I *tend* to agree with you on this, however, I find it difficult to accept that a country cannot prevent an imminent act of armed aggression that *could* save lives. For instance, if the US had had infallible intelligence that Kuwait was going to be invaded by Saddam Hussein, it seems to me that a first strike on the part of the US + Allies would have saved more lives than simply allowing Saddam to have the first strike. Diplomacy would be futile in light of the circumstances. How is not preventing an invasion *not* a defensive war?

This of course is different than bombing Iran into the Stone Age because it’s developing nukes because there’s no imminent attack.

Well said!

The default position is pacifism (ie not killing). It is war (ie killing) which must be justified. The burden of proof is upon those who would wage war (ie kill) to show, beyond moral certainty, that it is Just.

Too often, the media and politicians frame the debate so that ‘patriotism’ and ‘national interest’ is the default position and those who object to a war have to justify their position, because they are ‘obviously disloyal’.

Be loyal to Christ and the Truth before any national or party loyalties. This takes courage and can be personally costly.

I am faithful to the Church and its teaching.  However, the last 50 years of human history, with the development of nuclear and biological weapons that can instantaneously wipe out millions of people needs to be addressed by the Church.  Just as with capital punishment where there are RARE instances and circumstances of foreseeable use to protect innocent life, surely the same would be true in order to protect millions of innocent lives.  I realize the potential for abuse with such a nuanced doctrine, but that is the case for much of Church teaching.

Who woulda thunk that the Church’s teaching on just war emanates from exactly the same argument as the Church’s teaching against sterilization. “War is something you tragically are forced to do as a last resort: like amputating your own leg.” Similarly, sterilization is something you are tragically forced to do as a last resort: like what happens when you must aggressively treat cancer in or around the sex organs. The principle of dual-effect is always so difficult to argue. These words make it clear beyond any doubt—and in very straightforward language.

So pre-emptive war is exactly like pre-emptive sterilization: You find something healthy. You kill it based on your conjecture that something bad might happen. Then you justify it after the fact, despite all the the broken families your act has left in its wake. For just as war leads to widows and orphans, willful sterilization leads to divorce and, well, the orphans thereof. Check the statistics.

And all this because both fly in the face of the Fifth Commandment. I love this piece, and all the obvious ramifications of the argument. Thanks Mark!

Who woulda thunk that the Church’s teaching on just war emanates from exactly the same argument as the Church’s teaching against sterilization. “War is something you tragically are forced to do as a last resort: like amputating your own leg.” Similarly, sterilization is something you are tragically forced to do as a last resort: like what happens when you must aggressively treat cancer down there. The principle of dual-effect is always so difficult to argue. These words make it clear beyond any doubt—and in very straightforward language.

So pre-emptive war is exactly like pre-emptive sterilization: You find something healthy. You kill it based on your conjecture that something bad might happen. Then you justify it after the fact, despite all the the broken families your act has left in its wake. For just as war leads to widows and orphans, willful sterilization leads to divorce and, well, the orphans thereof. Check the statistics.

And all this because both fly in the face of the Fifth Commandment. I love this piece, and all the obvious ramifications of the argument. Thanks Mark!

It seems to me that some actions that guide law inforcement people are based on the just war theory.  Are police forbidden from using pre-emptive activities?

How extensive into morality judgements does the Just War theory extend?

Suzanne,
If an act of violence is imminent and certain, that would fit under the just war doctrine, just as, if someone comes to your door with a knife, you don’t need to wait for him to stab someone before you repel him with force.

As you said, though, that’s not the same as bombing a country for (possibly) developing a nuke.  That’s pretty rich, coming from a country which has thousands of nukes.

I’d also like to comment on the last condition…”- 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.”  I think that we sort of skip over this condition, but history has shown that this is a serious consideration.  Take our Iraq invasion.  Now we displaced Saddam, who was a check for Iran, and Iraq now has a government friendly to Iran, and is persecuting the Christians out of existence to boot.  We also have to take into consideration that any time one goes to war, there is a possibility of that war expanding.

I agree pre-emptive war is folly, but not for the reasons you give. Moving to that option before having the emotional advantage of having been attacked leads to a lack of will to carry on to the deadly end. Apparently this might have been FDR’s rationale for allowing the attack on Pearl Harbor to be so devastating. Prior to going to war, you must have your citizens, minding their own business, not harming anyone, blown to bits first. That will provide the visceral fortitude to carry out a most unpleasant task.  You gotta have a dog in the fight.

Mark’s argument is faulty.  It basically goes as follows
1. Just war doctrine requires as part of Jus Ad Bellum that this is a last resort option.
2. attacking before being attacked is often the not a the last resort,
3. There for attacking before being attacked is NEVER the last resort.
4. So ...

but sorry that is incorrect.
If it were true then self defense would only be justified after you had been wounded.

Catechism Of The Catholic Church

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.

In short, the argument that the silence of the Catechism on pre-emptive war is an argument in *favor* of it is like the argument that the silence of the Catechism on the subject of ritual cannibalism means that cooking and eating human beings in religious ceremonies is not “always wrong”.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea/pre-emptive-war-and-the-protestant-semi-permeable-membrane/#ixzz1nyTKse6n

There comes a point where silence on an issue is tacit approval, or at least not disapproval. Many people were silent as Jews were herded to concentration camps. Many nations do not intervene when genocide is happening. The result is the same—millions of murdered people and the silent ones who let it happen are suddenly appalled at the murderers.

In these days where nuclear war can wipe out the planet, aren’t preemptive strikes on nuclear nations that hate us reasonable?

US intelligence reports are usually far from being infallible- only the teaching of the Church Magisterium and the Pope are infallible, and they all say that the preemptive war( the neocons invention) is not a just war.

Kevin’s argument is faulty at point #2 because the paraphrase of Mark’s argument is inaccurate.  Mark didn’t write “attack”, he wrote “war.”

Pre-emptive arrests are justified (assuming the result is a fair trial with limited delay, under positive laws, competent authority, unbiased judges, proportionate sentencing, etc.)  (BTW, the NDAA is a travesty, but not my point here.)

Unlike pre-emptive arrests, pre-emptive attacks are not justified.  An arrest may require use of lethal force, but it isn’t an attack.  The object is to arrest the person, not attack them.

