Wednesday, September 28, 2005

Proposal for Solving Iraq/Terrorism Debacle

Return to Legitimate Defense

10 comments:

Unknown said...

"Thus it is incompatible with the traditional Catholic understanding of the Just War Doctrine. In trying to “justify” offensive (preventive) action, one must employ a utilitarian calculus (incompatible with classical [Aristotelian/Thomistic] moral philosophy and Catholic Moral Theology) in which the “ends” are allowed to justify the “means.” Specifically, the “end” of protecting the country at all cost is allowed to justify an intrinsically evil “means” (the waging of an “offensive” attack which violates Just War Doctrine and Romans 3: 8 in which evil must never be done that good may come of it). The point is that waging offensive war is intrinsically evil according to Just War Doctrine, under which one is not allowed to make a utilitarian calculation that a “potential” or even growing threat may be realized at a certain level of probability and then commence an offensive action in the hopes of preventing it as if the attack had actually been made."

Where in this graph can I find an argument as to why a preventative war (i.e. a war in which one strikes first for defensive purposes) is immoral? Based on my first few readings, it seems to be somewhat tautological, never actually demonstrating -- only asserting -- that such an action is immoral.

What am I missing?

Anonymous said...

The “3” Components of a Moral Decision in Preventive/Pre-emptive Iraq War*

1. Object Freely Specified (Chosen), or Proximate End, also called “Means”.

Offensive Military “First Strike Lethality” to effect Iraqi Regime Change [Neo-con’s substitute “spreading democracy” and American “Values” in the Middle East here] which is incorrect/deceptive in that accomplishing it requires a morally illicit [violent] “means” (technique or method) for dubiously “insuring” American Security (the intent). The object freely chosen is “offensive first strike lethality” not “spreading democracy” in the Middle East.

What could be placed here is: [“Spreading democracy” and American “Values” in the Middle East through peaceful means as an instrumental way “means” in which to non-violently accomplish the stated “end” or intent]. Such a feely chosen object or “means” would be morally licit and the moral calculus would then be correct.

2. Intent, Motive or Further End.

Insure American Security and limit or eliminate Terrorism.

3. Circumstances or Situation.

Terrorism and Reduced Security is New 21st Century Reality. Was there WMD in Iraq pre-invasion? (Analysis assumes a pre-invasion perspective).

*The above demonstrates utilizing classical Aristotelian/Thomistic moral philosophical principles why “elite” neo-conservative reasoning is in error with respect to waging the Iraq War. The actual “means” employed are evil that is morally illicit since they involve choosing to inflict “first-strike” offensive lethality upon a perceived enemy (contrary to the Just War Doctrine which allows for legitimate defense only and to Rom. 3: 8). “Spreading Democracy” while potential valuable, cannot be accomplished “defensively” by force. The two concepts are contradictory. Democracy can be proposed but not imposed.
“Spreading Democracy” must be done passively (peacefully) to be morally licit. Since not all “3” of the elements in the moral triad above are valid, the conclusion is that a preventive/pre-emptive Iraq War is unjustified morally.

J.P. Hubert Jr.

Unknown said...

Dr. Hubert,

Thanks for your response.

I tend to agree that it would usually be morally illicit to attack another country (thereby incurring the deaths of combatants & non-combatants) simply to effect regime change.

However, I do think that in the case of Iraq, the primary motive was to prevent WMDs from falling into the hands of terrorists. I think that significantly alters the moral calculus at work here.

Finally, I also think that such an action could be understood as ultimately defensive. I agree with those (like J. T. Johnson) who argue that the common presentation of Just War theory is attenuated, and leaves out several important factors, factors relevant to the Iraq War.

Fr. D.L. Jones said...

Comments for J.P. Hubert Jr. are directly below.

David: The following was left-out of the answer attributed to me that you posted and it is vital in order that the slide you posted be placed in context. In fact, I included two slides not one both of which are important. I submit this on the assumption that it will be posted in entirety… Dr. John Hubert

First, it requires that a probability calculation be carried out in which persons who are limited to the space/time manifold (3 dimensions of space and 1 or actually ½ of time) attempt to predict what “might” happen as if it already has happened, in order to justify acting in a way which is only morally licit if the action has already occurred. Such a degree of omniscience is not possible for mere mortals. If it were, we could routinely engage in all sorts of immoral and illegal behavior based on our previous experiences with certain “types” of people and situations (i.e. “life-lived”) coupled with our individual probability calculations which could be said to compel us into “preventive defense” postures such as prophylactically killing the menacing scruffy black man who approaches us at night on a deserted street. We must base our behavior on what actually is not what “seems to be” or what “seems likely to be.”

