Vince, it's obvious from the way you've written so vehemently that you don't like the Catholic Church. So, join the crowd. I'm not about to start defending the Catholic Church because Lord knows I have plenty of complaints myself about it. Be that as it may, the impression you've given regarding its stance on war is not completely accurate. The Catholic Church has a bloody history. No question. However, the just war theory is NOT the excuse for indiscriminate killing you paint it to be. It is NOT doctrine. It's not even solely Catholic; St. Augustine refined the theory but did not originate the ideas. It's certainly NOT a set of rules Catholics are expected to follow. It is an ethical guide, part of the tradition of the church and, like all ethical guides, is meant to help a person or a group decide what the appropriate action is so that their decisions have some grounding in thought and are not based only on the feelings of the moment. And it, like everything else in the Catholic Church, is argued about passionately among Catholics themselves. So dogma, doctrine? C'mon Vince, you know better than that. Two notable anti-war protestors, Father Daniel Berrigan and Dorothy Day, both practicing Catholics, probably knew of these guidelines and considered them in the context of the Vietnam War and decided that that war did not meet the criteria of a "just" war; perhaps even if it did they would have demonstrated against the Vietnam War anyway. I have no idea what either of them would be thinking now, but since both are New Yorkers (or were, in the case of Day who died years ago), I doubt if this current situation would be nearly as clearcut for them. I've seen a few mentions on this list of the Vietnam War. In my opinion, comparing this situation with the Vietnam War is completely off-base. Other than the guerilla warfare tactics of the enemy, there are no similarities. Peace demonstrations? That idea obviously comes from people who have not sucked in some of the "dust" everyone here has been breathing, and who have no true conception of the amount of the destruction here. More Brits were killed in the attack on the WTC than have been killed in the entire history of terrorism in England; hearing that shocked me considering the number of incidents that have occurred there. The targets of these attacks were not only the 7,000 or so people killed in the three locations; those flying bombs were sent into buildings that normally have 40,000 people in them with hundreds of thousands more nearby. It was not a coincidence that the planes had thousands of gallons of fuel in them, all of it on fire and flowing down through the buildings, or that it was a Tuesday morning after the final holiday week of the summer when most people would be back at work. The effects on the people here, especially the thousands of rescue workers and families who have lost loved ones, will last forever. Like everyone else, I don't want indiscriminate killing to be the response of the U.S. Indiscriminate killing is what happened here on September 11th. I do not want such killing to ever happen again, not anywhere. The small efforts that have been made in years past, whether it's bombing military targets in retaliation for terrorist acts or money "under the table" to influence people, have not worked, have not immobilized the people intent on such destruction. If freezing the terrorists' financial assets will do that and not a single shot is fired, that would be fine with me; my response would be a huge and heartfelt hurray. If financial pressure is not enough, and I doubt that it is, then I say, do what must be done, as precisely as possible. Saying this does not mean I'm bloodthirsty or that I think the U.S. has never done anything wrong. It has. It does. Queen Elizabeth is the wealthiest woman in the world, isn't she? I mention that not to pick on the Brits, especially since most of them could probably use some of that wealth to get by themselves, but only to show that hindsight is indeed 20/20. In the same way that England once ruled the world, which enabled the royal family to amass such wealth, the U.S. government and U.S. corporations have a way of going in and taking whatever they want. It's hard to see it as it's happening, especially when most of us are benefitting from such behavior. All of that has to be looked at. Whether changing our ways, if it's even possible, would keep hate-filled fanatics from doing what they're compelled to do, especially when it's couched in religious rhetoric... I have no answers for that. Looking at how the U.S. treats other countries and improving relationships will involve long-term thinking and thousands of conversations. For now, what is to be done about people who have not only killed thousands of innocent people, but who vow to continue doing as much destruction as they possibly can? So, going back to my long-ago class in ethics, I look at the guidelines of the just war theory and I say, yes, in this case, war is an ethical response. In my opinion, to proclaim "peacefulness" is trying to wish away the evil that's already shown itself, and that we've been promised will continue to show itself, and to not do what must be done to stop it is immoral. These are the points of the Just War theory: 1. A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified. 2. A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate. 3. A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissable objective of a just war is to redress the injury. 4. A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable. 5. The ulimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought. 6. The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered. 7. The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissable targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target. That's it. I realize, of course, that this set of guidelines is not the only one available, and that for other people, other guidelines are more meaningful. Certainly, bin Laden and his followers would see no value in this just war theory. Other groups of people have a long-standing tradition of opposing all wars, with no consideration given to the particular situation. From the Vietnam War until now there's not been a time where I felt that military force was appropriate or moral. This time I do. Debra Shea P.S. For anyone curious about the just war theory, its history and how it is applied, here's an interesting (and very long) article: http://law.gonzaga.edu/borders/documents/deforres.htm Vince Lavieri wrote: > > Kakki, sorry, wrong. The Catholic Church has never ben staunchly anti-war, > never. From the year 325 in which the motto of Emperor Constantine said, > "With this cross we will conquer" the Roman Church has been anything but > anti-war. >> > ... I am not saying the Catholic Church is pro-war, > but the the Just War theory is a doctrine of the Church, it is a dogmatic > teaching, and the history of the Catholic Church makes that very clear.