People bring up self-defense.  In fact, most states recognize Duty to Retreat. Whether it is legal or not, it isn’t justified to shoot a fleeing burglar who displayed no threat, even if you know he has your jewelry.

And remember, last resort is only ONE of the requirements of Jus Ad Bellum.  In a world of sovereign nations, there are certainly others.

Barbara the Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra.  Show me any ex cathedra statements on pre emptive wars. Also like Mark you really need to re read Just War Doctrine.  I am not arguing that the Iraq war was just (it wasn’t in my opinion).  But am arguing that Just War Doctrine doesn’t preclude preemptive attacks as long as all criteria are met.

I’ll be the first to admit that my understanding and study of the just war doctrine is limited, but it was always my impression that the Church’s teaching on war between nations follows from her teaching self defense between individuals.  That being said, while I agree that one is not justified to attack a potential aggressor (let’s say a menacing man who hangs around your apartment complex) without provocation, I cannot believe that you must be shot, beaten or stabbed in order to defend yourself.  If there reaches a point where it is unmistakably clear that the man means to do you or your family harm given the opportunity (he has the gun pointed at you, he’s making a credible threat), I believe that the Church condones action against him for self defense (along certain moral boundaries).

In the same way, in a situation like Israel v. Iran, which seems to be the situation most plausible, Iran has credibly threatened the Israeli people, and it is preparing a weapon to point at them, which on an individual scale would be like putting a gun to a person’s chest - if you have to wait for the act of aggression to respond, you likely will not be able to.

Father John A. Hardon pocket dictionary: Just War (in part): ‘The “just cause” means that a nation’s rights are being violated by an actual or least >imminent attack.’
>If a country is building a nuclear-bomb so they can purposefully kill millions of people, it seems reasonable to >strike first & destroy the ability of the country to make a nuclear-bomb.
>In the world today, Iran is making a nuclear-bomb so they can “kill all the Jews.”  I find it difficult to believe that Holy Mother our Church teaches> the Jews have to wait until a nuclear bomb delivers death to Israel before the Jews can engage in a ‘just war.’
>It seems to me a ‘pre-emptive war’ may be a ‘just war’ sometimes.

So Israel has to wait to Iran develops a nuclear bomb and use it on her before Israel can defend herself according to the Church?

@ Suzanne

Making an analogy between a State and an individual is well and good, however it ultimately does not pay the piper.  A State and a individual have different considerations to take into account.  When it comes down to the individual and acting in self defense, the choice of the aggressor is obvious.  He’s either pulling his gun, pointing his gun, pulling his knife, approaching you with his knife, or approaching you with his hands up and with malicious intent, or has already swung the first punch.

With States, if you act pre-emptively against another country, you’re acting on an ASSUMPTION that the leaders of the other country are going to make a deadly decision.  You aren’t acting with full knowledge that that decision has been made.  Bellicose statements from leaders of that country, furthermore, aren’t justifiable indication in the same way as pulling a gun is in an individual situation.  Leaders make bellicose statements all the time and do nothing.

The question here is, whose hands do the innocents’ blood rest on?  When you initiate hostilities at the State on State level, it belongs on the initiator.

@ Still believe

Absolutely Israel has to wait.  There is no way to know that hostile action has been decided by a State until hostile action is taken.  How do you justify acting on an assumption, propelling millions of people into war and suffering? 

How do you know that Iran doesn’t want Nukes merely for the sake of deterrence?  Israel isn’t the only one who doesn’t like Iran.

@Kevin

I don’t agree with Mark Shea 100% of the time.  In fact, I usually disagree with Mark and his rhetoric (sorry Mark), but this I agree with him 100% about.

You only took into account one half of Mark’s argument, the part about last resort.  What about the redressing a wrong?  What is the wrong to be redressed?

Furthermore, if you think possession of WMDs is enough of a “wrong” to justify war, then do you think American citizens should not be allowed to own guns?  The fact that we are takes into account “acceptable risk” for the sake of personal liberty.  Are you against owning

@ Kevin

Let’s be fair and quote the Catechism 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: [2243]

- 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.”

How does pre-emptive strikes meet “- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;”??

I’d love to hear some historical examples, as well as other factual (i.e. accurate) quotations from church documents.

The church’s teaching on Just War is also the reason that assassinating someone like George Tiller (extra-judicial killing) is wrong, but that would extend to the other assassinations, e.g. of muslim preachers or scientists.  If the abortion holocaust does not warrant a violent and not very pre-emptive response, there can be few things that do.

This is a pre-emptive comment: The leaders of Iran actually say, ‘they want a Nuke so they can >kill all the Jews.’ (the statement is in the news.)
>There are Muslim religious figures that claim the ‘End of Days & the return of the 12th Imam’ requires the ‘killing of all the Jews.’
>There are Protestant Christians teaching a huge ‘End of Days’ war is approaching between ‘Gog & Magog’ bringing death to millions of Jews & the return of Jesus Christ.
>There are Roman Catholics teaching there is no such thing as a ‘Just pre-emptive’ war.
>Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us. Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world, grant us peace.  Pray for the Jews.

@ gghd, 

A verbal comment isn’t sufficient cause for declaring war.  Show me that in the just war tradition that I’m wrong, and I’ll shut up.

Now, if Iran were to attack our allies, by all means I’d be for going in there myself to help redress the wrong.

Joseph is right. The criterion, “the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;”, alone, rules out any preventive war based on speculation.

And yes, it’s hard to digest Church’s teaching, especially when it is against one’s opinion. I had a very hard time digesting just war doctrine, but I accept it now, and consider any pre-emptive strike as against Church’s moral teachings.

This an open comment to everyone.  Iran is actually attempting to build a nuclear bomb.  The leaders also say they want a Nuke to ‘kill all the Jews.’  This is much more than a >verbal comment by the leaders of Iran.  It is an actual statement of intention to use the Nuke to ‘kill all the Jews.’ >Lord have Mercy.

@GGHD

Again, where is ‘statement of intention’ in just war theory?

The matter seems to be more complicated than it may seem at first glance.

See this reference on “War” from the “Catholic Encyclopedia”...

