FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Islamic rebels demand $250,000 for kidnapped Catholic priest
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
I guess Pope Francis is too busy kissing the feet of Mohammedans to call on the civilized world to stop supporting these degenerates and to procure the rescue of this innocent Priest.
(03-28-2013, 07:00 PM)US_Soldier Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-27-2013, 05:09 PM)rbjmartin Wrote: [ -> ]Well, there's no country currently on earth for whom you could "fight the infidel" without fighting FOR the infidel.

"America has done more for the cause of Christianity than the most powerful nations of Christendom" - Pope Pius VII on the First Babary War.

America is not run by Muslims. One who fights in her Army might fight for heretics, blasphemers, and schismatics, but he does not fight for infidels.

Do you think the First Barbary War was about fighting muslims for the sake of Christianity? Not even in the slightest. By modern standards it would in no way be considered just. Yet Pius VII still made his remarks. But Pius VII, of course, was pope long before the modernist infiltration and sissification of all things masculine, just, and courageous. In other words he was pope before Vatican II, and that makes all the difference in the world.

Despite the hate that the American military receives on this site, we have removed more infidels from this planet in the last 10 years than any other (non-infidel) country has in the past 100.

But, as I said...

You're citing a military action that occurred 200 years ago. A lot of time has transpired since then.

If you are suggesting that every US military action that has taken place in the Middle East over the past 50 years fits just war criteria and has been for the sake of God's glory, I suggest you take a hard look at just war doctrine and moral theology, in general.

"Infidel" literally means "unfaithful." Our country clearly fits that description. You can whine all you want how I'm attacking the US military (I'm not), but that doesn't remove the fact that many of the actions it's been used for do not meet the Church's criteria for the just use of force.

I serve God before any nation on earth. If that puts me at odds with US foreign policy, so be it.
(03-28-2013, 11:14 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: [ -> ]As an aside, a military action is not necessarily just simply because it is directed toward non-Catholics. The criteria used for determining the justice of a war apply regardless of the religious beliefs of one's enemies.

This is a point many Americans need to ponder.
(03-29-2013, 10:54 AM)rbjmartin Wrote: [ -> ]You're citing a military action that occurred 200 years ago. A lot of time has transpired since then.

If you are suggesting that every US military action that has taken place in the Middle East over the past 50 years fits just war criteria and has been for the sake of God's glory, I suggest you take a hard look at just war doctrine and moral theology, in general.

"Infidel" literally means "unfaithful." Our country clearly fits that description. You can whine all you want how I'm attacking the US military (I'm not), but that doesn't remove the fact that many of the actions it's been used for do not meet the Church's criteria for the just use of force.

I serve God before any nation on earth. If that puts me at odds with US foreign policy, so be it.

Are you suggesting that we are much more enlightened now about the moral truths of this world than we were 200 years ago? Surely you can't be suggesting that warfare was somehow more humane 200 years ago than it is now. I will say this: Warfare today is a hell of a lot more clean and precise than it was in the past.

No, I am not suggesting that any particular war has been just. But I am suggesting that the modernist view of just war as a whole is a far departure from the criteria that was used throughout Catholic history pre Vatican II. (And I'm suggesting the plain statistical fact that America really has removed more infidels from this planet in the last 10 years than any other has in the last 100.) I reject the modernist flavour of morality in favor of the conscience of history, the views offered to us by those men; saints, martyrs, and popes, many of whom wrote a great deal about just war, which deviates greatly from what is currently held.

Infidel is a very specific label that has been used throughout Church history. I do not fight for infidels. Check the Catholic Encyclopaedia to read more about what infidel means. Nevertheless, of all the men who walked this earth, Jesus had the perfect opportunity to rebuke the soldiers of Rome, those who actually did fight for infidels. What did he say to the centurion? Did he tell him to stop fighting for the pagan empire, did he tell him that Rome was engaged in unjust imperialism, or did he commend him for his great faith?

Modernism has emasculated men. The average modern Catholic would say that Gandhi is closer to sainthood than Charlemagne, yet the former was a pagan, and the latter is Blessed. I am not here to tell you that any single war in the past or present is just, but that our understanding of war is a lot less just than it was in the past.

