From NYT Catholic Bishops Say Iraq War Does Not Meet the Just War Test

Here is the complete text of the Bishop's statement. Included is the Catholic Cathecism definitions of a "just war".

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2002/iraq-021113-usccb.htm

 

Under the "just cause" provision, the only war that would fit in the last 75 years would be WW2. Yet we sent troops into Somalia and Kosovo. I wonder if glynch, et al would use this definition to insinuate that those two military actions were unjust?

I maintain that the Catholic Church has not been ok with war, pretty much under any circumstances. Point me to one military action that the church came out and supported. You aren't likely to find any.

 

Several countries, including our own, are at least as guilty...Can you say Napalm? And do you know which current nation has spent the most on WMD? I suppose that that would mean that we are all living fine, no poverty, no starvation, no want of medical attention...


Also, in terms of other responses( Most notably t465's)...I was hardly saying that we give over our self-defense...First of all, we are talking about invading another nation, not protecting our own...The rationale for whether and how that nation is indeed a threat to us is very much a matter of debate, and if we don't consult world opinion on that very question, but decide we have the right to attack anyone else we think might develop into a threat, irrespective of what the world thinks, then how are we any different from the likes of Saddam Hussein?

The UN voted, after weeks of serios U.S. pressure, I might add, to have Saddam live up to already outlined agreements, not create new ones as per U.S. desires...I have no problem with this, although the question of why the U.S. brings it's power to bear on ignored UN dictates when they apply to their pbjects of interest as opposed to, say, Israel's long-term ignorance of UN decisions re: West Bank/Gaza is an interesting ethical question...But the UN has hardly supported Bush stance on Iraq re: invasion/Axis of Evil etc...

Re: The Catholic Church and pedophiles...So only people with untarnished records should make absolute decisions on matters of this importance, t45? I actually agree...although then the question of whether the only nation who has ever used nuclear arms against an enemy should be the arbiter of nuclear justice in the world is a bit of a conundrum, no? Or the last industrialized nation on Earth to practice wide-scale slavery being the judge of other nations civil rights..or any other number of 'credibility' issues...

Re: Mandela...Why do you think that the U.S' reputation throughout the world is at an all-time low? Why do you think that many, many other people are expressing concern about increasing American sabre-rattling and unilateralism? Mandela is hardly alone in making that 'ridiculous statement'...in fact far from it.

re: Russia and France....Let's see..Russia and France have no cred. here either, because there is some economic connections...But Bush' picking up his father's campaign, despite over a decade of relative inactivity in the region, while riding a Big Oil ticket to the White House, like Dad, and like Dad pursuing increased US interest in the world's most significant oil-producing region isn't at least on a par in terms of conflict of interest?

 

That's the thing -- you can't overreact to accusations because accusations can be made falsely. As a teacher, I know that I have to be wary of this as well -- one of the first lessons someone taught me is to never be in a room with just one student or something like that because that student can accuse you of ANYTHING and if you have no other witnesses, you're automatically assumed guilty. I could accuse a priest of sexually abusing me, which NEVER happened at all, but if I did, people would assume it's true. You have to temper your feelings of anger with rationality and prudence. The theory of innocent until proven guilty is a good and sound one -- let's try to observe it.

I wish people wouldn't be so harsh on the Catholic Church and then try to pass if off like "Oh, I'm not criticizing Catholics, just their religion and church". However, if you've ever done any theological studies you'd know that Catholics are part of the church and vice versa -- it's not like you can be a Catholic and divorce yourself from the Catholic Church. Certainly one can disagree with the church, or be angered at its actions, but that's no grounds for out and out denouncement of it. It's like saying "I have nothing wrong with Americans, but their Country is a horrible place of hyporacy and evil". If someone were to say that, I think you'd get a lot of negative response. Let's just try to keep the Catholic bashing to a minimum guys -- some of us are Catholics.

 

I'massuming you are Catholic. If so...then well said, and thanks from another Catholic. You expressed how I feel very eloquently.

 

Here's a differing view on the morality of pre-emption in Iraq:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/...01.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/11/18/ixnewstop.html

Declaring war on Saddam would be the moral option
By George Weigel
(Filed: 18/11/2002)

Reasonable people can disagree about the prudential options for addressing the threat of an outlaw state such as Iraq which has weapons of mass destruction, harbours terrorists and seeks a nuclear weapons capability. Still, strategic and political judgments couched in just war language - such as those advanced in recent months by Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor [report, Nov 16] and Dr Rowan Williams [opinion, Nov 5] - are not just war reasoning in the classic sense of the term.

So here, in desperately brief form, are my answers to four key questions of moral principle as such.

Is pre-emption ever morally justifiable?