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15546c.htm

...and also note here in “COMPENDIUM OF THE SOCIAL DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH” we have the following link…

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html#At the dawn of the Third Millennium

...where we have the following quote…

...a quote which, BTW, does not absolutely forbid a “pre-emptive” war though it does bound such an action with serious pre-conditions…

QUOTE_BEGIN

a. Legitimate defence

500. A war of aggression is intrinsically immoral. In the tragic case where such a war breaks out, leaders of the State that has been attacked have the right and the duty to organize a defence even using the force of arms.[1049] To be licit, the use of force must correspond to certain strict conditions: “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 modern 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”.[1050 ]

If this responsibility justifies the possession of sufficient means to exercise this right to defence, States still have the obligation to do everything possible “to ensure that the conditions of peace exist, not only within their own territory but throughout the world”.[1051] It is important to remember that “it is one thing to wage a war of self-defence; it is quite another to seek to impose domination on another nation. The possession of war potential does not justify the use of force for political or military objectives. Nor does the mere fact that war has unfortunately broken out mean that all is fair between the warring parties”.[1052]

501. The Charter of the United Nations, born from the tragedy of the Second World War with the intention of preserving future generations from the scourge of war, is based on a generalized prohibition of a recourse to force to resolve disputes between States, with the exception of two cases: legitimate defence and measures taken by the Security Council within the area of its responsibilities for maintaining peace. In every case, exercising the right to self-defence must respect “the traditional limits of necessity and proportionality”.[1053]

Therefore, engaging in a preventive war without clear proof that an attack is imminent cannot fail to raise serious moral and juridical questions. International legitimacy for the use of armed force, on the basis of rigorous assessment and with well-founded motivations, can only be given by the decision of a competent body that identifies specific situations as threats to peace and authorizes an intrusion into the sphere of autonomy usually reserved to a State.

QUOTE_END

HTH.

Thanks.

Yours in Christ,

—Mark Kamoski

This is an open comment to everyone & to Joseph. Please read my first comment where I cited a Catholic dictionary created by Father John A. Hardon.  The ‘Just War’ seems to be a basis for a ‘first strike’ if a country is in danger of an ‘imminent attack.’
>It seems that many people want to quarrel about the meaning of ‘just war’ as set out in the Catechism & ignore how the leaders of Iran want to build a Nuke to ‘kill all the Jews.’ If folks think Holy Mother our Church teaches> The Jews have to wait & suffer a Nuclear Holocaust before they have the ‘moral right to engage in war’> so be it.  We will all find out the Truth at the Judgment Throne of Jesus Christ.
>This part of a column (Iraq) by Father Richard Neuhaus:> “Frequent reference to preventive or pre-emptive use of military force, and to “wars of choice,” have only confused the present discussion.
>War, if it is just, is not an option chosen but a duty imposed.  In the present circumstance, military action against Iraq by a coalition of the willing is in response to Iraq’s aggression; fist against Kuwait, then in defiance of the terms of surrender demanding its disarmament, then in support of, if not direction participation in, acts of terrorism.
>This joined to its brutal aggression against its own citizens, and its possession of weapons of mass destruction which it can use or permit others to use for further aggression.
>To wait until the worst happens is to wait too long, and leaders guilty of such negligence would rightly be held morally accountable.
>In the Catholic tradition there is, in fact, a considerable literature relevant to these questions. Augustine, Aquinas, Francisco de Vitoria and Francisco Suarez, for example, all wrote on prudential action in the face of aggressive threats. The absence of reference to such recognized authorities in the current discussion among Catholics is striking.”
>(me)>We will all stand before Jesus Christ on Judgment day and give an answer for: ‘our thoughts, our words, what we do & what we fail to do.’  I personally don’t believe Holy Mother our Church teaches the Jews cannot >strike first in a ‘just war’ but rather they have to wait for a Nuclear Holocaust.  If you have a different opinion, so be it.

Joseph, my comment to was determined> it might be spam & is under review.

If ten thousand armed troops stand at your border with guns pointed in your direction, only a fool would not attack first.  So much for not having a justified situation for not starting a war with a pre-emptive attack!  No one has to wait for the enemy to pull the first trigger to defend himself when the intent and threat is real.

This analysis is completely wrong.

One of the purposes of the United Nations is to maintain international peace and security and take effective collective measures for the prevention of threats to the peace. This is done under Chapter VI which does not envisage the use of force.

The United Nations is also there to take measures for the removal of (existing) threats to the peace, and under Chapter VII this can be done by armed force. Threats to the peace are determined factually in terms of events which give rise to fear so that there is an assertable claim that fighting might be necessary. They include, by law and per se, the crime of genocide and crimes against humanity as lawfully defined.

Chapter VII powers to use armed force are also to be used for the suppression of acts of aggression and other breaches of the peace. A breach of the peace means an armed attack which is wrongful according to international law, engaging state responsibility. A breach of the peace is an act of aggression if it answers its legal description, in which case it also has a criminal character.

Pre-emptive war is illicit as long as the facts do not allow a reasonable person acting reasonably to determine the existence of a threat to the peace, a breach of the peace or an act of aggression so that Chapter VII is engaged. Only a state whose government creates one or more of these contingencies may justly be attacked with armed force, as the internationally wrongful acts by which it creates them are the only ones which meet the Catechism criterion that they are grave.

The second Catechism criterion is that the grave injury must be lasting. It will be so if and as long as the wrongful act has a continuing character, or its legal consequences have not all been executed.

As to certainty, it was held by the International Court of Justice in the Gabcíkovo-Nagymaros Project case that it cannot be excluded that: “a ‘peril’ appearing in the long term might be held to be ‘imminent’  as soon as it is established,  at the relevant point in time, that the realization of that peril, however far off it might be, is not thereby any less certain and inevitable.” (Judgement of 25 September 1997, paragraph 54).

The proposition that “war kills innocent people and killing innocent people is bad according to the Fifth Commandment” will not do on its own. It is in itself morally good and of obligation that international peace and security be maintained, and restored if violated and by force if necessary. This is the gravest duty of civil rulers and it is is commensurate with the evils of aggression, breach of the peace and threat to the peace, aggression being branded the supreme international crime.
It follows that the killing of innocent people by the internationally lawful use of force is the lesser evil, though it is still a grave evil and must wherever possible be avoided.

@Joseph

“Again, where is ‘statement of intention’ in just war theory?”

Is preemptive strike or “statement of intention” discussed in the “just war theory”?