If I was Satan for a day, the one thing I'd want to spread across the globe is an attitude of pacifism and a total rejection of violence, because only then would I be able to spread my evil unopposed and uncontested.
(03-28-2013, 11:14 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: [ -> ]As an aside, a military action is not necessarily just simply because it is directed toward non-Catholics. The criteria used for determining the justice of a war apply regardless of the religious beliefs of one's enemies.

And I would add: As another aside, a military action does not necessarily have to be directed toward the enemies of God in order for it to be just. A nation can wage war in its own secular interests and the war can still be just.
(03-29-2013, 04:31 PM)US_Soldier Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-28-2013, 11:14 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: [ -> ]As an aside, a military action is not necessarily just simply because it is directed toward non-Catholics. The criteria used for determining the justice of a war apply regardless of the religious beliefs of one's enemies.

And I would add: As another aside, a military action does not necessarily have to be directed toward the enemies of God in order for it to be just. A nation can wage war in its own secular interests and the war can still be just.

Of course. I wouldn't disagree.
(03-29-2013, 04:11 PM)US_Soldier Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-29-2013, 10:54 AM)rbjmartin Wrote: [ -> ]You're citing a military action that occurred 200 years ago. A lot of time has transpired since then.

If you are suggesting that every US military action that has taken place in the Middle East over the past 50 years fits just war criteria and has been for the sake of God's glory, I suggest you take a hard look at just war doctrine and moral theology, in general.

"Infidel" literally means "unfaithful." Our country clearly fits that description. You can whine all you want how I'm attacking the US military (I'm not), but that doesn't remove the fact that many of the actions it's been used for do not meet the Church's criteria for the just use of force.

I serve God before any nation on earth. If that puts me at odds with US foreign policy, so be it.

Are you suggesting that we are much more enlightened now about the moral truths of this world than we were 200 years ago? Surely you can't be suggesting that warfare was somehow more humane 200 years ago than it is now. I will say this: Warfare today is a hell of a lot more clean and precise than it was in the past.

If you haven't read Cardinal Ottaviani's article on just war in the modern world, which I posted in another thread for you, I suggest you read it now. Modern weaponry is FAR more destructive than weaponry of 200 years ago. You can't be too precise, even with guided missiles, when you fire a weapon with a blast radius of a couple hundred feet in highly populated areas. I can't even fathom how you could say modern warfare is more "clean" than warfare 200 years ago.

(03-29-2013, 04:11 PM)US_Soldier Wrote: [ -> ]No, I am not suggesting that any particular war has been just. But I am suggesting that the modernist view of just war as a whole is a far departure from the criteria that was used throughout Catholic history pre Vatican II.

Are you a theologian? I have never heard accusations of modernism used in reference to just war theory, but I'd love to hear you articulate this newfound heresy. Are you accusing Cardinal Ottaviani of heresy? He presented far more strict criteria for just war than I have heard any post Vatican II bishop give EVER, and he did that in the 1940s.

(03-29-2013, 04:11 PM)US_Soldier Wrote: [ -> ](And I'm suggesting the plain statistical fact that America really has removed more infidels from this planet in the last 10 years than any other has in the last 100.)

Doesn't matter, if they were killed in unjust wars. Such deaths have the moral equivalent of murder. Our Lord said to convert all nations, not kill the infidel. That was the founder of another religion.

(03-29-2013, 04:11 PM)US_Soldier Wrote: [ -> ]I reject the modernist flavour of morality in favor of the conscience of history, the views offered to us by those men; saints, martyrs, and popes, many of whom wrote a great deal about just war, which deviates greatly from what is currently held.

I've never heard this term "conscience of history," and I don't know what you consider to be "currently held" beliefs on just war, but I'm waiting to hear you substantiate these statements with sources. The same goes for the opinions of the saints/martyrs/popes you seem to know so much about. Please provide the quotes where they say an "anything goes" attitude towards war is acceptable.

