crusader1234 Posted June 16, 2004 Author Posted June 16, 2004 The United Nations told the United States not to go to war, and until they say its ok to go, its not ok to go.
Aloysius Posted June 16, 2004 Posted June 16, 2004 [quote name='crusader1234' date='Jun 16 2004, 12:34 AM'] Well, In any event, Canada did not support the war so I dont have to. [/quote] lol. no one [b]has to[/b] support the war, just like no one [b]has to[/b] be against the war... at least according to what the Church teaches. if they were under CIA surveilance, perhaps they would [b]have to[/b] support the war pAx Ω
qfnol31 Posted June 16, 2004 Posted June 16, 2004 [quote name='crusader1234' date='Jun 16 2004, 12:34 AM'] Well, In any event, Canada did not support the war so I dont have to. [/quote] Honestly I can't see this one. I mean, I respect your decision not to support it, but Canada supports gay marriages, no? Does that mean that you can support them?
Apotheoun Posted June 16, 2004 Posted June 16, 2004 [quote]Well, In any event, Canada did not support the war so I dont have to. [/quote] That is correct. No one has to support any war, not even a just war, although it could be an imprudent act on the part of the person opposing a just war to withhold his support.
Aloysius Posted June 16, 2004 Posted June 16, 2004 [quote name='crusader1234' date='Jun 16 2004, 12:36 AM'] The United Nations told the United States not to go to war, and until they say its ok to go, its not ok to go. [/quote] #1 pardon me if i'm ignorant, but could you quote the UN on that #2 the Catechism clearly says it is the country's government who has juristicition over whether or not his country goes to war, so even if the UN did oppose it that doesn't mean the US did not have the right to go to war. pAx Ω
crusader1234 Posted June 16, 2004 Author Posted June 16, 2004 [quote]2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.[/quote] If the war isnt just, you cant support it.
Aloysius Posted June 16, 2004 Posted June 16, 2004 no one has established to me that it isn't just. i have given you what i consider legitamate aggreement between this war and the just war doctrines. pAx Ω
qfnol31 Posted June 16, 2004 Posted June 16, 2004 How were WWI and WWII just? However, I definately support US involvement in that.
qfnol31 Posted June 16, 2004 Posted June 16, 2004 [quote name='crusader1234' date='Jun 16 2004, 12:36 AM'] The United Nations told the United States not to go to war, and until they say its ok to go, its not ok to go. [/quote] The UN also said many other things that it didn't back up and Saddam didn't listen to.
Aloysius Posted June 16, 2004 Posted June 16, 2004 Read through the catechism quote, and if you know history even a tad i'm sure you can pick it out where the threat was and all that. In the light of history, i'm sure future Catholics will be able to look back with all the declassified facts and everything and be able to say definitively whether or not it was just, just like we can now do with WWI and WWII. (though the a-bomb tactic is quite questionable, whooooole other topic) pAx Ω
Apotheoun Posted June 16, 2004 Posted June 16, 2004 (edited) The United Nations is not a sovereign power; instead, it is merely a consultative body, and not a deliberative body. Thus, it has no authority to enforce its own acts, but depends entirely on the good will of its member states. Edited June 16, 2004 by Apotheoun
crusader1234 Posted June 16, 2004 Author Posted June 16, 2004 [quote]Honestly I can't see this one. I mean, I respect your decision not to support it, but Canada supports gay marriages, no? Does that mean that you can support them? [/quote] The Catechism states clearly that you arent supposed to support a war that doesnt meet the just war criteria or this criteria: [quote]The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good[/quote] As far as gay marriages, it doesnt say follow the leader. And Al, its not exactly clear in the Catechism who exactly has responsiblity for the common good. This could be viewed as the Pope, the UN, or yes the President. It all depends. I'm not sure what happened with the 2308 post, I sent that a long time ago and it only popped up just now Anyways, the World Wars both fit the criteria. The second one especially, and the use of the a-bomb, however destructive, might have been neccesary to stop it (as per part 4).
qfnol31 Posted June 16, 2004 Posted June 16, 2004 [url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=13902"]Does this make it a just war?[/url]
crusader1234 Posted June 16, 2004 Author Posted June 16, 2004 Nope. When they waged war it wasnt just. If they had waited until now it could have been, but it was uncertain at best to begin with. They acted too soon.
Apotheoun Posted June 16, 2004 Posted June 16, 2004 (edited) [quote]Nope. When they waged war it wasnt just. If they had waited until now it could have been, but it was uncertain at best to begin with. They acted too soon.[/quote] That is your opinion, but I would point out that it is the common tradition of the Church that the proper governing authorities in the state or nation concerned, are charged with the defense of the common good, and so the prudential judgment about whether or not to go to war is theirs. Edited June 16, 2004 by Apotheoun
Apotheoun Posted June 16, 2004 Posted June 16, 2004 [quote][T]he use of the a-bomb, however destructive, might have been neccesary to stop it (as per part 4).[/quote] It is never morally acceptable to intentionally kill the innocent. Thus, the atomic bombing of civilian populations (i.e., non-combatants) is never morally licit.
crusader1234 Posted June 16, 2004 Author Posted June 16, 2004 While I'm not sure why you decided you needed to erase my t and add your own, I will remind you that I did say [i]might[/i]. I'm not as well versed in ww2 as I am in ww1, so I didnt want to say it was, but I do know that it had a large part in ending the war so it might have been o.k.
Apotheoun Posted June 16, 2004 Posted June 16, 2004 [quote]While I'm not sure why you decided you needed to erase my t and add your own . . .[/quote] The reason I changed your little [ t ] to a capitol [ T ] was simply because I didn't quote the whole of your sentence. So, since I began the sentence midstream, I changed the [ t ] in order to let people know that I didn't quote your sentence in its entirety. Similarly, I ended the quotation from your post above with an ellipsis, once again to let people know that I didn't quote your original sentence in full.
Apotheoun Posted June 16, 2004 Posted June 16, 2004 [quote]. . . but I do know that it had a large part in ending the war so it might have been o.k. [/quote] One may never do evil that good may come of it, in other words, the ends do not justify the means. In war it is never morally acceptable to [i]intentionally[/i] kill civilians (non-combatants), nothing can ever make this morally licit. So, the [i]intentional[/i] bombing of civilian populations was, is, and always will be, gravely immoral.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now