@Miles Schmidt

Show me in a Church document where intent and threat are enough to move your country into war. 

Furthermore, if “10k armed troops stand at your border with guns pointed in your direction,” is enough cause for pre-emptively striking the country with the 10k troops, then South Korea should just bomb NKorea, and we should also ignore anyone but Canada and Mexico, the only two countries that can put 10k troops on our borders.

I am amazed at how many comments look at hypothetical special cases to claim that Mark is wrong.  He is talking about going to war and they respond with cases where either a war has been, in fact, started by someone else (1000 guns pointing at us) or other situations that can be addressed decisively and firmly without going to war.
What don’t we say to win an argument!

Q. Can a Catholic participate in a war where those on the other side are also Catholic?

Q. (Broadened) Can a Christian participate in a war where those on the other side are also Christian?

Preemptive Warfare isn’t in the catechism because the entire thought of it was so horrible that it isn’t mentioned in MODERN just war doctrine.

But it was thought of at the start.  St. Augustine of Hippo, in _City_of_God_, he famous apologetic for the fall of Rome, sets out the earliest set of rules for Catholic Just War:
1.  It must be against an invader in defense of your own nation.
2.  You must not follow the invader back to his home to take revenge.
3.  Your tactics should do as much damage to your own people as they do to the enemy; thus showing love for your enemy.

A pre-emptive war is not within these rules.  Neither, I should point out, were the Crusades- which is a part of the reason why we LOST the Crusades and why North Africa is Islamic today.

Q. Can a Catholic participate in a war where those on the other side are also Catholic?

Q. (Broadened) Can a Christian participate in a war where those on the other side are also Christian?

Yes. The whole point of just war doctrine is defense and that you are repelling an attacker. It is very similar to self-defense. If someone invades your home wielding a gun, it is morally acceptable to use lethal force to stop him and it doesn’t matter if they are Catholic or not.

If ten thousand armed troops stand at your border with guns pointed in your direction, only a fool would not attack first.

This is bad logic because there are examples of countries with militarized borders (that is, with guns pointed at the other country). Korea just off the top of my head. Sabre rattling is not sufficient justification for war. It requires an actual act of war which I’ll grant isn’t always a matter of firing the first shot.

Once they see the error of their ways, watching Neo-Cats is like observing a 3 legged cat cover up his own excrement.  Mark sounds more and more like an ego in search of a position.

@Post by Joseph on Friday, Mar 2, 2012 3:31 PM (EST):

Dear Joseph—

Regarding this…

Show me in a Church document where intent and threat are enough to move your country into war.

...here you go…

...and also note here in “COMPENDIUM OF THE SOCIAL DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH” we have the following link…

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html#At the dawn of the Third Millennium

...where we have the following quote…

...a quote which, BTW, does not absolutely forbid a “pre-emptive” war though it does bound such an action with serious pre-conditions…

QUOTE_BEGIN

a. Legitimate defence

500. A war of aggression is intrinsically immoral. In the tragic case where such a war breaks out, leaders of the State that has been attacked have the right and the duty to organize a defence even using the force of arms.[1049] To be licit, the use of force must correspond to certain strict conditions: “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 modern 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”.[1050 ]

If this responsibility justifies the possession of sufficient means to exercise this right to defence, States still have the obligation to do everything possible “to ensure that the conditions of peace exist, not only within their own territory but throughout the world”.[1051] It is important to remember that “it is one thing to wage a war of self-defence; it is quite another to seek to impose domination on another nation. The possession of war potential does not justify the use of force for political or military objectives. Nor does the mere fact that war has unfortunately broken out mean that all is fair between the warring parties”.[1052]

501. The Charter of the United Nations, born from the tragedy of the Second World War with the intention of preserving future generations from the scourge of war, is based on a generalized prohibition of a recourse to force to resolve disputes between States, with the exception of two cases: legitimate defence and measures taken by the Security Council within the area of its responsibilities for maintaining peace. In every case, exercising the right to self-defence must respect “the traditional limits of necessity and proportionality”.[1053]

Therefore, engaging in a preventive war without clear proof that an attack is imminent cannot fail to raise serious moral and juridical questions. International legitimacy for the use of armed force, on the basis of rigorous assessment and with well-founded motivations, can only be given by the decision of a competent body that identifies specific situations as threats to peace and authorizes an intrusion into the sphere of autonomy usually reserved to a State.

QUOTE_END

...and note that we have this…

Therefore, engaging in a preventive war without clear proof that an attack is imminent cannot fail to raise serious moral and juridical questions.

...which strongly suggests that…

It may be possible to engage in a preventive war morally as long as there IS clear proof that an attack is imminent

...so, I think that clearly is both a “Church document” and touches directly on your “intent and threat are enough” question.

What do you think?

Yours in Christ,

—Mark Kamoski

Once they see the error of their ways, watching Neo-Cats is like observing a 3 legged cat cover up his own excrement.  Mark sounds more and more like an ego in search of a position.

Seems like his position is fairly clear. At least clear enough that one should interact with it instead of resorting to characterization.

The Church’s doctrine on just war has to be applied to concrete situations by fallible human beings. The legitimate authority in a nation has to make this judgment. The Church cannot make it for that governmental authority.

The Church’s doctrine on just war has to be applied to concrete situations by fallible human beings

I haven’t read anyone arguing the contrary.

The legitimate authority in a nation has to make this judgment.

Yes, and the CCC even says that.

The Church cannot make it for that governmental authority.

True. But it sounds like you are saying it is all relative. It isn’t. A country might erroneously declare war they thought was just. But it is still an error. Good intentions don’t make an unjust war just.

Recently, I heard that on every public building in Israel they have a motto inscribed: NEVER AGAIN.

What do you think they mean by “NEVER AGAIN?”

Scott writes:
“The whole point of just war doctrine is defense and that you are repelling an attacker ... it doesn’t matter if they are Catholic or not.”

Well, that has been the answer of history. Thanks for stating it formally.

If the attacker (with no just cause) is Catholic, shouldn’t he be swayed by our Lord’s counsel at the Last Supper?
“A new commandment I give unto you: That you love one another, as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another.” John 13:34,35, Douay at newadvent.org.
And, if not- if he shows such unChristian lack of love and disobedience to his God as to attack Catholics on the other side, is he still a Catholic in the eyes of his Church? What is the procedure followed by Rome in that case? Or is it up to his country’s clergy to take steps? IOW, what consequences does he face from his Church?

