Advising to the catechism of the catholic church #2307-2317:As I quote #2307 ” The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life .Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, The Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war ( cross reference of Gaudium et Spes#78)  The quotation from Guadium et Spes #78” Peace is more than the absence of war : it can not be reduced to the maintenance of a balance of Power between opposing forces nor does it arise out of despotic dominion, but it is appropriately called ” the effect of righteousness”( Isaiah 32:17)  The commentary on this scripture passage ( public ministry of Isaiah - five woes against the chosen / the background is also an oracles against Babylon and Songs of Hope- Salvation from Yaweh) ” Innward peace ,follows upon the indwelling of righteousness,it is itself peace and the effect it’s quietness and assurance for ever, that is, a holy serenity and security of mind. Those are the quiet and peaceable lives that are spent in all godliness and honesty , ( 1 Timothy 2:2)
Cross reference of Isaiah 32:17 ( peace, proverb 17:1,quietness: Chronicle 30:15)
Proverb 17:1- is a collection of the proverbs of Solomon , the cross reference of proverb 17:1 ( Peace) throughout biblical revelation ( God the author :Job 25:2,Jesus the peacemaker John 16:33,  A gift : John 14:27,A command : Matk 1:25,, Necessary for enjoyment   : Psalm 34:12-14,offering for : Deuteronomy 27:7, Covenant of : Genesis 9:14, Conditional- Psalm 85:8 , uncertain- 1King 22:27-28,Enforced-Deuteronomy 20:10-12,worth the struggle - Psalm 34:14,Disposition for- Genesis 13:8-9, National- 1King 4:25, Preached to the world - Isaiah 52:7, Salutatiobs- John 20:26,Benedictions - Psalm 125:5, Bond of unity- John 4:17, Prayer for: Psalm 122:6-9, Under Chadtisement - Job 5:17-24, Happy Ending of - Genesis 15:15, Haters of - Psalm 120:6, Opposers of peace- Joshua 10:1-5, Peace despised- 2Kings 9:17-18)
The law of the bible : Crimes Againt the person( Criminal Laws) Was resolved, the resolution -Christ’s Law of Non- Resistance( Matthew 5:38-39) As I Quote ” Ye have heard that it hath been said , an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you ,That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also-.”
Peace to all during this Holy Week !!!!!!

Mark—Good article.  I generally agree.  Two points to consider:  First, Saddam Hussein had used WMD before we invaded (see, e.g., the Kurds), so it was not unreasonable to assume he had them and would use them again.  Did that justify our invasion?  The answer is certainly above my pay grade.  Second point:  We spend about 20% of the federal budget on the military (including both wars) and about 25% on health and human services.  The DOD is wasteful but necessary.  The deleterious effects of social welfare spending, however, have done more to destroy families (especially minority families) and erode our national character.  Let’s start cutting there.

I wish you would make a distinction between just war and unwise war.  Or would you hold that all just war is necessarily wise war (and not fighting is unwise and unholy)?  Some of these modern causes of war may, in fact, be just; that doesn’t mean we should be involved.  Rather than criticize the US government for trying to help out other nations based on both religious and secular grounds, my gut reaction says you should stick to the economic issue only, at least with some of these conflicts.

