USCCB: Libya Attack a Just War (and Other Diabolical Disorientations)
#21
(04-03-2011, 11:22 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: You obviously don't understand "just war pacifism" if you think it is contrary to Church teaching.

According to just war pacifism, war can be just in theory according to the conditions set forth by the just war doctrine. In practice, however, these conditions are impossible (or nearly impossible) to meet. Thus almost no wars are actually just.

"just war pacificism" is an oxymoron.

John Rawls was a secular liberal and his philosophy was liberalism.

The Just War doctrine exists because just war is always possible in any age or century. To say that a just war is impossible or almost impossible would be contrary to the teaching and understanding of the Church. Even in modern warfare, with its technology and problems, a just war is still possible. The teaching and doctrine of double effect  can help explain certain difficulties in modern warfare.

Reply
#22
Pacifism is against church teaching. U csnt b a pacifist and argue just war. That's not  a pacifism. Pacifism is no war not war when it is required.
Pacifism as an insidious ideology it is is not catholoc.
Reply
#23
I guess it does come down to if is the D's then oke doke, but if the R's then hell is being unleashed. Some thing that makes me marvel is "war" today produces very few dead when waged by a western power. These "wars" today would be considered tiny skirmishes compared to WWII, Korea, or the Nam. Frankly having watched "pacifism" for many years I'm inclined to think it is part of the NWO. Which in the end wants to disarm every country and have Military Force given to the UN blue helmets under a global arrangement.

How can a war far from our shores in a country that we have little commerce with be our concern. My Sid Viscious says nuke 'em cause they are all terrorists, but I keep Sid in check. This whole middle east cum Arabs and Israelis is a construct to get the US to go broke. Sometimes I wish we had the stones of Rome. March and conquer these infidels, call in the missionaries, convert who's ever left, and gooble up the goodies for  Imperial America and her allies.

tim
Reply
#24
"The pacifist thinks that the alternative to war is peace; it is not. Sometimes the alternative is oppression. Sometimes certain God-given rights and liberties can be preserved only by resistance to that which would destroy them. And to defend certain basic God-given rights and liberties is not immoral but righteous." - Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen
Reply
#25
(04-04-2011, 02:44 AM)SaintRafael Wrote:
(04-03-2011, 11:22 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: You obviously don't understand "just war pacifism" if you think it is contrary to Church teaching.

According to just war pacifism, war can be just in theory according to the conditions set forth by the just war doctrine. In practice, however, these conditions are impossible (or nearly impossible) to meet. Thus almost no wars are actually just.

"just war pacificism" is an oxymoron.

No, it isn't. It's simply saying that real wars rarely live up to the conditions necessary for a war to be just; and that few if any wars are actually just ones.

It's actually quite similar to the position on the death penalty contained in the CCC. The CCC says that capital punishment is not intrinsically immoral. It can theoretically be moral, but in practice it almost always is immoral. (I know you may disagree with the CCC on this issue, but that's what the text says.) In a like manner, I'd say that war is not intrinsically immoral; it can be morally acceptable under the conditions set forth in the just war doctrine. In real life, though, wars rarely if ever live up to those conditions.

My position is not contrary to Church teaching. The Church has said what the conditions of a just war are; it allows individual Catholics to evaluate whether a particular war meets those conditions. I have come to the conclusion that almost none do.
Reply
#26
No, the CCC does not say that capital punishment is usually immoral, although it unsuccessfully tries to focus on the secondary aims of punishment (protecting society) instead of the primary purpose (retribution).  Pope John Paul II went on to flout Catholic doctrine in St. Louis (in 1999) by calling capital punishment immoral (contradicting both the Tridentine and Vatican II catechisms).

Back to the topic at hand, Catholic theologians, up to the eve of Vatican II, by and large defended modern warfare.  Their application of the doctrine in modern circumstances should not be neglected.
Reply
#27
(04-04-2011, 04:43 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: No, the CCC does not say that capital punishment is usually immoral, although it unsuccessfully tries to focus on the secondary aims of punishment (protecting society) instead of the primary purpose (retribution).  Pope John Paul II went on to flout Catholic doctrine in St. Louis (in 1999) by calling capital punishment immoral (contradicting both the Tridentine and Vatican II catechisms).

CCC 2267 Wrote:Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."

(04-04-2011, 04:43 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: Back to the topic at hand, Catholic theologians, up to the eve of Vatican II, by and large defended modern warfare.  Their application of the doctrine in modern circumstances should not be neglected.

That seems like an argumentum ad populum to me. Just because the majority of Catholic theologians argued in favor of a position does not make that position correct.
Reply
#28
Please read Pope Pius XII's remarks on capital punishment: http://www.catholicpamphlets.net/pamphle...SHMENT.pdf

See also this thread: http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...sg33420795

The consent of theologians implies the consent of the Episcopate.  They are authentic and duly-approved Catholic teachers, and it would be rash for us to disregard their testimony.  My argument is an appeal to a legitimate authority.

http://sedevacantist.com/wilhelm_scannell_04.html (See sec. 27)

The SSPX site has three excellent articles on just war, one of them being a critique of humanistic pacificism: http://sspx.org/against_the_sound_bites.htm
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)