful heretics the world has ever seen.
That said, I see very little difference between the militance, materialism and rationality of Islam and that of various Protestant sects or Catholic heretics at different times in history. Given the "brother against brother" nature of their bloody conflicts using religion to premise and cloak their purely political purpose, I find theirs almost worst, actually.
All heresies sort of die on the vine eventually (even if the universal errors on which they're based recur in various forms). If Islam's proven the more enduring, powerful and compelling, I think it's because (1) it was the greater heresy and (2) those with an eye to capitalizing on the Use of religion these days seek as a rule to render an impotent pansy social worker the Christian soldier as they "organize" the ignorant or misguided into the militance necessary to lever the balance of power and the forming of coalitions in reaction.
I've got a book on my desk called "Reading the Muslim Mind" by Hassan Hathout. Granted, he's older, wiser and gentle but obviously bright and I can't believe for a moment that his presentation of Islam as practiced by faithful Muslims is so off the mark.
Found interesting the other night some snippet of a PBS show detailing the rise of the "Islamic Jihadist Front" (or whatever) in Egypt.
Same M.O. as always for any "Front" (for communist repression and terror) ... violence, terror, assassination and -- the dead giveway -- a wealthy son of the wealthy whose consciousness had been "raised" into radicalism to serve as leader, spokesman and enjoy certain privileges re: freedom of movement and from prosecution in the EU.
I just can't equate faithful Muslims with so-called "radical" Islam anymore than I equate Judaism with Israel or Catholicism with liberation theology.
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.