The prohibition against preemptive war is indeed in the Catechism. It’s called the just war doctrine.

Most of the posts wrote of hypotheticals, but there is a least one concrete example of recent history of a preemptive strike leading to war. In 1967 the Six Day War was commenced by Israel after a call by virtually every Arab country for its total destruction followed by a massive mobilization of the armies by each of Israel’s neighbors. No historian doubts the attack against Israel by a combined much greater forces was imminent, or that then tiny Israel seriously risked destruction if it waited for the attack to commence on its own soil.  I have never heard of a Catholic authority condemning Israel for its action, and I, who greatly respects Mark and usually agrees with him, have a hard time finding Israel culpable under the Catholic just war doctrine.

@ Jim. Well put. Couldn’t it be argued that, practically speaking, Israel’s neighbors had been at war with Israel for many years? In the same way, Iran is now at war with Israel.

A sufficient justification for Israel’s attack on her neighbours in 1967 was that all of them had not yet made full amends for the war of aggression they had waged against Israel in 1948. They were obliged to give adequate guarantees against non-repetition and make just satisfaction.

Egypt and Jordan have done this by signing a peace treaty with Israel.

Israel herself retains a right of belligerency against Lebanon and Syria.

Does Rick Santorum’s constant ravings about bombing Iran because he believes Iran is building a nuclear weapon come under Catholic teaching about just war? I don’t think so. Rick’s thinking is in direct opposition to several reliable and experianced experts in the field of nuclear power. A nuclear attack on Iran by the US will result in so called “collateral damage” which is newsspeak for killing or wounding women(pregnant or not),children and civilians. The homes and lives of many innocents will be destroyed forever. It may also result in WWIII.
In that case how can anyone like Rick Santorum be both prolife and preemptive war?
Rick believes it is “wonderful” to assassinate Iran’s nuclear scientists.
Rick does not believe in the just war theory of the Catholic Church
nor the fifth Commandment.
He is pandering to the Protestants with his pro-life and pro-Israel issues and pandering to the Catholics with his contraception and pro life issues. Does that leave the pro contraceptive Protestants confused?
How can Catholics not see the perfidy of Rick Santorum?

Very clever, Rick.

@Liz

“A nuclear attack on Iran by the US….”

“Does Rick Santorum’s constant ravings about bombing Iran….”

Are you implying Santorum wants to attack Iran with nuclear weapons?

If so, where is your proof for that charge?

The causes of a just war were never reducible to defending oneself against an attack that was already happening. As St, Thomas says, “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.” And he quotes St. Augustine on intention: “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.”

In the modern era, when there is no time between the launch of a nuclear attack and its realization, when the only defense is to de-fuse the possibility of attack, so-called (and wrongly termed) pre-emptive war fulfills the conditions of just cause and just intention.

An attack on the nuclear weapons facility of a power that has already declared its intention to wipe out other countries, and which is already preparing the tools to do so, is not pre-emptive war, but a just war.

Mary Ann Parks

I agree with your comments.  It is just common sense.

WWJB? (Who would Jesus bomb?)

Again, “for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects.”  It is hard to get past the fact that there must first be some wrong to redress first before you propel your State into war.

Mark,
in the best sense of the word, this scenario is about semantics.  Consider these facts: Country A, large but relatively backward country seeks to develop advanced weaponry that will allow it to destroy Country B, a much smaller but technologically advanced country that already possesses weapons that could allow it to destroy much of the war-fighting capability of Country A.  Country A’s leadership has repeatedly made public statements to the effect that it rejects the right of Country B to exist, and the population of Country B has been the victim of genocide in the past, which the culture of Country A at least passively supported. 
Question: if Country B’s leadership is convinced that Country A will soon possess the technology to annihilate its people, and that once it possesses such technology there is a substantial likelihood that it will be used in a genocidal attack to wipe the country off the map, and decides to use whatever force is necessary to destroy Country A’s offensive capability, is it an unjust aggressor?
I think a compelling case can be made that it is engaged in a just defensive war.

Barbara,

“US intelligence reports are usually far from being infallible- only the teaching of the Church Magisterium and the Pope are infallible, and they all say that the preemptive war( the neocons invention) is not a just war.”

Infallible is the wrong word. Evidence, reports etc. can never be infallible, only those making an utterance, giving a judgement etc. can be. Statements can only be right or wrong.

However, “only the teaching of the Church Magisterium and the Pope are infallible” - it is actually, the Church’s extraordinary magisterium that is infallible and this is exercised either by the totality of the bishops in union with the pope, an ecumenical council headed by the pope or the pope speaking ex cathedra on faith or morals. But in all three cases, it is the magisterium speaking. To mention the pope next to the magisterium sounds like he is infallible separately or with every utterance he makes. And this is relevant in this context: “Pope Benedict said of (event X) that ...” is not argument, not example of church teaching.

Forrest,

I am not contradicting what you said against Kevin’s point but the following is a strange example of fuzzy thinking:

“Pre-emptive arrests are justified (assuming the result is a fair trial with limited delay, under positive laws, competent authority, unbiased judges, proportionate sentencing, etc.)  (BTW, the NDAA is a travesty, but not my point here.)

Unlike pre-emptive arrests, pre-emptive attacks are not justified.  An arrest may require use of lethal force, but it isn’t an attack.  The object is to arrest the person, not attack them.”

So, an arrest meeting opposition and hence using force is “not an attack” - this makes it easy for anyone trying to bomb Iran tomorrow: let’s just say the object is to arrest the development of nukes, hence it is not an attack. Silly of course ...

The same rules actually do apply for both law enforcement and warfare. Arresting policing officers may use force only if necessary to make the arrest, in other words: if there is no other way. That sounds pretty much like the criterion of Just War: only if all other means have been tried and only insofar as to accomplish the goal (for the police: no brutality after the arrest is secure, for soldiers: no killing after victory is secure).

People bring up self-defense.  In fact, most states recognize Duty to Retreat. Whether it is legal or not, it isn’t justified to shoot a fleeing burglar who displayed no threat, even if you know he has your jewelry.