Almost 30 yrs ago I found myself considered a “warmonger” in my local collegetown community in New England because I refused to go along with the “Nuke Freeze,” which would’ve in effect given the Soviets a defacto win and placed our nation’s security in greater peril. Why? Simple math and a matter of understanding the logic of dictatorial systems. The Soviets were ahead of us when it came to the relative size of nuclear arsenals. Granted, both Allied and Soviet arsenals would’ve been completely obsolete insofar as their purported design, mutual deterrence, or as Nixon aptly called it, “mutual assured destruction” the moment the first missiles left their respective silos.
  But why risk giving a truly and historically verified “empire of evil” a leg up, I reasoned to no avail, even to people with advanced degrees and reputed expertise in matters of national security. “If you’re not for the freeze, do you favor nuclear war?” Guess what, not only had I received many questions like this within secular society, but quite often within the Catholic “peace & social justice” activists working throughout my diocese of Western Massachusetts. Even appealing to their recollections of history and the horrific price paid by England and France because of their appeasement of Nazi Germany…even in the face of incontrovertible evidence that Hitler was rearming on an alarming pace to not only reverse Germany’s losses at Versailles (she didn’t lose an inch of German territory during WWI), but also to more or less dominate the world along with Italy and Japan. Again, I struck out.
  I reasoned that one isn’t a “warmonger” because he wants to defend his nation or alliance of free nations against a dictatorial system, which coincidently at the time was on a forward roll in places across the globe, even if this expansion was undertaken at great economic peril. The Soviets (almost correctly) believed that the West, and the US, in particular, was vulnerable diplomatically, economically, militarily and spiritually-speaking (remember Carter’s “malaise moment”?)... wouldn’t put up much of a fight.
  After all, since we began holding nuclear disarmament talks with the Soviets, not to mention Gerald Ford’s abominable signing of the Helsinki Accords which practically consigned away every Soviet bullied nation to Moscow’s permanent diktat, and of course our being caught flat-footed when the Red Army invaded Afghanistan in December, 1979 ... who could blame Moscow for its rising confidence that the Eighties could well have been their decade to pull off what Lenin and Stalin dreamed of long before. Never mind that their economy was running on vapors and saber-rattling, the Soviets came so close to pulling off the biggest propaganda coup in human history.
  I have many problems with the overall history of Ronald Reagan’s eight years as president; one thing which cannot be disputed ... his singlemost determination to challenge the Soviets, whom he knew were running on vapors economically speaking—which was all they had left besides their nukes and a very efficient propaganda machine (that was greatly aided by many willing and just duped “useful idiots” over here)—were ready for a peaceful push into what Reagan liked to repeat over and over, including once in Moscow of all places, the “dustbin of history.”
  By not giving in, by understanding that despite the rough years we experienced during the Seventies, we could and would eventually beat the Soviets into economic insolvency. The Russians already knew their society was bankrupt; but it would’ve been almost impossible to learn this within the pro-“Nuke Freeze Now” press in the West, and especially in the Northeastern U.S. Was that huge rally in Manhattan’s Central Park just a “spontaneous display of a desire for peace,” or the product of a very dedicated and professional cadre of Reds and their sympathizers? Take it from somebody who’s reported on this era and seen how the Reds operated through their handy network of “peace activists” back then. Nothing happened “spontaneously.” Nor was that sweetheart pen-pal relationship between the little girl from Maine and Yuri Andropov, who ran the KGB before succeeding Leonoid Brezhnev as the top Soviet boss.
  When the Berlin Wall fell, and the Soviet Union shortly afterwards, and all the files of STASI and the KGB, respectively were opened for all to see ... truth won out and people got to see how pervasively evil the Soviet/Red empire was, and not just behind their barbed wires and concrete walls.
  As I get older now, with my kids grown up and I find myself less inclined to even appear so “gung ho” on matters of defense and foreign policy, I can’t help reflecting back to how easily the Soviets managed to blunder into proving the rightness of Reagan, Maggie Thatcher, German Chancellors Schmidt/Kohl and of course, Pope John Paul II who saw right through the Soviet system and what it was up to all along; scaring enough otherwise intelligent people in the West to pull a repeat of the British and French appeasment to Hitler in 1938-39.
  However, I’ve also (mistakenly and quite regretfully) supported President George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq. John Adams, one of Bush’s most misunderstood and under-appreciated predecessors held a hard line against his own hawks and neo-cons of his day when they (under Alexander Hamilton’s urgings) were hell-bent on going to war against France, then under Napoleon.  “Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war,” warned Adams. Indeed, Iraq was a most unnecessary war; perhaps far more so than any we’ve ever waged, save for what the Southern Confederacy started 150 years ago this month. And it paid dearly four years later, this month as well when Lee surrendered.
  There’s a canyon-wide gap between taking an unpopular position, even within your own Church, on matters that if not handled correctly, not only imperil your own nation, but put the freedoms, general welfare and physical safety of all humanity at stake and continue falling into a pattern of blindfully trusting your nation’s leaders and their reasons for taking the country into an offensive invasion of a nation which had not attacked us, and for waging this demonstrably immoral “unnecessary war” based such cooked up and patently dishonest “intelligence.”
  It was nice seeing Saddam toppled, but was it worth it when the real [human] costs of this wild and ideologically concocted goosechase were finally beginning to show? Was it worth the distraction which allowed the Taliban to regroup, thus causing us to refight for everything we already gave much treasure for? Afghanistan has no oil, but it does have precious metals of which the Chinese already have first and foremost dibs on mining. Anybody care to go “mano y mano” in neocon fashion with Beijing?
  Sure, it wasn’t much fun having people doubt your sanity and moral bearings because you dared to question their unquestioning support of a truly insane nuclear freeze idea that was wholly cooked up in the Kremlin…which didn’t take a PhD in international relations or security matters to discern. It sure as heck beats smarting from an old yet well-deserved guilt of supporting an unnecessary war.
  It’s easy for people to take “just war theories,” “nuke freezes” and other interesting and fashionable topics to talk and write about till the morally-selective “peace now” or “peace through strength” marches and speeches stop. Nothing, however, can surpass the ultimate duty of every thinking Christian or non-Christian citizen of whatever country he or she hails from to QUESTION, DISCERN AND QUESTION MORE BEFORE PRAYING ON MAKING THAT FINAL DISCERN-FILLED DECISION ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.
  Peace at any price brings no lasting peace; nor does the notion that it’s alright to go in guns-a-blazing without much debate and yes, discernment given to supporting whatever our President (and hopefully, Congress, too) ask our Armed Forces to risk the flower of our nation for.