Second, upon further analysis the concept of “striking first for defensive purposes” is a contradiction in terms. Legitimate Defense “by definition” is a response we take in real/time to an actual already existent event (act of aggression). To call an act of “first strike” (which is “offensive” [belligerent hostile etc.] by the commonly understood definition of the term) defense, (protect, secure, shield) is to engage in language deconstruction; what I have e/w termed a type of metaphysical slight of hand. It is deceptive, sophistic and utilitarian rather than Socratic/Aristotelian/Thomistic. It attempts to justify as “defensive” what is actually offensive, hoping to gain unfair advantage and then rationalizing afterward. It represents a distortion of the object freely chosen "means" or proximate end that is, what we are actually choosing to do.

In any case, the entire enterprise of “preventive war” is dependent on being privy to “fore-knowledge” to which we are not given access and were warned (in scripture) against attempting to obtain. As the Iraq War has demonstrated, we can never be morally certain based only on probability calculations of potential future events.

The classic case which is always raised here is that of the enemy who has already launched their missiles or war-planes against us, in which we retaliate by destroying the war-planes and or missiles before they reach us. Such an act is morally licit since the aggressive act of hostility has already occurred. It is true that we are preventing our destruction by defending ourselves with lethal force but only after the enemy has committed an offensively aggressive act. Such an act on our part is not correctly termed preventive or pre-emptive but responsive and defensive by the commonly understood meaning of the terms. See also my essay at TCR on neoconservatism at http://www.tcrnews2.com/NeoconsHubert.html. See Tables 4 and 5 in that essay.

Also see Pope John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, 71-81, 1993. Specifically # 78 “The morality of the human act depends primarily and fundamentally on the "object" rationally chosen by the deliberate will, as is borne out by the insightful analysis, still valid today, made by Saint Thomas.” (Referencing Summa Theologiae, I-II, q.18, a. 6).

---

Mr. Burgwald’s response in my opinion is associated with several errors. First, he has misrepresented “offensive military attack” in his first sentence above. It is not "usually" but always morally illicit to attack (meaning initiate hostilities) another country, (true by constant Magisterial teaching as summarized in the JWD (outlined in the CCC # 2309) and by Rom. 3: 8 which teaches that one must not do evil that good may come of it. All assume as St. Thomas did that moral absolutes exist that is; exceptionless moral norms considered from the perspective of the moral agent’s will. These choices of the rational will are the “means” or object freely chosen in the “tripartite” moral analysis slide I included and reproduced again below. St. Thomas taught that the precepts of the Decalogue (10 commandments) are immediate that is proximate conclusions to the first principle of the natural law [do good and avoid evil] and represent moral absolutes. Revisionist theologians deny that St. Thomas affirmed the truth of moral absolutes and they are wrong, whether well intentioned or not. Pope John Paul II made this clear in his moral analysis vis a vis Veritatis splendor referred to above.

Second, the primary intent (motive) was actually to secure the U.S. against attack by a rogue state or Al Queda after presumably obtaining them from Iraq not “to prevent WMDs from falling into the hands of terrorists” as Mr. Burgwald posits. The latter presumption was based on a probability calculation only, which we now know was false since Iraq had none. The WMD “question” properly resides in # 3 of the moral analysis under “circumstances” as outlined on my slide # 5 below.

Third, Mr Burgwald incorrectly, (through language deconstruction) assigns “defense” to the moral object (means) when it properly belongs in #2 the motive or “intent.” Thus he engages in “sleight of hand” by seeming to replace “offensive first strike lethality” with “defense.”

My analysis demonstrates why such an attack (invasion of Iraq) can not be considered defensive but is in fact offensive (dependent on a probability calculation of something which has not yet occurred or many never will, and on changing the clearly accepted definition of terms (language deconstruction). Furthermore, utilitarianism/consequentialism/proportionalism is specifically repudiated by Veritatis Splendor and by St. Thomas to which Pope John Paul II specifically refers. Thus the Iraq War "justification" is an example of consequentialism (Theologically) or what secularist ethicists understand as Utilitarianism properly considered. The attempt to alter the definition of “defense” in no way changes the moral calculus.

Specifically, if one accepts Mr. Burgwald’s formulation, the “end” or intent of disarming Iraq of “presumed” WMD’s was “justified” by use of a morally illicit “means” (engaging in offensive first strike lethality, [unprovoked]) and by substituting the “natural” species of the human act for the “moral” species (see below). The actual moral choice (object) made by the rational will is to initiate offensive “first strike lethality.” This is the case because “human acts, precisely as ‘human’ or ‘moral ‘receive their ‘forms’ not from nature but from human intelligence, which places them in their moral species by discerning their ‘ends,’ ‘objects,’ and ‘circumstances.’”[1] In other words, moral acts must be considered from the perspective of their actual moral objects (“means” chosen by the rational will) their motive (intent or further “end”) and their circumstances properly identified and defined.