And remember, last resort is only ONE of the requirements of Jus Ad Bellum.  In a world of sovereign nations, there are certainly others.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea/pre-emptive-war-and-the-protestant-semi-permeable-membrane/#ixzz1oA64Or8a

Joseph,

the analogy between states and individual person is completely fitting. You say states do not know what others intend - well, you do not “know” what another person intends that approaches you with a knife either. You might have a hunch but you demanded positive, 100% incontrovertible knowledge, which you will not have in either situation.

It is only consistent that you say:

“There is no way to know that hostile action has been decided by a State until hostile action is taken. How do you justify acting on an assumption, propelling millions of people into war and suffering?”

You are also propelling many, possibly millions, into suffering by your irrational insistence that the other side has to strike first.

“How do you know that Iran doesn’t want Nukes merely for the sake of deterrence?  Israel isn’t the only one who doesn’t like Iran.”

Actually, Israel as such has no issue with Iran. Iran has never been at war with Israel. The only contention between the two is that the current regime loves to spout hatred against Israel. So who actually is the aggressor.

And yes, I do believe that Iran wants nukes for deterrence and US policy is partly to blame for this. But that doesn’t make it right, as having nukes will be the shield under which Iran can then start aggressive policies towards its neighbours.

Sure, there is another way to handle this except for a pre-emptive strike: to declare that any attack by (the then-nuclear) Iran on another country would result in nuclear retaliation by the US.

Two problem with this: 1. is this feasible given that other nuclear powers (Russia and China) might take exception to this and that US promises have sometimes been kept (Europe in the Cold War) and sometimes not (the shameful chickening out of Vietnam) and 2. will such a nuclear strike not create way more suffering than a conventional one now, designed to force Iran to keep its (oft forgotten) contractual obligation not to acquire nukes?

BTW (directed to others), the Iran wants nukes to kill all Jews is just plain silly (and “it was in the news” would be a reason to laugh if it weren’t so serious). Iran’s leaders have stated that they would like to, if they could, remove the state of Israel but they never said wanted they wanted to kill all Israelis/Jews.

Joseph,

the analogy between states and individual person is completely fitting. You say states do not know what others intend - well, you do not “know” what another person intends that approaches you with a knife either. You might have a hunch but you demanded positive, 100% incontrovertible knowledge, which you will not have in either situation. If anything, the obligation of a state to protect itself is stronger than that of an individual to protect himself. A single person can engage in heroic non-violence, a state can’t.

It is only consistent that you say:

“There is no way to know that hostile action has been decided by a State until hostile action is taken. How do you justify acting on an assumption, propelling millions of people into war and suffering?”

You are also propelling many, possibly millions, into suffering by your irrational insistence that the other side has to strike first.

“How do you know that Iran doesn’t want Nukes merely for the sake of deterrence?  Israel isn’t the only one who doesn’t like Iran.”

Actually, Israel as such has no issue with Iran. Iran has never been at war with Israel. The only contention between the two is that the current regime loves to spout hatred against Israel. So who actually is the aggressor.

And yes, I do believe that Iran wants nukes for deterrence and US policy is partly to blame for this. But that doesn’t make it right, as having nukes will be the shield under which Iran can then start aggressive policies towards its neighbours.

Sure, there is another way to handle this except for a pre-emptive strike: to declare that any attack by (the then-nuclear) Iran on another country would result in nuclear retaliation by the US.

Two problem with this: 1. is this feasible given that other nuclear powers (Russia and China) might take exception to this and that US promises have sometimes been kept (Europe in the Cold War) and sometimes not (the shameful chickening out of Vietnam) and 2. will such a nuclear strike not create way more suffering than a conventional one now, designed to force Iran to keep its (oft forgotten) contractual obligation not to acquire nukes?

Another way might be to guarantee that the US would not attack Iran, if it stayed clear of nukes and aggression against its neighbours. But then again, we could not trust promises that Iran wouldn’t pursue nukes anyway and probably Iran wouldn’t trust such American guarantees.

BTW (directed to others), the Iran wants nukes to kill all Jews is just plain silly (and “it was in the news” would be a reason to laugh if it weren’t so serious). Iran’s leaders have stated that they would like to, if they could, remove the state of Israel but they never said wanted they wanted to kill all Israelis/Jews.

“Because there is no room for pre-emptive war in the Church’s just war doctrine.  And that is so, because war kills innocent people and killing innocent people is bad according to the Fifth Commandment. ” - M.S.

It is strange that one can correlate killing and murder so easily, or is it that one does not realize that the Fifth Commandment says nothing about killing but murder?

Deliberately killing innocent people is murder.  When you bomb a city full of innocents without just cause, you are committing murder.  It is strange that one can uncorrelate the killing of innocent civilians from murder so easily.

@Jim,

You bring up a valid question.

However, I don’t believe Israel’s Six Day War was an act of “pre-emptive war”, but actually did fulfill the concept of a “just war.”

Israel had 1) received multiple aggressive statements of intent by multiple nations, which were 2) followed up by <u>actual</u> mobilization of their militaries in a manner consistent with beginning to act out those intentions.

This actually was like the personal defense analogy, where 1) someone first says they’re going to shoot you in the head, and 2) then pulls out & starts loading a gun to actually do it.

The Six Day War was not Israel attacking a bunch of countries that were blowhards who might someday have the ability to follow up, but was a matter of acting defensively against direct aggressive action which was already explained with statements of aggressive intent.

“Deliberately killing innocent people is murder.  When you bomb a city full of innocents without just cause, you are committing murder.  It is strange that one can uncorrelate the killing of innocent civilians from murder so easily.” - M.S.

No Mark.  It is a question of legality in the Fifth Commandment and also in the case of national defense and war.  If one was to use your standard of what is murder, the bombing of Japan in WWII would be an example of such murder.

“Mark sounds more and more like an ego in search of a position”

Bingo!  Where was he when the rest of the Neo-Cats were beating the drum for war under the prudential option?

Mr Patton and Mark Shea,

Mark is right in this. Though the Fifth commandment forbids murder and simply killing and the items that make the difference are self-defense, capital punishment and war, war then has to fit the requirements of a Just War. Because God wants human beings alive and not dead. That’s one, if not the, most crucial characteristics of the Lord.