If you strike me on the cheek I may or may not turn the other cheek. I on the other hand you strike my wife or one of my daughters or granddaughters on the cheek you better watch out because I am going to take you out!

This is silly.  First, your graph is absolutely wrong.  China hides the vast majority of its military spending, but likely spends far more than we do.  Just because they aren’t in lots of countries doesn’t mean they don’t have a massive army.  Second, zero conflicts have broken out because of arms races.  Indeed, arms races always start after a conflict, not before.  Yet, despite the evils of arms races, nuclear has never broken out.  It is not likely to anytime soon.  Third, this complete misinterpretation of Just War theory is why the Bishops have lost credibility.  Warfare was far more brutal during the Crusades than it is now.  Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military cities.  The Japanese deliberately built factories in heavily populated areas to try and prevent destruction of their industry.  No matter how many times you, Jimmy Akin, or even the Pope claims that they were terrible bombings that intentionally killed people, I have yet to see a shred of evidence supporting this claim.  All I have seen is that pamphlets were dropped telling people to leave, the intent was to destroy factories and end the war, and while a bad thing might have happened, with the limited knowledge of Atomic weaponry, it was not a sure thing in either case.  Oddly enough, those criteria make it fall under the Principal of Double Effect!  But of course, secretly the US was trying to incinerate small children, because they are evil!  That’s a silly claim.  And this is a silly article.  Sad, really, since you understand the rest of Catholic Dogma so well.

I am now convinced that Mark’s writes not to inform, but only to provoke massive commentary and thus drive hits.

(Tip of the iceberg response:)

Go back and read the speeches, the policy and position papers and you will find that WMD was always BUT ONE of MANY valid and JUST reasons for the war in Iraq.  (In fact the Gulf War never ended in the first place)

Of WMD’s: Primarily, Saddam had a long record of building WMD’s and of using them.  He had the know-how, scientists and equipment acquisition networks to reconstitute and rebuild them in short order.  And all intelligence (not just the “Curve Ball” - cooked up intelligence) suggested that he was a very high risk for using them against the US or his neighbors.  So what if he had not yet done that?

Saddam was on a mission to trick Iran into believing that he had a dangerous, active and very threatening WMD program.  In the process of deceiving Iran, he also deceived the rest of the world.

So what?  Because he was bluffing about WMD’s then the war was UN-JUST?!  BALONEY!  If a criminal draws a FAKE GUN on a cop during a chase and the cop blows his head of, was the cop’s action un-just?  HECK NO!  Who is to blame for that?  The deceiver.

Intelligence can NEVER predict INTENT with 100% accuracy, because no one can ever know the mind of another.  We can only predict based on experience.  We did a damn good job of that in Iraq.  We predicted CORRECTLY that Saddam was a WMD threat.  And he WAS - despite not having them.  Yes - get it?  You have a criminal, homicidal maniac who has a gun, shows you his gun, threatens you with his gun, but has not bullets in the gun.  You shoot him.  Guess what, the bullets were in the basement. If you turned your back he would have gotten them and killed you and the baby across the street.

NEXT:  If we were NOT “all up in his grill”  every day over his WMD’s with inspectors, etc.  Does anyone really think that he would NOT have just moved on past the bluff stage and gone ahead to make and then use or threaten to use WMD?  If you think he would not have you, you are hopelessly lost in understanding the world and the people therein.  Not only that, I would suggest that you don’t know much about Saddam, or his previous weapons programs and why he had them.

Last:  Just War Theory need not be the rubric when we are faced with situations of self defense or the defense of the innocent in other, modern situations that look like and smell like, but are not, “war” in the Augustinian sense.

We are still obligated to defend the innocent. We are not freed from that obligation because war was not declared by Congress or because we do not face an immediate existential threat.  We still have a duty to give up, even our very lives, for others when necessary.  AND we still have PLENTY of other moral teaching to guide us as to how we may or may not do that - morally.  (Including PARTS of Just War Theory.)

I should add to the above that he would have reconstituted them with OR WITHOUT the inspectors over time.  Again - if you don’t believe it, you are knowledgeable on the subject or intellectually dishonest.

Regardless, to risk the lives of MILLIONS of people because you HOPE his intent would be peaceful, is idiotic and downright irresponsible.