(03-29-2013, 04:11 PM)US_Soldier Wrote: [ -> ]Infidel is a very specific label that has been used throughout Church history. I do not fight for infidels. Check the Catholic Encyclopaedia to read more about what infidel means. Nevertheless, of all the men who walked this earth, Jesus had the perfect opportunity to rebuke the soldiers of Rome, those who actually did fight for infidels. What did he say to the centurion? Did he tell him to stop fighting for the pagan empire, did he tell him that Rome was engaged in unjust imperialism, or did he commend him for his great faith?

No, because he came to preach to the Jews, primarily. And He sorely disappointed those Jews who wanted Him to be a military Messiah. And what did He tell St. Peter? "Put up again thy sword into its place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword."

(03-29-2013, 04:11 PM)US_Soldier Wrote: [ -> ]Modernism has emasculated men. The average modern Catholic would say that Gandhi is closer to sainthood than Charlemagne, yet the former was a pagan, and the latter is Blessed. I am not here to tell you that any single war in the past or present is just, but that our understanding of war is a lot less just than it was in the past.

I'm beginning to think you have no idea what the term "modernism" actually means. It doesn't mean emasculated, nor does "traditional" mean macho.

(03-29-2013, 04:11 PM)US_Soldier Wrote: [ -> ]If I was Satan for a day, the one thing I'd want to spread across the globe is an attitude of pacifism and a total rejection of violence, because only then would I be able to spread my evil unopposed and uncontested.

Rather than thinking about what you would do as Satan, you should probably set your mind to how Christ would behave if He walked the earth today.
I think my eyes are about to fall out of my head because of all the breaks in the text.

(03-29-2013, 05:02 PM)rbjmartin Wrote: [ -> ]If you haven't read Cardinal Ottaviani's article on just war in the modern world, which I posted in another thread for you, I suggest you read it now. Modern weaponry is FAR more destructive than weaponry of 200 years ago. You can't be too precise, even with guided missiles, when you fire a weapon with a blast radius of a couple hundred feet in highly populated areas. I can't even fathom how you could say modern warfare is more "clean" than warfare 200 years ago.

Because in practice, that is not how we fight. He wrote that during WWII. I am well aware that such weapons exist, and I am well aware that such weapons have been used in the past. However it is rather unconventional to use them today, for obvious reasons. The vast majority of military operations are not "kill them all" missions the way they were 200 years ago. The objective is no longer to kill as many enemies so that the last man standing wins. We have very specific objectives and actively seek to minimize collateral damage and avoid civilians, and we have very strict orders and laws that we have to follow regarding when we're allowed to engage. We do not line up and charge in. We get in, get out, and literally attempt to do as little damage as possible. We do not want to kill people. We are reluctant to do so.

(03-29-2013, 05:02 PM)rbjmartin Wrote: [ -> ]Are you a theologian? I have never heard accusations of modernism used in reference to just war theory, but I'd love to hear you articulate this newfound heresy. Are you accusing Cardinal Ottaviani of heresy? He presented far more strict criteria for just war than I have heard any post Vatican II bishop give EVER, and he did that in the 1940s.

No I'm not a theologian, nor I'm not accusing him of heresy. Just war theory is a not a doctrine, so I was under the impression that him and I do not have to have the same thoughts on the matter. The things of which he spoke were influenced entirely by WW2 (and probably WW1). Modern combat in the 40s is not the same as modern combat in the present age.

(03-29-2013, 05:02 PM)rbjmartin Wrote: [ -> ]Doesn't matter, if they were killed in unjust wars. Such deaths have the moral equivalent of murder. Our Lord said to convert all nations, not kill the infidel. That was the founder of another religion.

Would you suggest then that every American serviceman who has killed somebody in the line of duty in the last ten years is guilty of murder?

St. Augustine:
"The soldier who kills the enemy in combat is a pure executor of the law, since he carries out his task without wrongdoing. Certainly, the law itself, which has been promulgated to defend the people, cannot be called licentious."

(03-29-2013, 05:02 PM)rbjmartin Wrote: [ -> ]I've never heard this term "conscience of history,"

Oh that's because I made it up. I thought it was a cute, charming little phrase that sufficiently fulfils it's purpose. Am I not allowed to coin my own terms? Is that arrogant? If so I am terribly sorry.

