Violence

[Maximilianus]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='17 September 2009 - 09:45 AM' timestamp='1253195106' post='1968026']
Maximilianus,

In your estimation, which military action ordered by United State (not a typo) government politicians in the past 50 years has met all of the requirements of the just war theory?

-Sternhauser
[/quote]

The OP asked Can a Catholic be a soldier. It's obvious the Church has no problem with it.
That's good enough for me.

As for a conflict that has met all the requirements, all I can say is that it's easy to pick a war apart in retrospect.
I don't feel like playing that game.

For my own conscience something I look at and take into account is the objective of the action; Was the overall mission a deliberate effort to destroy non combatants and property. Was the objective of the war to subjegate, oppress, exploit, or exterminate people? Did the ROE's set up minimization for collateral damage?

Every conflict, no matter how just the seem, will have it's concerns wether or not they are just, if you rack your cranium about such things then maybe the military isn't the right vocation for you.

Something to think about, St. Maurice and about 6600 of his men were massacred because they refused to sacrifice to pagan gods, not becuase they refused to fight. This shows that in ancient times Christians were not prohibited from military service or even be active in warfighting.

"Idolatry is committed, not merely by setting up false gods, but also by setting up false devils; by making men afraid of war or alcohol, or economic law, when they should be afraid of spiritual corruption and cowardice." - GKC

[Nihil Obstat]

What the heck is a "Tridentine Catholic"? Term that I don't think exists, to be honest.

[Secuutus]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='18 September 2009 - 01:29 AM' timestamp='1253251767' post='1968497']
What the heck is a "Tridentine Catholic"? Term that I don't think exists, to be honest.
[/quote]


Im with you on that one!

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Secuutus' date='18 September 2009 - 01:17 AM' timestamp='1253251031' post='1968492']
will I go to hell if I am sent over seas and I killed someone who was trying to kill me?[/quote]

Perhaps. It depends on the justice of your presence. Would you go to hell if you were told to rob a bank by a politician, and shot and killed a bank guard who tried to stop you?

[quote]1 of my cousins recieved the purple heart, long with 2 other Marines, for saving 2 of his fellow platoon men while they were pinned down in a closed off ally,and kiled 4. He said he can see there faces also, and he knew exactly what he was doing. Will he go to hell? Is he to be judged because he did what he had to for survival? Is he not a patriot for saving those men, fellow americans? He is Catholic, we all are.[/quote]

I won't judge your cousin's soul. But I have a question for you: if the Russians were in this country, saying that they're there to rout out potentially violent people, and are here for years, would you be pinning them down in a closed-off alley? Would you be planting bombs to destroy BMP-2's as they passed by? Answer that, and you'll have a better understanding of the moral quality of killing "insurgents."

[quote]We will never use force against someone who doesn't deserve it, nor will we engage in force unless our lives depended on it.
[/quote]

Many dating couples, with the best of intentions, say they will never fornicate, then, unfortunately, they proceed to willingly put themselves in very compromising situations which are not at all conducive to their intended goal of maintaining chastity. I think the analogy transfers well.

~Sternhauser

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='18 September 2009 - 01:29 AM' timestamp='1253251767' post='1968497']
What the heck is a "Tridentine Catholic"? Term that I don't think exists, to be honest.
[/quote]

Nihil Obstat,

The term "Google it" was unheard of, 15 years ago. The term "didn't exist." People understand what it means, however. A Tridentine Catholic is a Catholic who prefers the "Extraordinary form of the Mass" (there's a term I hadn't heard until recently, myself.) I think you understood the meaning, so I'm confused as to why you feel the need to comment on it.