In 2003 one of our biggest fears was that our husbands would be killed with chemical weapons.  They left for Iraq with all the biological weapons gear the Army had.  It was nightmare-inducing to think about what might be unleashed on them.  My husband’s first letter home said Baghdad was on fire as they drove through.  The threat was as real and present as anyone could determine at the time.  Do I believe Bush lied.  No.  Do I believe he misled us because he wanted a war?  Certainly not.  I’m grateful that my soldier did not encounter chemical weapons.  I’m exceedingly grateful he came home alive.  And honestly, I believe the day will come, somewhere down the road, when the truth about Saddam’s WMD’s will be discovered, and perhaps Bush will be vindicated.  I don’t believe for one second that he simply didn’t have any weapons.

But Mark, I can’t help but get the sense from all your Just War articles, all your Iraq war finger-wagging and Bush impugning that you sometimes forget that our military is a very necessary and good thing, and how blessed we are that we have extremely capable and brave men and women who will leave home and family to go to nasty places and fight against nasty people who want to kill us.  I don’t know whether Iraq meets the Just War criteria or not, or whether history will prove Bush was right or not, but I am weary of armchair generals and critics.  Thank God for the Unites States military and the extraordinary sacrifices they must make.

First the Just war criteria are part of the ordinary magisterium of the Church, as such the as a set of moral principles they are binding, Much like similar moral prnciples like those governing cooperation with evil. As such it is morally binding. There are 3 groups of people who are affected: 1)Policy makers: Those responsible for the actual decision to go to war. Unlike any other group they have access to all of the data that determine if a given war meets the just war criteria. For example in the Iraq war it would not be necessary for Iraq to have been in possession of WMD, any kind of “grave, lasting damage” would have been adequate as a cause for war. To some degree thsi term itself is not absolutely defined. It should also be noted that since overthrow of a tyrant can be seen as a just, ( imagine if the German people could have overthrown Hitler) Aiding them is just. So There is sufficient cause for war against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Qadaffi’s Libya, just to get rid of the dictatorships, assuming the other criteria are met. This does not mean as someone else pointed out War is a good policy decision in these cases, it merely means its not in and of itself immoral. In any given case only policy makers typically have access to all of the data to determine if a gvien war is just, thus while a Pope, or Bishops conference may like some wars and not like others, they do not typically call participation in a given war a sin, because they do not have the data on which to bind the conscience of the faithful. Much of the information needed is classified, much of it is uncertain. Thus Bush et al may have believed that the just war criteria were met, and in fact misinterpreted the data they had available. This means they are wrong but not immoral. Much like a doctor who makes a medical error and injrus the patient. War, unlike say abortion, adultery, theft etc is not intrinsically immoral, it is sometimes even a moral duty or a virtue. During the Crusades for example one could gain an indulgence for participation. The other groups who need to consider the moral virtues or lack thereof are soldiers and citzens. The Church has tradtionally taken the position that a soldier or citzen who is not in charge of policy making can presume ( for the sake of what is morally binding on them) that thier government in its choice to go to war was acting justly. In other words they were not bound to try to sort out if the government was lying to them or not. (A very high ranking military officer might be classified more as a policy maker depending on how much information they had access to.) As such that is why in most wars the Church will minister to soldiers on both sides. Soldiers are however bound to the rules governing the conduct of a just war, so carrying out an order to massacre POWS or to destroy a village as a terror tactic would be immoral.)

So whats all that mean:
For policy makers they are held accountable by God for thier decision to go to war or not and how sincerly they tried to adhere to the just war criteria, given the subjective nature of the judgement it is possible to policy makers might legitimately disagree on the intrepation of the facts and thus reach different conclusions.

For soldiers, they can in most cases presume thier country is acting justly, unless they have access to classified info that makes them very confident that this is not the case. Their main duty is to refuse to conduct the war in a sinful manner

For Citzens they have the moral duty to use their best judgement when voting etc as they do in any prudential political matter.

In the case of the Iraq, Afghan, and Libyan wars, a reasonable person could make a case that all of them were just (keep in mind the war can be just as long as the agressor is causing lasting and grave damage that can not be averted in other way in the judgement of the policy makers. Marc seems confused as to whether or not the US needs to be itself threatend, This is not the case, goign to war to prevent say a genocide would be moral. Much like an armed civilian who uses a weapon to stop a violent crime. In all of these cases it may not be wise to intervene, ( for example one could argue the Libyan rebels are so close to Al Qaeda that it is unwise to assist them. 