(03-29-2013, 05:02 PM)rbjmartin Wrote: [ -> ]and I don't know what you consider to be "currently held" beliefs on just war, but I'm waiting to hear you substantiate these statements with sources.

You can be my first source  :)
Currently held beliefs on just war are pretty simple: war is hardly ever, if ever, just. Haven't you pretty much told me the same thing? Do you not realize that this is the same thing that virtually everyone on the left says?

Do you think the actions of this man were justified: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestor_of_Thessaloniki
His bishop seemed to think so, he actually gave him permission to enter the arena like a fool and kill a gladiator. Would people think he's justified now? I don't really think so.

Do you think this man was justified: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Mercurius
Because God sure seemed to think so, hence why he sent St. Michael to help him kill Berbers for the Roman Empire. Of course, now a days people would say "Oh no! He used violence!"

(03-29-2013, 05:02 PM)rbjmartin Wrote: [ -> ]The same goes for the opinions of the saints/martyrs/popes you seem to know so much about. Please provide the quotes where they say an "anything goes" attitude towards war is acceptable.

Never once did I even attempt to imply anything near an "anything goes" attitude. But I'll try my best to support what I actually was saying, which is simply a truly just theory of just war:

Thomas Aquinas:
"There are three requisites for a war to be just. The first thing is the authority of the prince by whose command the war is to be waged. It does not belong to a private person to start a war, for he can prosecute his claim in the court of his superior. In like manner the mustering of the people, that has to be done in wars, does not belong to a private person. But since the care of the commonwealth is entrusted to princes, to them belongs the protection of the common weal of the city, kingdom, or province subject to them. And as they lawfully defend it with the material sword against inward disturbances by punishing male-factors, so it belongs to them also to protect the commonwealth from enemies without by the sword of war. The second requisite is a just cause, so that they who are assailed should deserve to be assailed for some fault that they have committed. Hence Augustine says: “Just wars are usually defined as those which avenge injuries, in cases where a nation or city has to be chastised for having either neglected to punish the wicked doings of its people, or neglected to restore what has been wrongfully taken away.” The third thing requisite is a right intention of promoting good or avoiding evil. For Augustine says: “Eagerness to hurt, bloodthirsty desire of revenge, an untamed and unforgiving temper, ferocity in renewing the struggle, dust of empire,—these and the like excesses are justly blamed in war.”

That should really count as three quotes because he quotes Augustine twice.  :)

That is substantially different from what one would gather from statements found on the USCCB website. Under current USCCB guidelines, you cannot go to war to punish a guilty enemy. Under the guidelines of St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, the School of Salamanca, war to punish a guilty enemy, preventative war to stop a tyrannical nation, are all justifiable. The modernist influence in all of this is that justice has been forgone, and replaced with a sense of ecumania, globalism, and tolerance, in that it is better to get along with evil than to fight it. The consequence is men refusing to fight even when they should, being reduced to effeminate girls. Outside of the preservation of self (self defence), there is little cause to fight by current guidelines. But historically that was not so. Compare Pope Urban II to JP2, B16, and F, and the shift in attitude regarding warfare over the ages should be sufficiently clear. The West really didn't have to wage the First Crusade. I don't think they could do it under modern guidelines, since the prospect of success was not even close to being there, and there was no damage inflicted by the aggressor that was grave, certain, or lasting (their lands were still hundreds of miles away from the Muslims). They only did it (if you take them at their word) to help their brethren in the East.


(03-29-2013, 05:02 PM)rbjmartin Wrote: [ -> ]No, because he came to preach to the Jews, primarily. And He sorely disappointed those Jews who wanted Him to be a military Messiah. And what did He tell St. Peter? "Put up again thy sword into its place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword."

I'll let Thomas Aquinas handle this again:

"To the objection from the text that “all that take the sword shall perish with the sword,” it is to be said, as Augustine says, that “he takes the sword, who without either command or grant of any superior or lawful authority, arms himself to shed the blood of another.” But he who uses the sword by the authority of a prince or judge (if he is a private person), or out of zeal for justice, and by the authority of God (if he is a public person), does not take the sword of himself, but uses it as committed to him by another"

(03-29-2013, 05:02 PM)rbjmartin Wrote: [ -> ]I'm beginning to think you have no idea what the term "modernism" actually means. It doesn't mean emasculated, nor does "traditional" mean macho.

