One Catholic’s Opinion Of War

[Ponca Dan]

I pretty much agree.

War Must Become a Primary Issue for Catholics in Presidential Elections

Opposition to war is as important, or even more important, than opposition to abortion in the presidential election.

crisismagazine.com

 

[long-duc-dong]

I pretty much agree.

War Must Become a Primary Issue for Catholics in Presidential Elections

Opposition to war is as important, or even more important, than opposition to abortion in the presidential election.

crisismagazine.com

Ignore the troll.

 

[soonerinlOUisiana]

“During my lifetime the United States has been involved in countless overseas conflicts, from outright wars to small-scale military operations. Vietnam War, two Iraq Wars, the occupation of Afghanistan, conflicts in Libya, Bosnia, Somalia, Syria, Yemen: the list goes on and on. In not a single one could America’s involvement be justified under Catholic Just War Theory.”

False.

 

[my_2cents]

“During my lifetime the United States has been involved in countless overseas conflicts, from outright wars to small-scale military operations. Vietnam War, two Iraq Wars, the occupation of Afghanistan, conflicts in Libya, Bosnia, Somalia, Syria, Yemen: the list goes on and on. In not a single one could America’s involvement be justified under Catholic Just War Theory.”

False.

@Ponca Dan, for once, soonerinlOU is right. The statement he quoted is a false statement from the author of the article.

This is one reason of many, btw, that I'm not a fan of the "just war" theory being considered Christian. The theory doesn't have much in common with the teachings of Christ. Aristotle? Yes. Jesus? No.

 

[LAY THE WOODY]

What would sleepy say?

 

[Ponca Dan]

@Ponca Dan, for once, soonerinlOU is right. The statement he quoted is a false statement from the author of the article.

This is one reason of many, btw, that I'm not a fan of the "just war" theory. I've never thought the theory had much in common with the teachings of Christ. Aristotle? Yes. Jesus? No.

Please explain to this non-Catholic. Is there no Catholic Just War Theory?

A quick Google search brought me to this. Are you and SiL saying it isn’t real?

catholic just war theory - Google Search

 

[soonerinlOUisiana]

Please explain to this non-Catholic. Is there no Catholic Just War Theory?

A quick Google search brought me to this. Are you and SiL saying it isn’t real?

catholic just war theory - Google Search

It’s real, but it may as well not be real, and it certainly denies the reality of many modern conflicts. It’s a fallible teaching that can be finagled to support or oppose just about any military operation that ever took place. BTW, Crises Magazine is fairly popular among Catholic conservatives. In light of the Michael Virus/Church Militant shit-show (Google it), I’ve become quite skeptical of Catholic media, both on the right and on the pseudo-Catholic left.

 

[Ponca Dan]

It’s real, but it may as well not be real, and it certainly denies the reality of many modern conflicts. It’s a fallible teaching that can be finagled to support or oppose just about any military operation that ever took place. BTW, Crises Magazine is fairly popular among Catholic conservatives. In light of the Michael Virus/Church Militant shit-show (Google it), I’ve become quite skeptical of Catholic media, both on the right and on the pseudo-Catholic left.

Thank you.

 

[LAY THE WOODY]

A mooslum can't comprehend.

 

[my_2cents]

Please explain to this non-Catholic. Is there no Catholic Just War Theory?

There are some Catholics who embrace the theory. Other Catholics don't. It is found in the Catechism (written in 1992) but it is not universally accepted by Catholics (lay and clergy). Pope Francis, for example, doesn't appear to be a fan of it.

St. Augustine of Hippo was essentially the first great Christian theologian to embrace the theory and attempt to fit it into a Christian worldview. St. Augustine was a student of philosophy. He therefore was very familiar with Aristotle. And especially Cicero, who St. Augustine was heavily influenced by early in his life. Of course, it was Aristotle who first "introduced" the basics of this theory in Europe and Cicero used this to justify the Roman wars. Aspects of the theory though can be found as far back as ancient Egypt.

St. Thomas Aquinas followed St. Augustine's lead and developed it more in his Summa Theologica. But again, not all Catholics embrace the theory. Many see the theory to be at odds with the teachings of Christ.

 

[LAY THE WOODY]

There are some Catholics who embrace the theory. Other Catholics don't. It is found in the Catechism (written in 1992) but it is not universally accepted by Catholics (lay and clergy). Pope Francis, for example, doesn't appear to be a fan of it.