In addition It is misleading to say pacifism is a morally acceptable alternative to the just war theory. For individuals the Church has taken the position that the government should accommodate them so long as this does not interfere with anyone elses rights. The government has a simulataneous grave obligation to defend its citzens from unjust aggression. Thus pacifism among the political leadership would be immoral Again the Catechism: “Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm.” So pacifism as government policy is immoral, and this is also binding on the faithful. Pacifism as personal witness is tolerable assuming you are not harming the rights of others, ( say an all volunteer military with adequate volunteers) 

In terms of moral issues surrounding voting, and political support of candidates, like most political issues this is an area of prudential judgement, the morality, wisdom etc of a given war depend on the assessment of empiric data which may be incomplete and ambiguous, thus good Catholics may reach a variety of different conclusions. This is in distinction from political issues involve intrinsic moral evils, things that are always and everywhere immoral regardless of the circumstances. This would be an issue like slavery in the past and in our day abortion. Support for a candidate who promoted these things would be immoral if there was a viable alternative,

I am quickly becoming a fan of Mark Shea. I approach this doctrine from the same angle and truly appreciated the honesty and step by step explanation put forth in this blog.  Thank you

A lot of those military forces deployed to ‘over a hundred countries’ are Marine Security Guards at embassies.  While we do have quite the presence in some countries, clandestine in others, the vast majority of countries making up the “over 100” are countries that simply have embassies with Marine embassy guards.

Jen:

Many many thanks not only to your husband but to you for the sacrifices you and your family have made for our country.  You guys and the rest of our volunteer military are heroic and I thank you for all you have done for us.  My family is military too.  My Dad and both my brothers were USAF (Dad in WWII and a 20 year career, both my brothers in Vietnam and likewise 20 year career).  It’s *because* I honor the sacrifices that you guys are making that I believe we have to look long and hard at the way in which our Ruling Classes (I’m looking at *you*, Barack Obama) feel they can just keeping sending troops into deadly experiments in nation-building on rationales that don’t even come close to meeting Just War criteria.  You and your loved ones are not pawns to be played with by rich and powerful men in DC who think they can move our troops around like pawns and send them off on Great Society building projects abroad.  You guys are men and women who have offered to lay down your lives in tremendous sacrifice, not only of life and limb, but of time together and with your children.  Our latest adventure in Libya makes our Iraq adventure look Solomonic.  So far it hasn’t meant American boots on the ground, but it’s already got Brits there.  It’s exactly *because* I honor the sacrificial valor of our troops that I think plump politicians have to be really careful before sending them into harm’s way.  That’s the partly the point of Just War Doctrine: to make it hard for powerful people who are cushioned from the consequences of their decision by their wealth and power to treat you and your loved ones like expendable pawns.

God bless your service and sacrifice Jen and give my thanks to your husband.

David T:

I tend to think it’s not either/or with spending cuts.  The DOD and domestic spending could use major surgery.  Sooner or later, reality will force us to do it.

@Andrew. You raised up very valid points about China’s build up. The “Middle Kingdom” is very clever in how its Politburo hides its financing and manufacturing components insofar as it military is concerned. Within the past ten years it was reported that serveral companies that perform manufacturing for western companies that outsourced their manufacturing to are owned by the People’s Army. That’s one front. Another front is the use of “companies” with gussied up names and maybe newer looking facilities to draw western businesses are part of the Gulag. Now we’re talking about giving sweatshop labor a really bad name, if that was possible. Hand it to the Chinese…when it comes to pulling the wool over western eyes and handing our heads back to us in a Walmart shopping cart, they’re the champs.
  As for your comment that arms races, “... zero conflicts have broken out because of arms races.”... you might want to review over the battleship competition between the British Empire and Wilhelmine Germany prior to World War One. The Kaiser was smitten with battlewagon envy after visiting Britain once and decided Germany had to have a navy like Britain’s even though it made absolutely no sense, militarily and economically speaking. It was always going to be a long shot for Germany’s High Seas Fleet to defeat John Bull’s…but if he had, he would’ve had Britain in a stranglehold much like Britain put Germany through the war and the painful months afterwards till the Weimar Republic agreed to the conditions of the Versailles Treaty, including the one stipulating that Berlin was the instigator of the war; not even Vienna. Germany was far from the only guilty belligerant, (and I’m not just referring to the Central Powers.)
  For every battlewagon Germany built, the British built another to match it. But the Kaiser’s personal insecurities dealing with his own cousins across the North Sea, embittered ambitions and dreams of imperial conquest and desire to personally best Great Britain led to the great battleship arms race which contributed greatly to the First World War.

@Jen, you are spot on (I too recall drilling my soldiers endlessly in “MOPP Level IV” gear and going over and over the responses to nerve agent (and other “NBC” Nuclear Biological and Chemical) attacks.  I am not ashamed to say that it was a very frightening thing to be faced with leading men, who’s lives you are responsible for, off into The Sandbox and EXPECTING to be attacked with nerve, blister or blood agent - the stuff he used on the Kurds.  (Imagine it for a second.)  Part of me was utterly, stone-cold terrified. A BIG part of me.  (I was privy to all the info I needed to really, really not want to walk into that.)  But we all did it anyway, because it was THE RIGHT thing to do! Gulf War II was merely an extension of the First.  Same crazed guy, and same capability.  (If not “in stock”, then, “on order” is one way to put it.)