Come on, I didn't say either of those things and you know it. If you use a logical train of thought you should be able to see how modernism eventually leads to the emasculation of men. Maybe just think about it a little more... Or do you really think I'm crazy to see a link between modernism and rampant homosexuality and effeminate men all over the place? Am I allowed to propose such an idea? Can I propose ideas that haven't been proposed here yet, or must I always cite some other person saying the same exact thing that I am saying?

It took me forever to type all of this point by point. Whatever you say in response, I probably won't have time to get around to responding to it if it's going to be anything like this again, even if I could make a point or two. So whatever, if you want to take my probable absence as a victory, go ahead.
(03-29-2013, 07:44 PM)US_Soldier Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-29-2013, 05:02 PM)rbjmartin Wrote: [ -> ]If you haven't read Cardinal Ottaviani's article on just war in the modern world, which I posted in another thread for you, I suggest you read it now. Modern weaponry is FAR more destructive than weaponry of 200 years ago. You can't be too precise, even with guided missiles, when you fire a weapon with a blast radius of a couple hundred feet in highly populated areas. I can't even fathom how you could say modern warfare is more "clean" than warfare 200 years ago.

Because in practice, that is not how we fight. He wrote that during WWII. I am well aware that such weapons exist, and I am well aware that such weapons have been used in the past. However it is rather unconventional to use them today, for obvious reasons. The vast majority of military operations are not "kill them all" missions the way they were 200 years ago. The objective is no longer to kill as many enemies so that the last man standing wins. We have very specific objectives and actively seek to minimize collateral damage and avoid civilians, and we have very strict orders and laws that we have to follow regarding when we're allowed to engage. We do not line up and charge in. We get in, get out, and literally attempt to do as little damage as possible. We do not want to kill people. We are reluctant to do so.

I realize this, and I certainly don't accuse US soldiers of generically adopting a "kill 'em all" mentality. Nevertheless, there are certain aspects of modern warfare (particularly with regard to aerial strikes) that are inherently destructive and frequently cause loss of life to non-combatants on a regular basis. I am of the mind that it is better to die than risk killing a child, for example.

One also must consider the spiritual damage that is done to soldiers in combat situations, where feelings of hatred and disregard for life can arise and are sometimes encouraged. This leads to spiritual death for those soldiers, which is worse than physical death. The US military currently does not have the spiritual means to encourage the life of grace among its soldiers, and few armies in history (outside of Joan of Arc's) have had such means.

(03-29-2013, 07:44 PM)US_Soldier Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-29-2013, 05:02 PM)rbjmartin Wrote: [ -> ]Are you a theologian? I have never heard accusations of modernism used in reference to just war theory, but I'd love to hear you articulate this newfound heresy. Are you accusing Cardinal Ottaviani of heresy? He presented far more strict criteria for just war than I have heard any post Vatican II bishop give EVER, and he did that in the 1940s.

No I'm not a theologian, nor I'm not accusing him of heresy. Just war theory is a not a doctrine, so I was under the impression that him and I do not have to have the same thoughts on the matter. The things of which he spoke were influenced entirely by WW2 (and probably WW1). Modern combat in the 40s is not the same as modern combat in the present age.

Perhaps you are making too many assumptions about Ottaviani's perception of warfare. But out of respect for the good cardinal, I think you owe his article due consideration, and if you have disagreements about particular points, I would like to hear you articulate them. Specifically, the a through f bulleted points he makes in the article. They all seem quite valid today.
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/mora...ustwar.htm

(03-29-2013, 07:44 PM)US_Soldier Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-29-2013, 05:02 PM)rbjmartin Wrote: [ -> ]Doesn't matter, if they were killed in unjust wars. Such deaths have the moral equivalent of murder. Our Lord said to convert all nations, not kill the infidel. That was the founder of another religion.

Would you suggest then that every American serviceman who has killed somebody in the line of duty in the last ten years is guilty of murder?

St. Augustine:
"The soldier who kills the enemy in combat is a pure executor of the law, since he carries out his task without wrongdoing. Certainly, the law itself, which has been promulgated to defend the people, cannot be called licentious."

