Greetings,

I am very new to this board and am ecstatic to find it. I think it’s appropriate that I give a bit of very general personal information to help you all understand where I am coming from. I grew up in a Military Family and was baptized as an infant a Roman Catholic. I grew up moving from airbase to airbase and have rarely attended services other those provided by Catholic Chaplains on base. In other words, I haven’t attended churches made up primarily of civilians. Therefore, my priests were always very supportive and I never came into contact with those virulent anti-war Catholics.

As an adult I have followed the footsteps of my father (USAF) and grandfather (RAF) and joined the Armed Services. There are a few things I am curious about. What is the Church's opinion of those deaths I may cause in battle? Overall, how does the Church feel about Catholics, such as myself, taking up the Profession of arms? Will I find myself in serious spiritual trouble if I commit myself to a War (such as in Iraq) that the Pope has come out against?

Thank you for your time.

-- Michael William Beyer (C06Michael.Beyer@usafa.edu), September 12, 2003

Answers

First off, thank you for your service. I really mean that. A lot of us depend on you guys keeping us safe, and we pray for you all.

War and violence are terrible and are consequences of original sin and the personal sin of certain individuals. As long as there are wicked individuals in the world, we will have war and the need for soldiers, sailors and airmen, like yourself. The Church has always taught that there may be just wars waged by a society and St. Thomas taught that to refuse to oppose wickedness and a threat to innocent life is itself an evil. It is proper for a just society to use the weapons available to it, within the limits of a rules of a just war to fight evil. No matter what you think of why we went into this war, we are freeing millions of people now from the terror they were living under. The mass graves in Iraq are no longer being filled and the Talliban are no longer opressing their people.

There is nothing in the New Testament which would preclude the right and even obligation of a Christian from participating in a just war. St. Luke records an exchange between soldiers and John the Baptist, in which St. John did NOT tell the soldiers to leave their posts but rather to avoid any abuses in their occupation: 3:14 Soldiers also asked him, "And we, what shall we do?" And he said to them, "Rob no one by violence or by false accusation, and be content with your wages."

Though individual Christians do not have the right to take personal vengeance upon an enemy, a society is allowed to resort to violence if necessary to maintain order and to protect itself and legitimate interests. Read: Paul to the Romans, Chapter 13

Here follows the teaching of the Catechism on war:

III. SAFEGUARDING PEACE

Peace 2302 By recalling the commandment, "You shall not kill,"[93] our Lord asked for peace of heart and denounced murderous anger and hatred as immoral. 1765 Anger is a desire for revenge. "To desire vengeance in order to do evil to someone who should be punished is illicit," but it is praiseworthy to impose restitution "to correct vices and maintain justice."[94] If anger reaches the point of a deliberate desire to kill or seriously wound a neighbor, it is gravely against charity; it is a mortal sin. The Lord says, "Everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment."[95]

2303 Deliberate hatred is contrary to charity. Hatred of the neighbor 2094 is a sin when one deliberately wishes him evil. Hatred of the neighbor is a grave sin when one deliberately desires him grave harm. 1933 "But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven."[96]

2304 Respect for and development of human life require peace. 1909 Peace is not merely the absence of war, and it is not limited to maintaining a balance of powers between adversaries. Peace cannot be attained on earth without safeguarding the goods of persons, free communication among men, respect for the dignity of persons and peoples, and the assiduous practice of fraternity. Peace is "the tranquillity of order."[97] Peace is the work of justice 1807 and the effect of charity.[98]

2305 Earthly peace is the image and fruit of the peace of Christ, the messianic "Prince of Peace."[99] By the blood of his Cross, "in his own person he killed the hostility,"[100] he reconciled men with God 1468 and made his Church the sacrament of the unity of the human race and of its union with God. "He is our peace."[101] He has declared: "Blessed are the peacemakers."[102]

2306 Those who renounce violence and bloodshed and, in order to safeguard human rights, make use of those means of defense available to the weakest, bear witness to evangelical charity, 2267 provided they do so without harming the rights and obligations of other men and societies. They bear legitimate witness to the gravity of the physical and moral risks of recourse to violence, with all its destruction and death.[103]

Avoiding war

2307 The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war.[104]

2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.