At one point I was in an Army hospital right before the First Gulf War and I recall that the doctors and nurses had a very morbid bet going on about the number of casualties that we were going to take.  (They were trying to hype themselves up and be prepared as they were going to be the ones dealing with those casualties.) The lowest bet was around 30K deaths and the highest 400K.  Those estimates were very realistic if Saddam had used chemical weapons.  (Even HE wasn’t sure that he would NOT, until the very last second, as he had forward-deployed chemical shells at many artillery locations).  Thank God Bush/Baker were able to scare Saddam into not using those WMD that HE HAD at that time.  The 2nd time around, it made sense to believe that he would not hold back and take another walloping.

@mrd:  I REALLY appreciate your post.  I also think you nailed it and I’m glad that someone else had the patience to put that out there. 

BTW - While I also believe that we have a grave moral obligation to defend the defenseless, I don’t have a problem with someone being a true pacifist either, because I can see how one’s conscience could direct one in that direction.  However, I often wonder what those people would do when presented with a personal life-and-death defense decision. 

My mother was an absolute pacifist, but, as a mother, she always said that she would do ANYTHING to protect her children.  Interesting.  I’d often ask, “Mom, what if the only way to save our lives would be to use a gun and you’d HAVE to kill someone?”  She would shudder, pray aloud she’d never have to and then say, “I hope I would use the gun, but….”

Mother’s are funny that way. 

There’s many a pacifist mother, who would kill to save her own children, but somehow can’t allow that it might be a “good thing” for me to kill some bad guy in Afghanistan who rapes little boys, beats his wives, is a bomb maker, and who would go back to work planning the next attack on the innocent (there or here) if my comrades and I were not there to help them find out if they get their 72 virgins.

This is the price of the fallen world in which we live.  Lions DO eat lambs.  So, what if you are a Shepard?  I guess some would let their lambs be gobbled up and call that a Christ-like sacrifice. I am not one of them.  I’m a lion-killer.  And if, in living by the lion, I die by the lion then, so be it.  I can be a lion-killing lamb then.  The sacrifice is MINE to choose, not the lambs to make without a choice.

Some of us are, and always will be called to use force in defense of the innocent.  This comes with a VERY heavy price tag all around, and I can understand if not everyone is called to do it, THANK GOD!  But, if I am willing to offer up my LIFE for something that I know is just, I really don’t care to hear others making the argument that it isn’t, when, really, they are saying, “This is terrible and it ought not happen.”  They see the evil in the war and they attack the war itself rather than acknowledge that it is the natural consequence of other evil, but that the war itself may be just and necessary.

War sucks.  It is definitely horrible, horrible, horrible.  But don’t blame the cost of the police department on the police.  Blame the criminals who make the police necessary!  And when I save some little girl’s life (or a town) because of a well placed shot, you better believe that I am not going to worry myself about the key terrain view from someone’s else’s 50,000 foot moral high horse, when they know as much about it as the back end of the very horse they are on.

[If anyone’s got a problem with me mixing different wars together in my example.  Get over it, you’re not reading well.  The point applies to both because they are both just although for different reasons]

I’m out.  Before I get too steamed.  Very sorry if I may have.  Personal here.

Peace to all.

Was the war on Granada, Panama and Iraq just. Was it a fair fight? No! Yes those weapons of mass destruction that are still missing, and were never a threat to the United States. Now what about Afghanistan?Fair fight No! Was it just yes. Osama and the Taliban who supported them were harbored there. This was just and not pleasant but just. If our president at the time took the words of Teddy Roosevelt to heart, ” Speak softly with a big stick” We would not have been in useless confrontations like Granada, Panama and Iraq, but would have still gone to Afghanistan and if we had concentrated our efforts would have been pulling out with our troops home right now for Easter. Peace is a moral issue.

Mark, the passage in the Catechism says nothing about pacifism, that is, the conviction that all war is wrong.  It talks of those who choose, for good reason, to renounce bloodshed, and it acknowledges that, under the right conditions, this is a morally acceptable choice.  The same could be said for those who give up meat, talking, or even marriage: for some people, under some circumstances, and for some reasons, these are morally acceptable choices.  However, anyone who says that EVERYONE is morally OBLIGATED to give up meat, they are going beyond what the Church teaches; if they say it about talking, they have abandoned all reason; and if they say it about marriage, they are heretics.