St. Augustine of Hippo was essentially the first great Christian theologian to embrace the theory and attempt to fit it into a Christian worldview. St. Augustine was a student of philosophy. He therefore was very familiar with Aristotle. And especially Cicero, who St. Augustine was heavily influenced by early in his life. Of course, it was Aristotle who first "introduced" the basics of this theory in Europe and Cicero used this to justify the Roman wars. Aspects of the theory though can be found as far back as ancient Egypt.

St. Thomas Aquinas followed St. Augustine's lead and developed it more in his Summa Theologica. But again, not all Catholics embrace the theory. Many see the theory to be at odds with the teachings of Christ.

What is kumula? Take yer time.

 

[Ponca Dan]

There are some Catholics who embrace the theory. Other Catholics don't. It is found in the Catechism (written in 1992) but it is not universally accepted by Catholics (lay and clergy). Pope Francis, for example, doesn't appear to be a fan of it.

St. Augustine of Hippo was essentially the first great Christian theologian to embrace the theory and attempt to fit it into a Christian worldview. St. Augustine was a student of philosophy. He therefore was very familiar with Aristotle. And especially Cicero, who St. Augustine was heavily influenced by early in his life. Of course, it was Aristotle who first "introduced" the basics of this theory in Europe and Cicero used this to justify the Roman wars. Aspects of the theory though can be found as far back as ancient Egypt.

St. Thomas Aquinas followed St. Augustine's lead and developed it more in his Summa Theologica. But again, not all Catholics embrace the theory. Many see the theory to be at odds with the teachings of Christ.

Please explain what the author of the article gets wrong if he is one who accepts the theory.

 

[LAY THE WOODY]

Please explain what the author of the article gets wrong if he is one who accepts the theory.

Yer theory?

 

[Ponca Dan]

There are some Catholics who embrace the theory. Other Catholics don't. It is found in the Catechism (written in 1992) but it is not universally accepted by Catholics (lay and clergy). Pope Francis, for example, doesn't appear to be a fan of it.

St. Augustine of Hippo was essentially the first great Christian theologian to embrace the theory and attempt to fit it into a Christian worldview. St. Augustine was a student of philosophy. He therefore was very familiar with Aristotle. And especially Cicero, who St. Augustine was heavily influenced by early in his life. Of course, it was Aristotle who first "introduced" the basics of this theory in Europe and Cicero used this to justify the Roman wars. Aspects of the theory though can be found as far back as ancient Egypt.

St. Thomas Aquinas followed St. Augustine's lead and developed it more in his Summa Theologica. But again, not all Catholics embrace the theory. Many see the theory to be at odds with the teachings of Christ.

Do they see the theory as being at odds with the teachings of Christ because they think there is no such thing as a justified war?

 

[LAY THE WOODY]

Do they see the theory as being at odds with the teachings of Christ because they think there is no such thing as a justified war?

What would Moohamed say Dan?

 

[my_2cents]

Please explain what the author of the article gets wrong if he is one who accepts the theory.

The author claimed all the wars and/or conflicts he listed couldn't be justified under "Catholic just war theory."

That is false. Some of them could be because the theory can be very subjective in application.

 

[LAY THE WOODY]

The author claimed all the wars and/or conflicts he listed couldn't be justified under "Catholic just war theory."

That is false. Some of them could be because the theory can be very subjective in application.

Showers with joe?

 

[my_2cents]

Do they see the theory as being at odds with the teachings of Christ because they think there is no such thing as a justified war?

Depends on what other theory or philosophy of war they believe better alignes with the teachings of Christ.

For example, a hardcore Christian pacifist would claim there is never a justifiable war. A Christian realist, however, would hold that there are "justifiable" wars.

 

[LAY THE WOODY]

Depends on what other theory or philosophy of war they believe better alignes with the teachings of Christ.

For example, a hardcore Christian pacifist would claim there is never a justifiable war.

Something kamalla would say.

 

[Ponca Dan]

The author claimed all the wars and/or conflicts he listed couldn't be justified under "Catholic just war theory."

That is false. Some of them could be because the theory can be very subjective in application.

Well, if the interpretation is subjective what makes his subjective interpretation wrong? It looks like there are a handful of tenants in the theory. In order to be a just war must it meet every tenant?

 

[Ponca Dan]

Depends on what other theory or philosophy of war they believe better alignes with the teachings of Christ.

For example, a hardcore Christian pacifist would claim there is never a justifiable war.

Maybe that’s what the author is. His writing makes it seem that’s what he is.

 

[LAY THE WOODY]

Well, if the interpretation is subjective what makes his subjective interpretation wrong? It looks like there are a handful of tenants in the theory. In order to be a just war must it meet every tenant?