~Sternhauser

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='18 September 2009 - 12:35 AM' timestamp='1253252120' post='1968501']
Nihil Obstat,

The term "Google it" was unheard of, 15 years ago. The term "didn't exist." People understand what it means, however. A Tridentine Catholic is a Catholic who prefers the "Extraordinary form of the Mass" (there's a term I hadn't heard until recently, myself.) I think you understood the meaning, so I'm confused as to why you feel the need to comment on it.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
I was going to respond (I promise I was) but I'm in the most uncharitable mood I've ever been in since joining Phatmass over a year ago, so I think it's best if I say nothing else.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='18 September 2009 - 12:29 AM' timestamp='1253251767' post='1968497']
What the heck is a "Tridentine Catholic"? Term that I don't think exists, to be honest.
[/quote]

The name would suggest that one is a Catholic who accepts Council of Trent. It is rather redundant, though, since all Catholics must accept the Council of Trent.

[Secuutus]

@sternhauser

I say yes to your first question, because I think robbing a bank and going war are 2 very different circumstances.

As for your whole russian question, I think that survival is a tool, plus those insurgents were trying to kill men because of whatever there reasons were for, my cousin and his buddys killed those men for trying to kill them and men who were deffenseless. My cousin and his buddys all have said that were trying to aresst them, not hurt them. Theres a difference.

As for your whole fornicating, ridiculous analogy, theory I can honestly say that that all has to do with your will power. I can honestly say that me or none of my cousins have ever started fight. some of us, including myself, have never been in a fight. The ones that have were simply defending themselves.

I just think that your whole view on war and weather or not killing in a war is wrong, is twisted. You can't blame a man for obeying his orders, but u can blame a man who intentions were for greed or power. None of service members will get extra money or more power for killing a man in action. Most of us will recieve a free education, with mental disorders and worse. Where is the profit in that? The only thing we can honestly say we recieve, that will never go away, is the fact that we served our country and had an experience that the person sitting next to me will never get to enjoy, and Im not speaking of the war experience, but of the training, the different places, and the right to say you did something great, that most men and women will never do.

I will not go to hell because I picked to survive, my cousin will not go to hell because he chose to help men who were defensless, and I refuse to believe that when we are in front of Jesus he will say "Son I can't let you in because you went to war for no reason". We are judged based on if, with our whole hearts, that we are truly sorry for the sins that we commit, and I can tell you right now, I will be truly sorry for killing a man I didn't know, who I wish never tried to kill me, because I chose to survive.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Secuutus' date='18 September 2009 - 01:58 AM' timestamp='1253253520' post='1968513']
@sternhauser

I say yes to your first question, because I think robbing a bank and going war are 2 very different circumstances.

As for your whole russian question, I think that survival is a tool, plus those insurgents were trying to kill men because of whatever there reasons were for, my cousin and his buddys killed those men for trying to kill them and men who were deffenseless. My cousin and his buddys all have said that were trying to aresst them, not hurt them. Theres a difference.[/quote]

Secuutus, would you be shooting at Russians?

[quote]As for your whole fornicating, ridiculous analogy, theory I can honestly say that that all has to do with your will power.[/quote]

Willpower that is itself undermined by the very act of willfully putting yourself in a compromising situation.

[quote]I can honestly say that me or none of my cousins have ever started fight. some of us, including myself, have never been in a fight. The ones that have were simply defending themselves.

I just think that your whole view on war and weather or not killing in a war is wrong, is twisted. You can't blame a man for obeying his orders,[/quote]

You certainly can blame a man for following orders. The entirety of the Nuremberg Trials is an annihilation of the idea that "I was just following orders" is a legitimate excuse for unjust behavior.

If you go to Afghanistan, you will be starting a fight, because no onethere today is responsible for carrying out 9/11. The majority of thepeople involved were Saudis. You [i]will [/i]be starting something fresh.

[quote]None of service members will get extra money or more power for killing a man in action. . . . and the right to say you did something great, that most men and women will never do. [/quote]

Nobody gets extra pay for actually killing a man in action. But you will receive extra combat pay for being in a situation where you are more likely to kill. And what is great about the act of picking up a rifle in service to the State? The question is, are you [i]actually[/i], in [i]reality[/i], protecting your neighbors, on your own dime? [i]That [/i]would be "great." Killing people defending their homeland from invaders is not great. Especially when it's done with money coerced from other people.