Mark, fair enough.  I’m with you in your sentiments, actually.  I’m in no hurry to send my husband back to Iraq or Afghanistan, and I’m not eager to be a widow.  Mostly I don’t want my husband giving his life for something other people will turn around and call “unjust.”  There’s the rub… good men and women have died doing their job, and I daresay they believed they were doing a good thing, trying to protect innocent people from real lunatics.  Those of us back home need to tread carefully in our criticism and declarations of “just” or “unjust”, and I can see that you are trying to do that.  I appreciate it.  I also don’t want to give the impression that our soldiers are all gung-ho about this war and antsy to get over there and shoot people.  For the most part, I think they simply want to defend their country and their families, and they know they have to go where they’re sent.  Our guys are the good guys, and the ones who have paid with their lives have not done so in vain.  I refuse to believe that.
Bless you.

A quick 3rd grade primer:

The never-ending question: To fight or not to fight?

The never ending answer:  That depends on the circumstances!

Therein lies the difficulty in debating this whole war subject.

#1 - Each case stands alone.

Just War Theory is an approach used by many civilized people (states) to determine if a war is justified by making it very difficult for a good and rational (the key being good and rational) person, or state, to go to war without crossing all the t’s and dotting all the i’s.  It (war) should always be the last resort.

A good exercise for a Catholic might be to review the Church’s stance/support (or it’s no stance/support) on ‘specific wars’ throughout history.

#2 - People will always disagree…

Let’s face it… people are all ‘wired’ differently and have access to different amounts of ‘accurate’ information.

This will always be a difficult and volatile subject for ‘fallen’ man.

#3 - “War is a defeat for humanity”—- JPII

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/peace/documents/hf_jp-ii_mes_08121999_xxxiii-world-day-for-peace_en.html

Yadda, Yadda, Yadda !  You elite thinkers would all be slaves of the Japs & Nazis if it wasn’t for our MEN in uniform.  The greatest threat our country has ever faced sits in the oval office now !  He & the party of death are crippling our economy, demoralizing our military & are bent on doing the bidding of the Atheist Jew - Soros !  So talk on fools, ignore the inevitable & take full responsibility for the consequences !

Mark Shea wrote: “That’s the partly the point of Just War Doctrine: to make it hard for powerful people who are cushioned from the consequences of their decision by their wealth and power to treat you and your loved ones like expendable pawns.”—-

I thought the point was not necessarily to make it harder or easier, but to preach the truth: the sanctity of human life and the licit means to protect it.  We have not just a right to, at times, take up arms to defend against an unjust aggressor, but also a general MORAL DUTY (subject to the prudence analysis, which is part of the theory).  God bless our soldiers who take up the call, especially those who defend it with their lives.

Stopping an actions is subject to the same moral analysis as starting one.

“So what?  Because he was bluffing about WMD’s then the war was UN-JUST?!  BALONEY!  If a criminal draws a FAKE GUN on a cop during a chase and the cop blows his head of, was the cop’s action un-just?  HECK NO!  Who is to blame for that?  The deceiver.”

But Saddam hadn’t “drawn” anything like a fake gun.  The more appropriate analogy is one in which a suspect acts like he has a gun, and where the cop shoots him, even though the suspect is just standing there making a lot of noise but not reaching for his pocket.

“John Adams, one of Bush’s most misunderstood and under-appreciated predecessors held a hard line against his own hawks and neo-cons of his day when they (under Alexander Hamilton’s urgings) were hell-bent on going to war against France, then under Napoleon.”

A quibble:  When the Quasi-War with France broke out, France was not yet under Napoleon, but under the Directory.  (He came to power in the coups d’etat of 18 Prairial Year VII (June 18, 1799) and 18 Brumaire Year VIII (November 9, 1799).)

Seamus, my apologies for my timing lapse. Nevertheless, going to war against France wasn’t one of Hamilton’s best ideas. His desire to dabble foreign affairs with some of his ideas was (potentially) worse than his actual dabbling in (domestic) affairs. At least when it came to the latter, there was only one casualty: himself. Had he been able to pull us into a war with France, his machinations would’ve created far more widows and fatherless children.

DJB, why disgrace this commentary thread with such anti-Semitic tripe one could have only picked up from listening to the likes of Glenn Beck, or if living in Germany, during the 30s, a beerhall full of Brownshirts. BTW,since you have this thing against “elite thinkers,” you’ve done a terrific job of demonstrating yourself to be anything but, with that odious post.