Confusing ain't it?

 

[my_2cents]

Well, if the interpretation is subjective what makes his subjective interpretation wrong?

Hence the problem with the theory.

The fact is though that the just war theory, including the Catholic just war theory, was used to justify some of those wars and conflicts. So regardless of what he claims subjectively, he is wrong to suggest that the theory can't be used to justify those wars/conflicts.

It looks like there are a handful of tenants in the theory. In order to be a just war must it meet every tenant?

Yes.

 

[LAY THE WOODY]

Hence the problem with the theory.

The fact is though that the just war theory, including the Catholic just war theory, was used to justify some of those wars and conflicts. So regardless of what he claims subjectively, he is wrong to suggest that the theory can't be used to justify those wars/conflicts.

Then there's yer love connection.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Hence the problem with the theory.

The fact is though that the just war theory, including the Catholic just war theory, was used to justify some of those wars and conflicts. So regardless of what he claims subjectively, he is wrong to suggest that the theory can't be used to justify those wars/conflicts.


Yes.

You’re using circular logic. That person “A” subjectively uses the theory to justify his war does not deny person “B” from subjectively arguing Person A is in error.

 

[my_2cents]

Maybe that’s what the author is. His writing makes it seem that’s what he is.

Perhaps, but why then invoke the just war theory as he did? Either way, that statement he made is still false.

My thoughts on that article though has little to do with that statement. I think what we see on display in that article is the author slowly coming to the realization that the American (and conservative Catholic) pro-life political stance has been highly hypocritical and narrowly focused. Even misguided, although he hasn't arrived at the misguided viewpoint yet. It is as if he is suddenly discovering the "seamless garment" or the consistent ethic of life, that is so often missing among those who claim to be "pro-life."

I also disagree with how he characterizes what is occuring in Ukraine and his desire to connect it with all the other conflicts he mentions, especially the Israel/Palestine conflict. There are clear differences (differences that matter, especially when taking a philosophical approach) and he doesn't acknowledge those differences.

 

[LAY THE WOODY]

You’re using circular logic. That person “A” subjectively uses the theory to justify his war does not deny person “B” from subjectively arguing Person A is in error.

Perhaps, but why then invoke the just war theory as he did? Either way, that statement he made is still false.

My thoughts on that article though has little to do with that statement. I think what we see on display in that article is the author slowly coming to the realization that the American (and conservative Catholic) pro-life political stance has been highly hypocritical and narrowly focused. Even misguided, although he doesn't seem to be at the misguided viewpoint yet. It is as if he is suddenly discovering the "seamless garment" or the consistent ethic of life, that is so often missing among those who claim to be "pro-life."

I also disagree with how he characterizes what is occuring in Ukraine and his desire to connect it with all the other conflicts he mentions, especially the Israel/Palestine conflict. There are clear differences (differences that matter, especially when taking a philosophical approach) and he doesn't acknowledge those differences.

Yeah

 

[my_2cents]

That person “A” subjectively uses the theory to justify his war does not deny person “B” from subjectively arguing Person A is in error.

But he is wrong. Many can and have used the theory to justify some of those wars/conflicts he mentioned. The theory indeed can be used to justify what he is claiming can't be justified.

Honestly, I don't even know why he mentioned the just war theory. It wasn't necessary for or central to his argument.

 

[LAY THE WOODY]

But he is wrong. Many can and have used the theory to justify some of those wars/conflicts he mentioned. The theory indeed can be used to justify what he is claiming can't be justified.

Honestly, I don't even know why he mentioned the just war theory. It wasn't necessary for his argument and has little to do with the point he is trying to make.

Spank spank spank....

 

[Ponca Dan]

But he is wrong. Many can and have used the theory to justify some of those wars/conflicts he mentioned. The theory indeed can be used to justify what he is claiming can't be justified.

Honestly, I don't even know why he mentioned the just war theory. It wasn't necessary for or central to his argument.

But the author is saying *he* thinks (subjectively) the theory has been imoroperly used in all those instances. He’s not saying it can’t be used, because obviously it has been. He’s saying it can never be used properly. At least that's how I read him. And as a radical anti-war proponent myself I think he’s right.

 

[LAY THE WOODY]

But the author is saying *he* thinks (subjectively) the theory has been imoroperly used in all those instances. He’s not saying it can’t be used, because obviously it has been. He’s saying it can never be used properly. At least that's how I read him. And as a radical anti-war proponent myself I think he’s right.

Where'd that git ya?

 

[my_2cents]

But the author is saying *he* thinks (subjectively) the theory has been imoroperly used in all those instances.