Not at all is it a question of legality. The Ten Commandments are not about legality.

“If one was to use your standard of what is murder, the bombing of Japan in WWII would be an example of such murder.”

I can’t speak for Mark but deducing from his statements (and I don’t agree 100%), the war against Japan was just in terms of “Jus ad bellum”: Japan attacked the US, the US striked back. In terms of “Jus in bello”, the US was not spotless and committed crimes (though to a much lesser degree than Japan) but that doesn’t make the entire war unjust.

PS. Sorry about the double posts and left-overs from comments I replied to.

According to this article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preemptive_war

the Six-Days-War was a preemptive war and as such fall within the confines of a Just War, while preventive wars do not.

However, I have also heard the terms used exactly the other way around.

While I recognize that many people claim the Six Day War was a “pre-emptive war”, I disagree as their claim is based on the use of the word “perceived” in the definition of “pre-emptive war”, which really seems pretty “weasel-wordish”.

IMO, the entire concept of pre-emptive war is rooted in a claimed ability to foresee the future, to accurately determine “pre-crime”. That wikipedia article admits such, while attempting to try to imply otherwise:

“A preemptive war is a war that is commenced in an attempt to repel or defeat a perceived offensive or invasion, or to gain a strategic advantage in an impending (allegedly unavoidable) war before that [alleged] threat materializes.”

“Perception” is certainly needed to determine the need for self defense, but the article uses the term “perceived” in place of the more accurate term “foreseen”.

For self-defense to be just, an attack has to be underway at some point. You don’t have to wait until an attack actually lands a blow & hurts you, but you can’t defend against a non-existent attack.

As such, “pre-emptive war” is not “self-defense”.

Israel didn’t “perceive” an impending attack by claiming that decades of threats combined with those nations having military forces made such an attack either “imminent” or “inevitable”.

They “perceived” an offensive invasion by using their eyeballs to observe an actual attack (that had already been declared) in it’s initial stages of being undertaken, and decided to act before the blow could land.

It didn’t take much nerve to write this sort of thing after the fact but when periodicals like NOR and Culture Wars were saying this sort of thing almost a decade ago, Mark and his ilk ridiculed them.

“Ego in search of a position”  that sums up a lot, Mary E.

Chris,

according to the terminology employed in the WP article, the Six-Days-War was a pre-emptive war. Pre-emptive war here refers to the “good”, permissible variation, whereas pre-ventive indicates the “bad”, forbidden one.

Re the world “perceived” you so vocally criticize:

1. That the WP article writes “perceived” might be either due to WP’s NPOV policy which, if followed, at all costs avoids anything that might indicat a preference for one side over the other.

2. OTOH, I think it is totally accurate that it is sufficient for an pre-emptive war for one side to honestly think that the other side is about to strike. That perception might be accurate (as it was in 1967) or not but it is the honest perception that counts - as opposed to situations where the perception is simply a lie (as it was in the Nazi Germany’s 1941 attack on the Soviet Union) or a mere possibility one persuaded onself of being real in order to strike (my take on the role of WMDs in the 2003 invasion of Iraq).

Nothing in this field has anything to do with precognition or even pre-crime.  The latter is a stupid concept from one of the worst bid-budget films ever released. To employ it here misses the mark, as war is not about punishing crime but defending your own (which might include preventing future attacks). Moralising warfare leading to one side being “all criminals” is not a good development.

i think the most succinct words here are “cut off your own leg”. the larger the country, the more disconnected the decision-makers are from the reality, the harder it is to justify a war. unless the decision-makers stand to lose a child in the front lines, you can never tell if the war is not for unrelated (usually economic) interests (though i have personally met politicians of the psychotic type who would sacrifice their children for a buck). in israel’s case, there is little doubt that a war - any kind and instigated either by her or iran, would be immensely costly in the most immediate way. no place would be safe (except the politicians’ bunkers perhaps).

Those who are advocating an attack on Iran do not know what they are talking about. We would not take out Iran’s nuclear capability with a few neat, clean air strikes. Air power is overrated.  We had air superiority in Vietnam, and the NVA stil prevailed.  We have air superiority in Afghanistan, so what.

Taking out the Iranian nuclear facilities will require not only air strikes, but raids, boots on the ground.  Multiple battalion sized operations with engineers, scientists, equipment, etc to complete the job.
Due to the Iranians locating nuclear facilities in populated areas, collateral damage, i.e. civilian casualities, will be horrific.  The whole operation will be bloody and messy and still may not be successful.

The “chickenhawks” who so quickly as easilly advocate war, do not know what they are talking about.  As a former Marine officer, I know what an operation like this entails, and I know how things go wrong [remember our last operation in Iran in 1980?].  War is not a video game.  War is an ugly beat that takes on a life of its own, and rarely works out as well as intended.

I see people who never wore the uniform, who never served, who don’t know an M1 Abrams tank from a Stryker vehicle, talking about going to war, like it was the Super Bowl.  They talk with such authority, when they know next to nothing about real war and its consequences.  If you have ever smelled bodies burning and stinking from Napalm, you would not be so quick and glib about going to war, like it was nothing.  There are times when we have no choice, but those times are few and far between.

Don’t let chickenhawk neo-con politicians stampede you into going to war without really considering the consequences.  The great General William Tecumseh Sherman said that war was pure Hell.  He was right and is still right.  Don’t be stampeded into the horror of war without serious debate and consideration.

Austin, unfortunately some of those people who don’t know what they’re talking about are politicians running for President. Too many think of war as a sporting event where they can sit in front of the television and root for their team. I sure wish there were more people like you, with the experience of war, to stand up and say the things that you just said here.

@stilbelieve - are you serious about there being no proof for the charges that Santorum advocates bombing Iran? Do you know how to type Santorum and Iran into Google? His positions are a betrayal of his Catholic faith.

Austin,

you talk a lot about practical issues involved in a strike against Iran and all these should be considered. But politicians in government need not have worn any uniform to come to reasonable decisions, they have military advisors in uniform to explain that to them. But it is good that these are only advisors, lest we have a military dictatorship.

What I find lacking in your post is the other side of the issue - not merely the “what does an attack entail” but “what are the reasons for considering a strike, what are the consequences of not doing anything.