However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self- 2266 defense, once all peace efforts have failed."[105]

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force 2243 require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

- there must be serious prospects of success;

- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition. These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility 1897 for the common good.

2310 Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense.

Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed 2239 forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they 1909 carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.[106]

2311 Public authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms; these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other 1782, 1790 way.[107]

2312 The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. "The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties."[108]

2313 Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely.

Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out. Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally 2242 bound to resist orders that command genocide.

2314 "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation."[109] A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons - especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit - such crimes.

2315 The accumulation of arms strikes many as a paradoxically suitable way of deterring potential adversaries from war. They see it as the most effective means of ensuring peace among nations. This method of deterrence gives rise to strong moral reservations. The arms race does not ensure peace. Far from eliminating the causes of war, it risks aggravating them. Spending enormous sums to produce ever new types of weapons impedes efforts to aid needy populations; [110] it thwarts the development of peoples. Over-armament multiplies reasons for conflict and increases the danger of escalation.

2316 The production and the sale of arms affect the common good 1906 of nations and of the international community. Hence public authorities have the right and duty to regulate them. The short-term pursuit of private or collective interests cannot legitimate undertakings that promote violence and conflict among nations and compromise the international juridical order.

2317 Injustice, excessive economic or social inequalities, envy, 1938 distrust, and pride raging among men and nations constantly 2538 threaten peace and cause wars. Everything done to overcome these 1941 disorders contributes to building up peace and avoiding war:

Insofar as men are sinners, the threat of war hangs over them and will so continue until Christ comes again; but insofar as they can vanquish sin by coming together in charity, violence itself will be vanquished and these words will be fulfilled: "they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."[111]

Again, Welcome, and thank you!

In Christ, Bill Nelson

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), September 12, 2003.

Michael, For a website for Catholics in the military see: www.Catholicmil.org

In Christ, Bill Nelson

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), September 12, 2003.

Virulent anti-war catholics...now I guess that is another name that real catholics gladly bear upon themselves. Gradually they will be called anti-satan catholics, anti-homosexual catholics, anti-violence catholics, anti-hatred catholics, and the list goes on. Whether officially catholic or not, as per human psychology, a person in whatever country will place God below the country, when a situation comes as if to say that country is gone. It is simply psychology, where only the exceptional cases are those who do not put down God, but at a price where they will be called virulent by others.

The stance of the church is clear with what the pope says, because he is the human head of the church, guided by God himself. Comparing wars to the war in Iraq is different. The church always stands to avoid wars. If somehow a war breaksout, if it is for just purposes such as defending rightfully, the soldiers are blessed for doing their duties. The best examples are St Joan of Arc, who fought for the freedom of her nation, and St George, a catholic soldier who DID NOT put down God and gave more importance to the name of his country and leader, than God.

Soldiers will NOT be in spiritual trouble if they are ordered by their nation to go to war, BUT if the soldier knows that it is not a just war, and if they cause innocent deaths, the soldier should know that he is placing God and his morals down and finds following orders of superiors more important than God's orders. This applies to the cases where war is not necessary, or bad.

Even in monastries with strict laws of obedience, the monks have the right to disobey their superiors if they are commanded to do something bad, or unjust, ie if something like that happens. If proceeding as per told even if we know that it is a wrong thing, we are moving against God's rules either because of a lack of faith in him, or because of fear of the superiors.

A soldier does not have to worry about the deaths he may cause in battle, provided that the battle is done for a just cause/ The church has always blessed the soldiers who do things like that, for example the soldiers of the UN from all around the world. However, the church will NEVER allow an unjust war to happen, NOR would bless those who willingly oppose the church and place their orders above God's supreme authority and commands.

Catholics who opposed war has been called virulent all over the world over the 2 millenium. It is not a surprise, because they are the followers of christ, who preached the word of love. The church will never say a just war is wrong, but when it is not, the church will stand against it, whether it is called virulent, unpatriotic or not, because they value human lives and peace above all other things.

There have been soldiers who became saints, and there are many like them. None of them placed God above their rulers, and none of them had hatred or wanted bloodshed, and fought only when absolutely necessary.

Comparing the war in Iraq to other wars is pointless. So, the war that the pope has come out against is wrong, as all christians know, and as the pope himself came forward to oppose. Not many catholics listened to the pope, because in times like these where excitement precedes judgement, it is difficult to think about God. Also, no one like to say his/her country is wrong, so the place of faith becomes unstable at times like that.