You must understand the difference between the State and your country, and the difference between serving the State and serving your country.

[quote] I will be truly sorry for killing a man I didn't know, who I wish never tried to kill me, because I chose to survive.
[/quote]

And I would be truly sorry for killing a tiger I wish never tried to kill me. But it would be ridiculous if I were to say that, given that I entered the tiger's cage willingly and unnecessarily.

You're putting yourself into the same situation willingly and unnecessarily. Before you got there, those people with the AKs and RPDs weren't shooting at Americans, or even plotting it. But when you go in and poke them with a stick, you're going to stir up the entire nation. There's nothing you can do in Afghanistan to stop determined terrorists from slipping across the United State borders and killing as many people as they want. If you don't believe this is true, please say so, and tell me why you do not think it is true.

~Sternhauser

Edited September 18, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Winchester]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='18 September 2009 - 01:13 AM' timestamp='1253250814' post='1968488']


With all respect and sincerity, I tell you: you won't be accomplishing anything good over there. You will be doing nothing but stirring up more anger against the United State and the people who live under it.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
One should always avoid sweeping statements.

[Christopher Brandon]

[quote name='Winchester' date='18 September 2009 - 12:00 AM' timestamp='1253246451' post='1968435']
No, you don't know what I'm thinking, apparently. I'm not going to read your profile to get your opinion. Step up and argue if you're coming in the debate board with your half-baked pacifism, about which you've obviously never thought seriously.
[/quote]

Your right, I assumed I knew what you meant and I had no right to make that assumption.

But if I am to understand you now, and I am asking, you would rather argue back and forth then to read my profile and save time and frustraition? Step up and argue? balf-baked? I havn't insulted you and I don't know why your motivated to do so to me. Nor do I understand why your so eager to go back and forth, is it so difficult to imagine a dissagreement not turning into a fight?

to the rest of you to avoid misscomunication, I am [u]NOT[/u] bashing soldiers, current past or future who have killed in the line of duty. It is my firm believe that killing is wrong, and that there can be no justification for killing. But We're taught to hate the [u]sin[/u] and love the sinner.

[Secuutus]

sternhauser, I had all day to think about this and I came to a conclusion. I respect your views and beliefs, just how I imagine you feel the same way. We can argue about this for the rest of our lives, till we are old and gray and we will never see eye to eye on this. You are not going to change me, as I am not going to change you. So I have to respectfully pull out of this argument, not because I am scared or anything of the sot, but because I don't see a purpose in trying to impose my belifes on you or anybody else. You all already know where I stand, and that was all I was trying to accomplish.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Secuutus' date='18 September 2009 - 06:48 PM' timestamp='1253314126' post='1968873']
sternhauser, I had all day to think about this and I came to a conclusion. I respect your views and beliefs, just how I imagine you feel the same way. We can argue about this for the rest of our lives, till we are old and gray and we will never see eye to eye on this. You are not going to change me, as I am not going to change you. So I have to respectfully pull out of this argument, not because I am scared or anything of the sot, but because I don't see a purpose in trying to impose my belifes on you or anybody else. You all already know where I stand, and that was all I was trying to accomplish.
[/quote]

Good post.

Honestly, who was petty enough to go through and put -1 (or -2) on every one of Sternhauser's posts? As far as I can tell, everything he has said is a defensible from a Catholic point of view. You may disagree with him, but he hasn't been uncharitable, or really incorrect in his statements. The most you can accuse him of is imprudence. The Church allows for some variance in personal interpretations of applications of the just war doctrine, and Sternhauser hasn't really departed from legitimate applications.

I don't agree with everything Sternhauser said throughout this thread, but I do think it's childish to give someone a -1 because you disagree with them. There is always an objective good, an objective answer. The Church just doesn't always define it. Don't you always try to define it, either. Allow people to have their own opinions as long as they keep to Christian doctrine.

and I thought the Lame Board was lame.