Second, there were numerous explanations for why the U.S. "needed" to attack Iraq in way of effecting "Regime Change." The most frequently asserted was as Mr. Burgwald contends "to prevent WMD's from falling into the hands of terrorists" which he contends "alters the moral calculus at work here." The point I have made is that upon careful analysis it may "seem to" but in fact actually "does not" alter the moral calculus due to the fact that it is based upon a probability calculation only, that Iraq possessed WMD’s and intended to make them available to suicide Terrorists). The intent (further end) remains “to make the U.S. secure against attack”, the object rationally chosen “means” or proximate “end” utilized to effect that “end” or intent is to launch a first-strike lethal attack on Iraq. The expected result is the fall of the regime and deaths of many combatants and some innocent non-combatants due to the nature of modern “high-tech” weaponry.

Many presumably well-meaning individuals have made Mr. Burgwald’s mistake with respect to properly constructing the moral calculus for War in Iraq given the circumstances which existed prior to invasion. Clearly the Magisterium did not make that error as they rejected the concept of a defensive “first-strike” attack on Iraq. They properly recognized it as an offensive attack and therefore immoral.

The author also made a similar error to the one which Mr. Burgwald made prior to invasion. After much unease and internal debate, he accepted the argument that Iraq possessed WMD’s and was poised to deliver them to Terrorists bent on attacking the U.S., recognizing that this analysis depended upon American and allied “intelligence” being accurate. As it turns out, the “intelligence” was false rendering the assumption invalid.

For the purposes of the moral analysis carried out in my essays and here however, the issue is moot, since by classical JWD doctrinal criteria as interpreted by the Magisterium and Pope’s John Paul II and Benedict XVI, invasion of Iraq would have been immoral even if WMD’s had existed there prior to invasion, but as yet unused against the U.S. There is no evidence to date that the Magisterium intends to alter the CCC or JWD criteria in such a way as to allow for “preventive” war. Quite the contrary, all evidence establishes that if anything, the Magisterium is moving toward a more restrictive application and may ultimately rule that war is immoral under any circumstances given the lethality of modern weaponry. Whether this reality is something Americans wish to acknowledge in no way changes it.

I recommend that interested readers review my essays at TCR:

“Neoconservatism, the New Stealth Worldview” at http://www.tcrnews2.com/NeoconsHubert.html.

“Proposal for Solving Iraq/Terrorism Debacle”

Return to Legitimate Defense at:
http://www.tcrnews2.com/Hubert2a.html.

“The Iraq War, A Tragic Misapplication of Just-War Theory
Or a Failure of ‘Intelligence’?” at:

http://tcrnews2.com/Hubert1.html

Table 5. The “3” Components of a Moral Decision in Preventive/Pre-emptive Iraq War*

1. Object Freely Specified (Chosen), or Proximate End, also called “Means”.

Offensive Military “First Strike Lethality” to effect Iraqi Regime Change [Neo-con’s substituted
“spreading democracy” and American “Values” in the Middle East here upon learning that no WMD’s existed in Iraq, an example of “Bait and Switch”] which is incorrect/deceptive in that accomplishing it requires a morally illicit [violent] “means” (technique or method) for dubiously “insuring” American Security (the intent). The object freely chosen is “offensive first strike lethality” from the perspective of the will’s rational choice, not “spreading democracy” in the Middle East or disarming Iraq both of which are parts of the “natural” but not “moral” species of the human act in question. [2]

What could be placed here is: [“Spreading democracy” and American “Values” in the Middle East through peaceful means as an instrumental way “means” in which to non-violently accomplish the stated “end” or intent]. Such a feely chosen object or “means” would be morally licit and the moral calculus would then be correct.

2. Intent, Motive or Further End.

Insure American Security and limit or eliminate Terrorism.

3. Circumstances or Situation.

Terrorism and Reduced Security is New 21st Century Reality. Was there WMD in Iraq pre-invasion? The allegation was that Iraq possessed WMD’s and it intended to make them available to Terrorists for attack against the U. S.

(Analysis assumes a pre-invasion perspective).