Classic just war thinking identified three kinds of "just cause": defence against an aggression under way, recovery of something stolen, or punishment for evil. Modern just war thinking has tended to limit "just cause" to "defence against an aggression under way".

Thus the question of determining when aggression is "under way" is morally urgent. Does it make moral sense to say that the United States, Britain or the international community can respond with armed force only when an Iraqi missile carrying a weapon of mass destruction has been launched or is being readied for launch?

When a vicious regime that has used chemical weapons domestically and in war, a regime that has no concept of the rule of law and that flagrantly violates its international obligations, works feverishly to obtain and deploy further weapons of mass destruction, it seems to me a compelling moral case can be made that this is "aggression under way". The nature of the regime, the crucial factor in this part of the moral analysis, makes that plain.

Prudence is a cardinal virtue and what is permissible is not always prudentially imperative. Within the classic just war tradition and at the level of moral principle, however, there are instances when it is not only right to "go first" but "going first" may be morally obligatory. Iraq may well pose one of those instances.

How can armed force contribute to international order?

President Bush's address at West Point in June linked the war against terrorism - and possible military action against aggressor states possessing weapons of mass destruction - to the pursuit of a world order based on justice and freedom.

This speech has not been taken seriously enough by critics of American and British policy, who seem not to understand that regime change in Iraq would have, as its larger strategic purpose, the creation of the conditions necessary for genuine world order.

Classic just war thinking begins not with the "presumption against violence" suggested by some today, but with a basic moral judgment - that legitimate authorities have a moral obligation to defend the peace. That kind of peace can sometimes be advanced by the proportionate, discriminate and strategically wise use of force.

Then there is the question of "sovereign immunity" that states traditionally enjoy. This presumption of immunity assumes that the state in question agrees to minimal international norms of order. The Iraqi regime cannot be granted that assumption. Its behaviour demonstrates that it holds the principles of international order in contempt.

Moral reason tells us that some states, because of the regime's clearly aggressive intent and because there are no effective internal controls on the regime's behaviour, simply cannot be permitted to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Prudent statecraft must determine how they are to be denied such weapons.

Does the moral authority to wage a just war rest with the United Nations?

The UN Charter recognises a right to national self-defence, which implies that defence against aggression does not require authorisation by the Security Council; it is an inalienable right of nations. If military force can help advance world order, it certainly helps at the prudential political level if force is approved by the Security Council. A correct reading of the just war tradition does not necessarily suggest that prior Security Council approval is a moral imperative, however.

But would an assault to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, without prior Security Council approval, mean that the "law of the strongest" was replacing international law? No. It would mean that the United States, Britain and other allied countries, having made clear that they intend their action to advance the world order to which the UN is dedicated, have decided that they have a moral obligation to take measures that the UN, as presently configured, finds it impossible to take - even though these measures advance the Charter's goals. Such measures can promote the cause of the peace of world order over the long haul.

Who bears the burden of moral judgment in times of war?

The just war tradition is not primarily a set of hurdles that religious leaders, philosophers and theologians set for statesmen to jump over. Rather, it is about ends as well as means - it is a time-tested way of moral reasoning about how prudent statesmanship advances the peace of order that is composed of justice and freedom.

So the proper role of religious leaders and public intellectuals is to help clarify the moral issues, while recognising that the final burden of moral responsibility lies elsewhere - with duly constituted public authorities, who are more fully informed about the relevant facts and who must bear the weight of responsible decision making.

It is simply clericalism to suggest that religious leaders "own" the just war tradition in a singular way. Even if today's religious leaders and public intellectuals were truly in intellectual possession of the just war tradition, the burden of decision making would still lie elsewhere. Religious leaders and public intellectuals are called to develop the moral-philosophical riches of the just war tradition. The tradition itself, however, exists to serve statesmen.

There is a charism or gift of political discernment unique to the vocation of public service. That charism is not shared by bishops, moderators, rabbis, imams or inter-religious agencies. Moral clarity in a time of war demands moral seriousness from public officials. It also demands a measure of political modesty from religious leaders and public intellectuals, in the give-and-take of democratic deliberation.


George Weigel is Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, DC. His recent Simon Lecture, Moral Clarity in a Time of War, is at www.eppc.org

 

I made no value judgments there. As a devout Catholic I can say with all certainty that the Chuch officials are against just about every war. I'm sure there were even some that opposed our involvement in Europe in the 1940s...albeit not publicly. I made a statement to illustrate that the Church is probably not the best barometer to use when deciding whether or not to go to war.

But we live in different times. Bishops speak much more freely now on issues like these than ever before. In the not too distant past, the Bishops would never have spoken...they would have left it to the Pope. Things are simply different now in the Church.

If any of my Catholic bretheren want to sit in jail for their beliefs than that is their right and in a sense it would be noble. They would still be dodging military service though.

 

I'm against a possible war with Iraq?