There is no doubt that taking part in a war, which takes lives, which the pope has spoken against is wrong, because those wars are not those which could be supported by the church. But I personally believe that if the soldier is kind at heart, and does not want to shed innocent blood, and will not do anything unncessary unless ample proof is given, especially in the case of serious matter like wars, he will not et in serious spiritual trouble. But hatred against those who seek peace is not catholic but just the opposite. I know there is no good priest who would think the word of the pope is wrong and the word of politicians is more correct and believable. There may be people like that, but even one of the 12 apostles was possessed by devil, as God said. In the millions of catholics and priests, there are ones who put down faith for politics.

It is just a matter of normal thinking. The catholics believe that the holy church was created by God before he was crucified, and gave his promises that he will be the head of the church, guiding the human head forever. Even non catholics could think that matters like war are a last resort and they value the life of human beings. In that case, I do not think any priest would go against the pope when he says that the war is unjust. This is because you compared the war in Iraq to general war.

In any country, things would be like this if it happened there. Only when we see things from a bigger perspective we get the picture. Catholics do not think themselves as put together in a specific place called a country or a state. Regardless of race, religion or color, catholics love everyone, as taught by God. Real catholics do not lack the courage to face opposition and stand against any wrong moves done by their leaders, even if they will suffer for it. It has happened before, and it will happen again.

You will see priests who support things that the pope speaks against. This has been happeneing for a long time now and will not stop now. The pope will speak against a war if Russia decided to go to war with USA accusing them of suspicious activities or anything. The pope will oppose any nation which does anything wrong. The pope will oppose Italy and even Vatican, if they do something bad. In everycase there will be people who support him and people who oppose him. Maybe those people and priests would someday plot against the pope and try to overthrow him. It has happened before and may happen again. Still it will never change the teachings of God and the stand of the church. Just because some of them forget the commands of the lord doesnt give anyone the right to consider all catholics to be like that.

It is very easy to get lost and zealous when things like politics are concerned, even for catholics. At those times love is seen as weakness, and peace is seen as treachery. It is hard to keep the faith in those times, but it is worth it. Soldiers who keep their faith and work only for just causes, are blessed by God. They have St Joan and St George and many others as examples. It is just like blaiming all human beings for the extinction of certain animals, and blaming a particular race as a whole for injustice done against another, and so on. It doesn't simply make any sense.

There is no reason for a doubt on the church's view of the profession of arms. St Joan and St George shines as bright examples, but people tend to forget what they fought for and why the held arms.

Catholics put God above everything else. They include civilians and soldiers, saints and sinners, rich and poor, different in race and color. What make them all catholics is that they believe in the words of God. They do not seek refuge in men, but God himself. They do not put God above anything else. They work for just causes. They are blessed by the church and by God. In times of peril they will be called virulent and evil, but still, God's words stand out.

Mathew 5:9 :- “Blessed are the peacemakers for they will be called the children of God.”

Here is another post made by Kev, on "Can a catholic justify joining the army". It will be usefull as well.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl? msg_id=00BDbq

-- Abraham T (lijothengil@yahoo.com), September 12, 2003.

"3:14 Soldiers also asked him, "And we, what shall we do?" And he said to them, "Rob no one by violence or by false accusation, and be content with your wages." "

We all know when the terms like mass graves came into existence, and perhaps we also know why they did not before. We saw reasons change and change, and we bought it for some reason. I care about the soldiers that protect this nation as much as I care about my family and the innocent lives there, and in around the world. For that one reason, I cannot be partial to anyone. I suspect if anyone would support the war if reasons such as freeing them from tyranny were presented as the reasons, instead of carefully changing them at precise times. We as human beings have advanced a lot over the time, indeed.

Soldiers are blessed by God the same as everyone else is blessed, and a little more because of their hardships and their duties, as long as they remain faithful to him and follow his words.

I suspect that this is somehow going to be a flame thread once again, where politics will be considered above God. Please put political views and comments aside which would turn this into a flaming debate focused on the reasons for the war in Iraq and all sorts of things about it. It will be worse than it sounds and catholics will be turned into the instruments of devil. We must prevent it from all costs.