Right now, I am not arguing for or against war. But I am insisting that these questions need to be addressed. Otherwise, I am afraid, it is somebody else but politicians that doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

The fact that all wars kill innocent people is the reason that I have never been comfortable with any war, though I’m not saying I have the answer to what to do about tyrants, so don’t get me wrong, I’m not one of those self-righteous anti-war folks who just don’t get how serious the threats are.

If it is never licit to take innocent life, even to save other innocent people (and this is an iron law of Christian morality), then how can war ever be licit, as long as our ways of making war always take innocent lives? To me, the theory has some issues as to whether any actual war has ever actually been just (which is NOT the same thing as denying the teaching on this matter - it’s a debate about application - so don’t attack me as though I were a heretic, because I know the teaching well).

Personally I think bombing in general is irreconcilable to just war theory, because with the exception of extremely targeted hits, bombing always kills innocent people. And I don’t think the principle of double effect can justify it either. We’re talking about knowingly killing innocent people in a way that is not true for hand-to-hand combat or even gun-to-gun combat. It is not the job of innocent civilians to be murdered to save soldiers lives.  Whereas soldiers are not supposed to kill civilians. That is NOT the job of a just army.

The way we bombed in WWII was in many cases blatanly against the just war theory, and the Church said so even then. Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki. For Catholics to try to defend those actions is horrendous. And besides that, we helped create the Communist monster by supporting Stalin (?!!!). So personally I don’t think it was necessarily all the nice, just war that people try to make it out to be. 

I’m writing quickly so this is not a doctrinal speculation or anything like that. Just some thoughts, questions.

By the way, I am aware that the rule is never to directly take innocent life, etc., but I think there are some real problems with knowingly taking innocent life indirectly,too…and with applying the principle of double effect to cases where we know ahead of time that we will be taking innocent life. But I won’t go into the whole process of reasoning here…just want to point out that we may need to examine some of our assumptions on just using double effect as a justification, when such a precious gift as the gift of life is being destroyed….there’s a lot to be debated/discussed there.

But while I’m at it, here’s a little thought experiment for those who don’t mind “collateral damage.” Imagine your home town. Imagine that the US has become a world tyrant, and another world power has decided we must be stopped. Using double effect as a justification, this other power obliterates all of your home town with a nuclear device. And the whole of NY and LA too. They claim that there was no other way to stop us. So now your whole family, and every one of your fellow citizens from your hometown, innocent though they were, have been turned to dust, and there is no town to go back to. Now, do you still believe that kind of bombing is ok? See, when the show is on the other foot, our casuistry tends to change…

Good thoughts; it’s a complicated subject, the way men handle it.
The Bible has a another way, but not so popular because it’s black-and-white.

Gen 1:1; Rev 4:11. The Creator.
Numbers ch 35. In the Creator’s mind, even accidental killings are not without consequences.
Joshua ch 1-24. The only wars that were truly “just”, because done at the bidding of the Standard for Justice. De 32:4; John 5:30
John 13:34,35. “A new commandment”; how can this kind of love be shown AT ALL by killing another human?
2 Thess 1:3-12. There is no justification(!) even for defensive war. At least, not for one who wants to be seen as Christian.

I’m not sure how 2 Thess 1:3-12 relates to this, since it doesn’t speak directly to war - what do you mean?

In any case, I think the main challenge to all war is Jesus’ teachings about loving your enemies, loving your neighbor as yourself, not resisting the evildoer, and so on…these passages are a bit tough to reconcile with killing evildoers and enemies. And He doesn’t say that these teachings are only for individuals, i.e., “Except if you are a group of people instead of an individual. In that case, feel free to kill or maim anyone who threatens you.” Yet he nowhere condemns soldiery either, even when it seems He could have.

Personally I think it is obvious that if everyone lived by Christ’s teachings there would be no violence. If all individuals, or even all Christians, refused to do any violence, it would change the world in a day. But not everyone lives these teachings or wants to and much fear and sinfulness keeps us from living them even when we want to…

And if someone says, “Well, if I were the enemy, I’d rather someone kill me. I would consider that loving.” Hmm, doubt it. If I had become a tyrant, I would rather they capture me and treat me with kindness even if I had to be in jail the rest of my life, and lead me to Jesus so I can repent and be saved. If we were able to treat our enemies like that, instead of bombing them, how different the world would be.

But again, it is a complicated question in a world so full of sin. We have seen how atrocious modern violence and tyranny can be, so we have to be careful also of simplistic answers. I think it’s important and valuable that we think about it though - these are good discussions. What I think is distressing is when Christians seem gung-ho about war - in this I think sometimes we take on a worldly kind of political mentality that is not in line with the mind of Christ. You know what I mean - some people really are more or less like, “Too bad, just take ‘em out, the whole pack of ‘em, and good riddance.” Jesus would not have that attitude…no one will ever convince me of that!

Mouse writes:
“I’m not sure how 2 Thess 1:3-12 relates to this, since it doesn’t speak directly to war - what do you mean?”

Key excerpts from the passage, emphasized:
“for your patience and faith, and in all your persecutions and tribulations: which you ENDURE for an example of the just judgment of God, that you may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which also you suffeR, Seeing it is a just thing with GOD to repay tribulation to THEM that trouble you ... [Jesus] giving vengeance to them who know not God ... Who [the bad guys] shall suffer eternal punishment in destruction”

Or, the bottom line at
Rom 12:19 Revenge not yourselves, my dearly beloved; but give place unto wrath, for it is written: Revenge is MINE, I will repay, SAYS THE LORD.
Hbr 10:30 For we know him that has said: Vengeance belongs to ME, and I will repay.
The quote could have come from several OT places, but this will do:
Deu 32:35 To me [belongeth] vengeance, and recompence; their foot shall slide in [due] time: for the day of their calamity [is] at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste.

Our Christian duty IMO is to be patient, waiting for the ‘feet to slide’. In the meantime we do whatever is commanded.

“No war is ever justified” is not a valid interpretation of the Just War doctrine.

Add Mouse, who writes:
“Personally I think it is obvious that ...”
Yes, it is obvious; no, no one wants to do it.
The old song: Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die. :-)
If a group of people actually gave up war- not even learning it anymore, who would protect them? We know Jesus said “the meek will inherit the earth”, but he couldn’t have meant in our present world, right? Look around: How do meek ones do these days?