The culpability of each soldier is known only to God. If they knew they were participating in an immoral war, then yes, they would be guilty of murder.

The "I was just following orders" excuse only works up to a point. Every man has a certain degree of responsibility for knowing things he ought to know. There is such a thing as culpable ignorance. St. Thomas Aquinas writes on this in the Summa (Prima Secundae, question 76). http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2076.htm Garrigou-Lagrange also writes:

Quote:Consequent ignorance is that which is voluntary, at least indirectly so, because of negligence in learning what one can and ought to know. It is called vincible ignorance because one could free oneself from it with morally possible application. It is the cause of a formal sin, at least indirectly willed. For example, a medical student yields gravely to sloth; nevertheless, as it were by chance, he receives his medical degree. But he is ignorant of many elementary facts of his profession which he ought to know, and it happens that he hastens the death of some of his patients instead of curing them. In this case there is no directly voluntary sin, but there is certainly an indirectly voluntary fault, which may be grave and which may even go as far as homicide through imprudence or grave negligence. [The Three Ages of the Interior Life, part 2, chapter 21]

The St. Augustine quote does not contradict the point I'm making. A just war must be based on the natural law (at a minimum). If it does not conform to the restrictions of natural law, than it is a lawless war. Thus, the soldier who kills in such a war is not the executor of the law, but of the arbitrary will of lawless men.

(03-29-2013, 07:44 PM)US_Soldier Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-29-2013, 05:02 PM)rbjmartin Wrote: [ -> ]and I don't know what you consider to be "currently held" beliefs on just war, but I'm waiting to hear you substantiate these statements with sources.

You can be my first source  :)
Currently held beliefs on just war are pretty simple: war is hardly ever, if ever, just. Haven't you pretty much told me the same thing? Do you not realize that this is the same thing that virtually everyone on the left says?

To the best of my knowledge, no US Roman Catholic bishop holds that belief, and we've had decades of liberals as bishops. None of them made a condemnation of the invasion of Iraq, which they would have if they believed as you say. The only bishop I know of who condemned the invasion and forbade the participation of the faithful under his care was a Romanian Greek-Catholic bishop. I personally know several FSSP priests (some of whom are veterans) who claim the Iraq War was immoral, and I know SSPX priests have publicly stated the same. Are they all modernists, or are the American bishops more conservative/traditional than they are on this issue?

(03-29-2013, 07:44 PM)US_Soldier Wrote: [ -> ]Do you think the actions of this man were justified: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestor_of_Thessaloniki
His bishop seemed to think so, he actually gave him permission to enter the arena like a fool and kill a gladiator. Would people think he's justified now? I don't really think so.

Do you think this man was justified: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Mercurius
Because God sure seemed to think so, hence why he sent St. Michael to help him kill Berbers for the Roman Empire. Of course, now a days people would say "Oh no! He used violence!"

You seem to misunderstand my position (and Ottaviani's). No one is saying that just war does not exist. I am simply saying that there are strict requirements that must be met, and admittedly, they are very difficult to meet, but that is as it should be. Divine Law does not have an "anything goes" attitude towards the killing of one's neighbors. Hence the commandments, "Thou shalt not kill" and "love thy neighbor." These are the standards of Christian morality. If one diverges from "thou shalt not kill," there must be clear demonstration that any other course of action is impossible according to the moral standards of the Church.

(03-29-2013, 07:44 PM)US_Soldier Wrote: [ -> ]Thomas Aquinas:
"There are three requisites for a war to be just. The first thing is the authority of the prince by whose command the war is to be waged. It does not belong to a private person to start a war, for he can prosecute his claim in the court of his superior. In like manner the mustering of the people, that has to be done in wars, does not belong to a private person. But since the care of the commonwealth is entrusted to princes, to them belongs the protection of the common weal of the city, kingdom, or province subject to them. And as they lawfully defend it with the material sword against inward disturbances by punishing male-factors, so it belongs to them also to protect the commonwealth from enemies without by the sword of war. The second requisite is a just cause, so that they who are assailed should deserve to be assailed for some fault that they have committed. Hence Augustine says: “Just wars are usually defined as those which avenge injuries, in cases where a nation or city has to be chastised for having either neglected to punish the wicked doings of its people, or neglected to restore what has been wrongfully taken away.” The third thing requisite is a right intention of promoting good or avoiding evil. For Augustine says: “Eagerness to hurt, bloodthirsty desire of revenge, an untamed and unforgiving temper, ferocity in renewing the struggle, dust of empire,—these and the like excesses are justly blamed in war.”