Given the ability of nations to strike horrendous, almost-instant blows against others by way of nuclear weapons, there is good reason to think that the circumstances under which Just War Theory developed have changed enough to warrant some pre-emptive actions. No longer does it take months, weeks or even days for a nation to launch an attack that can knockout the ability of those attacked to defend themselves. It just takes minutes. Indeed the considerations surrounding whether to go to war or not have changed much more than the considerations surrounding the use of the death penalty. And, if JPII felt free to reconsider when we can defend ourselves by use of the death penalty in light of modern technology, then all the more should our thoughts on Just War be reconsidered given the technology of modern warfare.

DJP:

What you call “elite thought” is what some of us call, “the teaching of the Church”. Face it: Just War teaching has a lineage stretching back to Augustine. The weirdness of “faithful conservative Catholics” spitting on the teaching of the Church while patting themselves on the back for their superior fidelity to the Faith never ceases to amaze me.

Steven:

Say what you will about Glenn Beck, he is no anti-semite.

Mark, I beg to differ with you about Beck. Take a look at this article I found in The Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/glenn-becks-jewish-problem/69682/ Recall that Beck only backed down because so many Rabbis and many other responsible Jews and non-Jews stood up and called him on his remarks about George Soros. Beck has a lot (more) to lose if he keeps dredging a polluted river’s bottom for his material. This guy was making $32M yearly at the height of his “influence” before he started spiraling down, ironically enough with his back-handed swipe at Catholicism concerning our teachings on Social Justice. Ah well, some of the worst anti-Catholics are self-hating lapsed/apostate catholics. While Beck is hardly matches any thinking person’s idea of an intellectual or academic, the big-mouth did his best to give life to the late Peter Viereck’s quip about “anti-Catholicism being the anti-semitism of academics.”
  Hmmm, looks like Glenn went to the LowBrow Downs and hit both the Daily Double and Quinella in the first two races.

Hmm.  Okay.  I stand corrected.  I still suspect though that Beck is primarily just a paranoid conspiracy theorist.  The trouble is, I reckon, that PCTs tend, if you give them time, to all swirl toward the drain of “Jews are tunneling under your house!” explanations of world history.  I don’t follow Beck so I missed this growing tendency that Goldberg notes.  I’m less and less surprised that his sponsors and network gave this guy the heave-ho.  What’s embarrassing is that he ever got as far as he did.

Excellent points Mark. Beck’s sprawling manse on CT’s “gold coast” would take a lot of tunneling and he’d probably be pointing to Soros as the only guy who’d have the bucks “and motive” to go after him. However I got a real kick out of your thoughts about Beck’s employer, that “fair and balanced” network. Great zinger!But oh how true!

Steven & Shea:  Blather on!  That’s all liberals can do is blather !  If you defend Soros then you support the Muslim in the oval office.  You two are the types that would not defend this Nation but sit back & enjoy all of the freedoms secured by the thousands who have.  Look at all the lives that would have been saved if Hitler had been pre-empted in the 30’s.  Surely the NC Register could attract more adept writers than this.  Always to the far left of center & believing his views are those of the Church !

God bless your Good Friday and grant you a grace-filled Easter, DJP.

DJP, granted, Congregationalists have a different way of looking at things than Catholics, but it’s hard to find a lot of Mecca in this story:
http://www.trivalleycentral.com/articles/2011/04/23/maricopa_monitor/religion/doc4db1edef842e1092868493.txt
Happy Easter and God Bless You and fill your heart with a greater abundance of overlowing charity towards all and malice towards none, to borrow from one of President Barack Obama’s illustrious predecessors; whom, by the way, had a much more checkered path towards the faith he eventually acquired during his short White House tenure.

Steven—Not sure what you mean by Lincoln’s “much more checkered path towards the faith.”  If you’re comparing Lincoln’s journey to the faith to Barack Obama’s meandering and tortuous road to a dubious and seemingly expedient affirmation of redemption in Christ, then I submit that you are not only sorely wrong, but you are also politically naive and ignorant as well.  Lincoln, a complex person, to be sure, but a man of deep moral convictions and abiding love for his country, bore in his soul the immense pain and suffering of the Civil War.  It was a trial of faith that ultimately brought him to his knees in humble submission to his God.  By contrast, the prevaricator-in-chief Barack Obama, the one who sat in Jeremiah Wright’s congregation for 20 years while the good reverend mocked God and damned this country, and the one who also counted the terrorist-facist-coward William Ayers among his friends, is a Jack-a-Lent pretender of dubious background who would not be qualified to empty Mr. Lincoln’s chamber pot.  If, by some providential quirk, Lincoln were found at heart to be a heathen and Barack Obama a saint, I would still heartily embrace the former and gladly heap scorn and spew invective upon the latter.

I gather you don’t want to see Obama’s likeness added to Lincoln’s on Mt. Rushmore. Would you settle for FDR? How ‘bout settling for using something newer than Fox News’ talking heads’ talking points?