He’s saying it can never be used properly.

And he is wrong about this.

And as a radical anti-war proponent myself I think he’s right.

You can be a radical anti-war proponent and not embrace the just war theory. Indeed, embracing a just war theory allows one to justify many wars and conflicts that you oppose or have opposed. Such an embrace would seem to be at odds with what you are trying to argue for and achieve.

With that said, objectively, he is wrong with his claim. And really, his error shouldn't be a hill worth dying on for you, as his overall argument is not dependent upon it.

 

[Ponca Dan]

And he is wrong about this.


You can be a radical anti-war proponent and not embrace the just war theory. Indeed, embracing a just war theory allows one to justify many wars and conflicts that you oppose or have opposed. Such an embrace would seem to be at odds with what you are trying to argue for and achieve.

With that said, objectively, he is wrong with his claim. And really, his error shouldn't be a hill worth dying on for you, as his overall argument is not dependent upon it.

He is wrong about this? That’s *your* subjective analysis. He is decidedly *not* embracing the theory; he’s saying those that have embraced it to justify their wars are wrong. And neither he nor I are dying on any hill. A subjective opinion, whether your or ours, is a subjective opinion. It is our opinion your argument lacks merit.

 

[my_2cents]

He is wrong about this? That’s *your* subjective analysis.

No, it is not my subjective analysis. He clearly and objectively was wrong with his statement.

he’s saying those that have embraced it to justify their wars are wrong.

That is not what he said at all. His statement was the following:

"During my lifetime the United States has been involved in countless overseas conflicts, from outright wars to small-scale military operations. Vietnam War, two Iraq Wars, the occupation of Afghanistan, conflicts in Libya, Bosnia, Somalia, Syria, Yemen: the list goes on and on. In not a single one could America’s involvement be justified under Catholic Just War Theory."

His last sentence is wrong.

 

[Ponca Dan]

No, it is not my subjective analysis. He clearly and objectively was wrong with his statement.


That is not what he said at all. His statement was the following:

"During my lifetime the United States has been involved in countless overseas conflicts, from outright wars to small-scale military operations. Vietnam War, two Iraq Wars, the occupation of Afghanistan, conflicts in Libya, Bosnia, Somalia, Syria, Yemen: the list goes on and on. In not a single one could America’s involvement be justified under Catholic Just War Theory."

His last sentence is wrong.

We just disagree. He is stating his subjective opinion in the sentence you highlighted, and he gets to have his subjective opinion as much as you get to have yours. I'm sure if he read what you have written in this thread he would say you are objectively wrong. You said yourself that every criterion must be met in order for the theory to apply, and I imagine he could find missing criteria in every war in which we have been involved. In which case he would be correct in what he said.

 

[my_2cents]

We just disagree. He is stating his subjective opinion in the sentence you highlighted, and he gets to have his subjective opinion as much as you get to have yours.

I don't disagree that what he is claiming is his subjective opinion, but it is wrong. Flat out wrong, objectively.

Here is his claim:
"In not a single one could America’s involvement be justified under Catholic Just War Theory."

That claim is blatantly and objectively false. There is at least one (maybe more) conflict/war that he named which "could" be justified using the Catholic Just War Theory. They have been, and therefore, they "could" be.

Again though, I don't really know why you making such a fuss trying to defend this false claim. The claim wasn't necessary for or central to his main argument. His main argument doesn't rise or fall based upon the accuracy of this one claim about the just war theory.

I would think you would rather discuss his central argument instead of needlessly defending this false claim.

 

[fairdinkem]

You’re using circular logic. That person “A” subjectively uses the theory to justify his war does not deny person “B” from subjectively arguing Person A is in error.

P-Dan, speaking of things "circular", where's your travel log that I called you out on. Let's see it now.

 

[Ponca Dan]

P-Dan, speaking of things "circular", where's your travel log that I called you out on. Let's see it now.

Make your point if you have one. I'm not interested in playing your game.

 

[fairdinkem]

Make your point if you have one. I'm not interested in playing your game.

Re-read the post. A first grader could understand. Tell us the lands you have travelled to and interacted with the locals. You know, the ones that providedyour other-worldly foundation of knowledge. Don't play dumb this time. It's simple, just grab your passport an list the entry/exit stamps.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Re-read the post. A first grader could understand. Tell us the lands you have travelled to and interacted with the locals. You know, the ones that providedyour other-worldly foundation of knowledge. Don't play dumb this time. It's simple, just grab your passport an list the entry/exit stamps.

And your point is?