That should really count as three quotes because he quotes Augustine twice.  :)

That is substantially different from what one would gather from statements found on the USCCB website. Under current USCCB guidelines, you cannot go to war to punish a guilty enemy. Under the guidelines of St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, the School of Salamanca, war to punish a guilty enemy, preventative war to stop a tyrannical nation, are all justifiable. The modernist influence in all of this is that justice has been forgone, and replaced with a sense of ecumania, globalism, and tolerance, in that it is better to get along with evil than to fight it. The consequence is men refusing to fight even when they should, being reduced to effeminate girls. Outside of the preservation of self (self defence), there is little cause to fight by current guidelines. But historically that was not so. Compare Pope Urban II to JP2, B16, and F, and the shift in attitude regarding warfare over the ages should be sufficiently clear. The West really didn't have to wage the First Crusade. I don't think they could do it under modern guidelines, since the prospect of success was not even close to being there, and there was no damage inflicted by the aggressor that was grave, certain, or lasting (their lands were still hundreds of miles away from the Muslims). They only did it (if you take them at their word) to help their brethren in the East.

A few points. First, the passage from St. Thomas does not make up the totality of just war doctrine. Moral theology doesn't wrap things up in tidy little segmented packages. Moral principles are intertwined and connect to various aspects of human behavior. Thus, there are other aspects to be considered (as Ottaviani did in his article, which deals mostly with jus in bello and, to a lesser degree, jus ad bellum). You are addressing mostly questions of motive and cause. But proportionality, for example, is a very relevant principle to be considered in modern warfare, as it can be so destructive beyond the scope of combatants and can even cause lasting environmental harm to noncombatants for years to come (such as the rapid increase of birth defects and miscarriages in the city of Fallujah: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007...012-0817-2).

I should also note that the just war criteria is not just a matter of meeting one or two of the criteria. ALL related moral criteria must be met to make a case for a just war.

As for the USCCB, they did nothing to oppose the Iraq War, while many traditionalist clerics, and even BXVI (who stated that "preventive war is not in the Catechism"), opposed it. That should tell you something. The USCCB clearly has a less stringent application of just war theory than those who value traditional moral theology.

(03-29-2013, 07:44 PM)US_Soldier Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-29-2013, 05:02 PM)rbjmartin Wrote: [ -> ]No, because he came to preach to the Jews, primarily. And He sorely disappointed those Jews who wanted Him to be a military Messiah. And what did He tell St. Peter? "Put up again thy sword into its place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword."

I'll let Thomas Aquinas handle this again:

"To the objection from the text that “all that take the sword shall perish with the sword,” it is to be said, as Augustine says, that “he takes the sword, who without either command or grant of any superior or lawful authority, arms himself to shed the blood of another.” But he who uses the sword by the authority of a prince or judge (if he is a private person), or out of zeal for justice, and by the authority of God (if he is a public person), does not take the sword of himself, but uses it as committed to him by another"

Right, which begs the question: Why didn't Jesus, who certainly had legitimate authority, command the Jews to rise up (as the zealots wished) to justly overthrow their Roman occupiers?
Quote: Despite the hate that the American military receives on this site,
  Just to set the record straight, there are many on this forum who support the military, including me.  I view Afghanistan as a just war.  Iraq was not, unless Bush truly thought Sadaam was building a nuke, and I doubt he did.  However, the soldiers who fought in Iraq are guilty of no sin.

In the future, I will support the military less and less.  The inclusion and celebration of open sodomites and the feminism will certainly degrade it, and even corrupt it where it can no longer be trusted.  I would take efforts to keep my son out of the military if he wanted to join, and this is a sad state.  I would have been proud of him to serve just a few years ago.
Pages: 1 2 3