There are reasons why catholics speak against violence whenever necessary and everyone should know it. The pope did not praise those people who kill people who help perform abortion, to save innocent lives, and he will not. People who kill doctors who perform abortion are perhaps a little more saintly, because in that case they do not make false accusations. The pope did not say that. Catholics did not say that. People would understand why in that case, but when politics come into existence people would not understand.

Please, do not make situations which could contribute to a flame war, where people would be forced to turn against each other, and hatred would be filled in the atmosphere. Let this be the catholic forum as it is, where politics have no place, and every catholic and those who want to know God, is welcome.

-- Abraham T (lijothengil@yahoo.com), September 12, 2003.

Bringing Freedom to other nations is worth fighting for.

"A professional soldier understands that war means killing people, war means maiming people, war means families left without fathers and mothers. All you have to do is hold your first dying soldier in your arms, and have that terribly futile feeling that his life is flowing out and you can't do anything about it. Then you understand the horror of war. Any soldier worth his salt should be antiwar. And still there are things worth fighting for." -General Norman Schwarzkopf

I am very grateful for the well-reasoned responses and serious consideration that I have received so far. As far as my own personal experience goes, very few of my fellow servicemen relish the thought of War. They have families, mortgages and little league coaching jobs. However, we are forever willing to sacrifice ourselves for our nation to protect those freedoms that few would enjoy with those efforts.

I do not want to get into a debate about the war in Iraq; but I ask you all to consider this: Those freedoms that we readily take for granted, such as the right to post on this forum and to visit the church of our choice, are not available to billions of souls around the world. I am glad that we have the moral fortitude to spread our democratic ideals to other peoples even at great personal cost. Perhaps by doing so more souls can be brought to Jesus’ table and true peace realized in our day.

-- Michael William Beyer (C06Michael.Beyer@usafa.edu), September 12, 2003.

My friend, I am really tempted to reply once again saying many things. It is indeed a good objective that democracy be spread, but we have friends who are not democracies and where people suffer more than we know. I know personally of things happening there to people I know, especially to anyone who follows christ or even is seen with a bible in his/her hand. For that reason alone it hurts me a lot to even think about it, yet alone speaking about spreading freedom to others. My father himself had to suffer in some of our friend nations. Even though I hate partiality, like I said it hurts me a lot. It is the same reason I am tempted to make large posts describing a lot of things, and those things cloud my mind and make me forget who I am. Even though the struggle is very difficult, I am not saying anything. Lets stop things regarding politics right here. No matter how faint, it is easy enough to cause trouble, believe me. Let us not make this a fiery debate, to discuss the politics behind anything. Catholics love everyone in the world, even their enemies, and they love and respect the human beings who leave their families behind to ensure a safe life for others. Enough said.

-- Abraham T (lijothengil@yahoo.com), September 12, 2003.

John the Baptist and Jesus never had anything bad to say about soldiers - though just like anyone else, they could sin. When soldiers asked John about what they should do (within the context of repenting of sin and preparing for the Messiah) He told them to not resort to extortion, to be content with their pay.

Jesus never told soldiers to cease being soldiers. Nor did any of the apostles, Peter baptised the Centurion and his family...but didn't tell them to retire from the Army.

All in all, the Army gets a lot of positive "honorable mentions" in the New Testament, as in the old.

-- Joe (Joestong@yahoo.com), September 19, 2003.

Love is spiritual first and above all. Nevertheless, even the spiritual soul is caught between heaven and earth, and sometimes must choose force. Catholics have to remember that there is always going to be mortal combat in this life. Jesus Christ prophesied this. ''There will be wars and rumors of wars.'' Strangely, it didn't seem to enter His mind some would be just wars.

That's because this eventuality is to be expected. Nobody espouses an unjust war. Christ also stated His kingdom was not of this world, where arms are something necessary. As we see historically, God didn't intervene against Roman arms when Jerusalem was destroyed in 60 A.D. He inspires leaders to stand up for or against wars; but in every event His Will is done. It's the Divine Will which drives historical events. We are simply called to watch and pray. Pray for His Will to be done in war or peace.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), September 19, 2003.

Strange, Jesus did tell his disciples that "anyone with a cloak should sell it and buy a sword" and his disciples said "Lord, look here are two swords" to which he replied "enough!".