(BTW I love the GK quote from Max. I'm stealing it.)

Edited September 18, 2009 by aalpha1989

[CatherineM]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='18 September 2009 - 06:15 PM' timestamp='1253315749' post='1968885']

Honestly, who was petty enough to go through and put -1 (or -2) on every one of Sternhauser's posts?

[/quote]

You can only give one point per post, so no one can give two negatives to the same post. So I guess that means more than one person found his posts offensive in some regard.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='CatherineM' date='18 September 2009 - 07:43 PM' timestamp='1253317393' post='1968891']
You can only give one point per post, so no one can give two negatives to the same post. So I guess that means more than one person found his posts offensive in some regard.
[/quote]

Well, more than one person can be wrong, which is clearly demonstrated by our modern Western "democracies" (which are more truly elitist republics).

Edited September 18, 2009 by aalpha1989

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='18 September 2009 - 06:15 PM' timestamp='1253315749' post='1968885']
Good post.

Honestly, who was petty enough to go through and put -1 (or -2) on every one of Sternhauser's posts? As far as I can tell, everything he has said is a defensible from a Catholic point of view. You may disagree with him, but he hasn't been uncharitable, or really incorrect in his statements. The most you can accuse him of is imprudence. The Church allows for some variance in personal interpretations of applications of the just war doctrine, and Sternhauser hasn't really departed from legitimate applications.

I don't agree with everything Sternhauser said throughout this thread, but I do think it's childish to give someone a -1 because you disagree with them. There is always an objective good, an objective answer. The Church just doesn't always define it. Don't you always try to define it, either. Allow people to have their own opinions as long as they keep to Christian doctrine.

and I thought the Lame Board was lame.

(BTW I love the GK quote from Max. I'm stealing it.)
[/quote]
I gave one negative mark for (if I remember correctly) what I believed to be either a personal attack or condescending. Can't recall exactly what it was. I would have posted reasoning, but at that point for unrelated reasons I was (and mostly still am) in a pretty terrible mood and would prefer not to give myself the opportunity to cause trouble.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='18 September 2009 - 10:57 PM' timestamp='1253332620' post='1969007']
I gave one negative mark for (if I remember correctly) what I believed to be either a personal attack or condescending. Can't recall exactly what it was. I would have posted reasoning, but at that point for unrelated reasons I was (and mostly still am) in a pretty terrible mood and would prefer not to give myself the opportunity to cause trouble.
[/quote]
I am incorrect. I've given no negatives on this thread. (I just checked.)

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='18 September 2009 - 11:57 PM' timestamp='1253332620' post='1969007']
I gave one negative mark for (if I remember correctly) what I believed to be either a personal attack or condescending. Can't recall exactly what it was. I would have posted reasoning, but at that point for unrelated reasons I was (and mostly still am) in a pretty terrible mood and would prefer not to give myself the opportunity to cause trouble.
[/quote]

I did not write anything with the intent of making a personal attack or being condescending. I apologize if anything came across that way.

~Sternhauser

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='19 September 2009 - 06:11 AM' timestamp='1253358678' post='1969097']
I did not write anything with the intent of making a personal attack or being condescending. I apologize if anything came across that way.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
See my follow-up post. I was mistaken about that, obviously thinking about a different thread.

[N/A Gone]

You never know when someone is violent because they hate, violent because they're desperate, violent because they think you're someone else, violence because they're hungry, or poor, or whatever. As a Christian, it's your duty to choose love--to overcome evil with good. If love does not overcome evil in that immediate case, you have not failed to do your duty as a Christian. But, if you choose violence over love and concern for the humanity behind that veneer of hate, you have failed to be a Christian. You have "loved only those who love you," and even the pagans do that.

So when is violence permitted? Why does the CCC teaching seem to be very different then the non-violence of Christ and the martyrdom of the early Church?