Quote of the Day, and the ABCs of War
Apr. 20th, 2005 11:55 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
arisbe"There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a 'just war.'"
I am sure most of you have guessed the author of the above, then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, now Bishop of Rome and Pontiff of the Catholic Church.
Benedict has been called an archconservative, though he probably deserves the term less than Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, Prefect under Pius XII, and the much demonized enemy of the "progressive" faction at Vatican II.
Thanks to![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
davemac, who now, alas, posts exclusively on his new 'blog, we can see the continuity in the position of the dogmatic office of the Church:
"a. On account of the great development of communication in modern times and the desire on the part of nations to extend their interests to all parts of the world, excuses for war are now all too frequent.
"b. The disasters which worried the Fathers at the (1870) Vatican Council now affect not only soldiers and armies at war but also entire peoples.
"c. The extent of the damage done to national assets by aerial warfare, and the dreadful weapons that have been introduced of late, is so great that it leaves both vanquished and victor the poorer for years after.
"d. Innocent people, too, are liable to great injury from the weapons in current use: hatred is on that account excited above measure; extremely harsh reprisals are provoked; wars result which flaunt every provision of the jus gentium, and are marked by a savagery greater than ever. And what of the period immediately after a war? Does not it also provide an obvious pointer to the enormous and irreparable damage which war, the breeding place of hate and hurt, must do to the morals and manners of nations?
"e. In these days, when the world itself has become seemingly shrunken and straitened, the bonds between the nations of the world are so close and exigent that almost the whole world becomes involved once war is declared.
"f. A regime may be under the impression that it can engage in a just war with hope of success; but in fact secret weapons can be prepared to such effect nowadays that they, being unforeseen, can upset and utterly thwart all calculations.
"These considerations, and many others which might be adduced besides, show that modern wars can never fulfil those conditions which (as we stated earlier on in this essay) govern - theoretically - a just and lawful war. Moreover, no conceivable cause could ever be sufficient justification for the evils, the slaughter, the destruction, the moral and religious upheavals which war today entails.
"In practice, then, a declaration of war will never be justifiable. A defensive war even should never be undertaken unless a legitimate authority, with whom the decision rests, shall have both certainty of success and very solid proofs that the good accruing to the nation from the war will more than outweigh the untold evils which it will bring on the nation itself, and on the world in general." [Card. Alfredo Ottaviani, Institutiones Juris Publici Ecclesiastici, Vol. 1 (Jus Publicum Internum) Pars I, Titulus iii, art. 3 (Relationes societatum perfectarum in statu conflictus) Principium 2 - Vatican, Polyglot. 3rd Edition (1947) pp. 149-55; English translation: Blackfriars - a monthly review. Edited by the English Dominicans. Published at Blackfriars, St Giles, Oxford, Vol. XXX September 1949 No. 354.]
(I hope the last point, on wars of defense, will be noted by all who are sympathetic to the Iraqi resistance and the Palestinian Intifada.)
I am sure most of you have guessed the author of the above, then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, now Bishop of Rome and Pontiff of the Catholic Church.
Benedict has been called an archconservative, though he probably deserves the term less than Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, Prefect under Pius XII, and the much demonized enemy of the "progressive" faction at Vatican II.
Thanks to
davemac, who now, alas, posts exclusively on his new 'blog, we can see the continuity in the position of the dogmatic office of the Church: "a. On account of the great development of communication in modern times and the desire on the part of nations to extend their interests to all parts of the world, excuses for war are now all too frequent.
"b. The disasters which worried the Fathers at the (1870) Vatican Council now affect not only soldiers and armies at war but also entire peoples.
"c. The extent of the damage done to national assets by aerial warfare, and the dreadful weapons that have been introduced of late, is so great that it leaves both vanquished and victor the poorer for years after.
"d. Innocent people, too, are liable to great injury from the weapons in current use: hatred is on that account excited above measure; extremely harsh reprisals are provoked; wars result which flaunt every provision of the jus gentium, and are marked by a savagery greater than ever. And what of the period immediately after a war? Does not it also provide an obvious pointer to the enormous and irreparable damage which war, the breeding place of hate and hurt, must do to the morals and manners of nations?
"e. In these days, when the world itself has become seemingly shrunken and straitened, the bonds between the nations of the world are so close and exigent that almost the whole world becomes involved once war is declared.
"f. A regime may be under the impression that it can engage in a just war with hope of success; but in fact secret weapons can be prepared to such effect nowadays that they, being unforeseen, can upset and utterly thwart all calculations.
"These considerations, and many others which might be adduced besides, show that modern wars can never fulfil those conditions which (as we stated earlier on in this essay) govern - theoretically - a just and lawful war. Moreover, no conceivable cause could ever be sufficient justification for the evils, the slaughter, the destruction, the moral and religious upheavals which war today entails.
"In practice, then, a declaration of war will never be justifiable. A defensive war even should never be undertaken unless a legitimate authority, with whom the decision rests, shall have both certainty of success and very solid proofs that the good accruing to the nation from the war will more than outweigh the untold evils which it will bring on the nation itself, and on the world in general." [Card. Alfredo Ottaviani, Institutiones Juris Publici Ecclesiastici, Vol. 1 (Jus Publicum Internum) Pars I, Titulus iii, art. 3 (Relationes societatum perfectarum in statu conflictus) Principium 2 - Vatican, Polyglot. 3rd Edition (1947) pp. 149-55; English translation: Blackfriars - a monthly review. Edited by the English Dominicans. Published at Blackfriars, St Giles, Oxford, Vol. XXX September 1949 No. 354.]
(I hope the last point, on wars of defense, will be noted by all who are sympathetic to the Iraqi resistance and the Palestinian Intifada.)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
...and I'm an episcopalian, myself.
Date: 2005-04-20 04:43 pm (UTC)Indeed. It's kind of funny how one can go from "standard bearer" to "archconservative" in a few years, without changing any substantive views...
Of course, one might argue that this redefinition game is a standard practice of the "archliberals".
Re: ...and I'm an episcopalian, myself.
Date: 2005-04-20 06:34 pm (UTC)Wasn't an Episcopalian who wrote, New occasions teach new duties, time makes ancient good uncouth?
People don't realize that when John, Paul, John Paul, and Benedict campaign for peace and justice they are not preaching progressivism, but the Old Time Religion. And it's good enough for me.
no subject
Date: 2005-04-20 05:40 pm (UTC)It seems as though he's saying you shouldn't fight unless you have overwhelming assurance that you'll win. he may call that reason, I call it cowardice.
no subject
Date: 2005-04-20 06:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-04-20 07:57 pm (UTC)Personally, I think it'd be pretty stupid to start a war where there wasn't a good chance of winning. It's called "asking for it". Plus there's that whole making sure the good done will outweigh the evil done to both sides that you seemed to ignore. That might count for something.
Overall I gather he's saying "Don't Fight." Does "Won't Fight" = "Coward?" Sure, in the schoolyard.
no subject
Date: 2005-04-21 03:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-04-21 06:26 am (UTC)I've heard many good things and many bad things about Ye Newwe Pope. Overall, though, I don't see much to take issue with. Perhaps he's not the most socially progressive person, but so what? That's not the domain of religion; it's the responsibility of governments. In any reasonably developed nation, you're perfectly free to not be Catholic. Meanwhile, those who keep that faith (even involuntarily) will have the word passed down from on high to not shoot anyone, for Pete's sake! Not just each other, anyone! This seems to be a Good Thing.