Now, Peter carried a sword - and used it in the garden. Sure, he was told to put it away with the words "he who lives by the sword will die by the sword". But did Peter "live by the sword"? No. If violence is the way of your life, then you'll most likely die by violence.

Unfortunately, so-called "pacifists" think soldiers or police (both of whom carry weapons) are violent. Not so. The most effective ones are highly disciplined, organized, and follow strict and high moral codes. Armed gangs and armed thugs are the ones who truly "live by the sword".

So why did Jesus say what he did to Peter when before he talked about two swords?

Recall that in the garden Jesus was betrayed by Judas who arrived "with the cohort" - the Police/army of Jerusalem. Peter's armed resistence then would have technically have been dangerously close to "illegal" interferance with the police who came to arrest Jesus.

Since he was one armed man verses 600 "armed with clubs and torches" classic Catholic Just War doctrine would teach that such a resistance against overwhelming force would be wrong. Jesus didn't want Peter to go down fighting. He wanted surrender because "resistence was futile". Suicide is not a Christian doctine. Surrender is.

In his parable of the two kings facing each other Jesus talks about this: If one kind marches to war with 10,000 men, but his opponent is approaching with 20,000...he has to determine whether or not he can confront him...if not, he should send embassies to ask for peaceful terms.

But nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus say "Christians should not have weapons, Christians should not resist evil with deadly force, Christians should always surrender or commit suicide rather than physically hurt anyone.

Another thing to keep in mind is the fact that Peter was armed with a sword to begin with. A sword is not exactly something you easily hide so we have to think of the implications. Jesus did tell his apostles to bring a walking staff on their journeys - which for the time was as much an aid for walking as a defensive weapon. (Ever wonder why shepherds have staffs? You don't defend against wild dogs or wolves with swords, you defend against them with a spear or stout staff).

Prudential defensive measures are OK - offensive "overkill" would probably not be OK. Most of the Church criticism of modern weaponry follows the line of reasoning that it's overkill (not proportionate to the threat) and a waste of resources more urgently needed elsewhere.

There's also the historical dimension. Christians of the first centuries didn't have responsibility for the maintanance of civil order - they had no civil or political power, so had no civil or poltical responsibilities for the army or police. They didn't have to worry about defending society from criminals or barbarians because that was someone else's problem.

HOWEVER, there were many early Roman martyrs who were in the Roman army. The Theban Legion (in Swizterland) were all martyred in a later persecution- so apparently an entire army division (some 5000 men) had converted to Christianity - they were willing to work for the Empire to provide security, etc. but were unwilling to worship the Emperor, so were executed.

But given the conversion and taking of control of society by Christians...and the ongoing presence of pagans and invading barbarians... what is the lay Christian who is now a political leader to do with criminals or invading hoards?

One can be a pacifist - by not being violent with others and not invading them...while at the same time being armed with swords and other war gear, in DEFENSE of society and civil order.

Thus, it is moral for the Catholic layman to have defensive measures such as strong locks and doors, alarm systems, etc. and perhaps to own firearms. But if you spend a fortune on such things, it would stray into immoral waste of time and money...

It is obviously moral for the state (local and national) to make arrangements for the defense of civil order and peace - which includes the possession and disposition of weapons sufficient to a reasonable self-defense.

It is always immoral to bankrupt ones self on an arms race which has no chance of success.

That's the key prudential decision: if you are the prime minister of Luxemborg, you have to conclude that a successful defense of your political liberty from the USSR is impossible, so you only focus on forces sufficient for police work. An arms race with the USSR would have been maddness and thus, immoral.

But it was not NECESSARILY immoral for the USA to run an arms race with the Russians, because we could (and did) win it - both in the sense that we could have won a conventional war, and in the sense that having such a substantial conventional and nuclear capability made war UNLIKELY because the prospect of such ASSURED destruction made war a seriously ineffective means of achieving Communism's poltical goals.

Now, unless you are dealing with psychopaths, armed deterance works, and no one gets hurt (and thus peace is maintained). Its appalling how few "pacifists" understand this.

-- Joe (Joestong@yahoo.com), September 19, 2003.

As usualy, Joe, a marvelous reply.

By the way, the Holy Martyrs of the Theban Legion, whom you mentioned ...?
Their "feast" day is tomorrow!

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 21, 2003.