*The above demonstrates utilizing classical Aristotelian/Thomistic moral philosophical principles why “elite” neo-conservative reasoning is in error with respect to waging the Iraq War. The actual “means” employed are evil that is morally illicit since they involve choosing to inflict “first-strike” offensive lethality upon a perceived enemy (contrary to the Just War Doctrine which allows for legitimate defense only and to Rom. 3: 8). “Spreading Democracy” while potential valuable, cannot be accomplished “defensively” by force. The two concepts are contradictory. Democracy can be proposed but not imposed.
“Spreading Democracy” must be done passively (peacefully) to be morally licit. Since not all “3” of the elements in the moral triad above are valid, the conclusion is that a preventive/pre-emptive Iraq War is unjustified morally.

---

[1] May, William E. An Introduction to Moral Theology, Second Edition, (Huntington In.: Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division, 2003), p. 171.

[2] Ibid. p. 170 “To grasp properly the thought of St. Thomas and, in particular, his teaching on the absoluteness of the precepts of the Decalogue, it is essential to grasp the distinction he makes between human acts described in their ‘natural’ species and human acts considered in their ‘moral species.”

Fr. D.L. Jones said...

I've attempted to past Table 4 without any luck therefore I shall type it out.

Table 4. "3" Classical Components of a Moral Decision *

- The OBJECT freely specified [chosen] (what it's about) or proximate end (Species)** Also called "Means".

- The intent, motive or further "End" (Genus).

- The circumstances or situation

* May, William E., An Introduction to Moral Theology. 2nd Edition, Our Sunday Visitor, pp. 170-174; Aquinas held that all "3" must be licit in order for the moral act to be justified (ST 1-2, 18, entire question)
** Pope JPII, Vertitatis Splendor, 71-78. Specifically 78, which references ST I-II. a.18.a.6

Unknown said...

A few comments:

1. I deliberately included "usually" in the first sentence, and Dr. Hubert picked up on that. I did so for precisely the reason that he is critical of: there may be instances where initiating hostilities is *not* morally illicit. CCC 2309 does not say what he hopes it would: that it is always & everywhere illicit to initiate hostilities. To state that it is illicit because it's doing evil that good might come of it appears to beg the question. I absolutely agree that there are moral absolutes. But the Magisterium has not included the initiation of hostilities among them, to the best of my knowledge.

2. Dr. Hubert's point about probability calculations is a strong one. However, I think he makes too much of it. CCC 2309 states that "the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated". Can anyone say with the certitude sought after in Dr. Hubert's comments that such a situation will ever be the case, that any public authority would know in advance and with complete certitude that greater evils would not ensue? NB: I'm not saying that 2309 imposes too high of a standard; rather, I'm saying that in an analogous instance, Dr. Huber seeks too high of a standard of certitude, certitude not sought by the CCC.

3. Where did I assign defense to the moral object as opposed to the intention? Dr. Hubert assigns error where there is none.

4. The magisterium never determined that the war was/would be unjust. Certainly, JPII saw war as a defeat for humanity, but he believed that in every instance, AFAIK.

5. The crucial point in my disagreement with Dr. Hubert is #1 above. First strikes are not always morally illicit. I believe it's JT Johnson who makes the point that such a view implies a notion of absolute national sovereignty which is based not on Catholic teaching, but the politics of Westphalia. If Dr. Hubert's analysis is correct, I don't see how it would ever be licit to act against a government engaged in genocide within its own borders. Unlike other opponents of the war, Dr. Hubert does not ground his opposition to the Iraq War on the alleged lack of proper authority (i.e. the UN) but simply on the assertion that first strikes are absolutely immoral. Again, I don't think that this is the Magisterium's position, nor do I believe that such a position is a moral one itself, given examples as above.

I fully recognize that this reply is somewhat disjointed; I may attempt to present a more cogent response at my blog soon. In the meantime, though, this will have to do.

Fr. D.L. Jones said...

Dear David:

This represents my concluding set of responses to the last remarks of Mr. Burgwald. I believe this issue to be extremely important. It is necessary that we be as meticulous as possible in properly considering the moral/ethical issues involved. Therefore, I have spent a great deal of time in formulating the many answers...

John Hubert

---

Preventive War, a Violation of Just War Doctrine
Offensive “First-Strike” is always Immoral
J.P. Hubert Jr. MD FACS
Catholic Ethicist
© CCWVA

The following represents an internet exchange from David Jones web sight. The already posted entries from Mr. Burgwald are in blue, my responses are in black.

Mr. Burgwald wrote: (in Italic)

1. I deliberately included "usually" in the first sentence, and Dr. Hubert picked up on that. I did so for precisely the reason that he is critical of: there may be instances where initiating hostilities is *not* morally illicit. CCC 2309 does not say what he hopes it would: that it is always & everywhere illicit to initiate hostilities.

There is no other logical conclusion since the entire section is entitled “Avoiding War.” The CCC makes it clear that War can only be morally licit if it is “defensive”. We know that defense by definition is not offense (initiating hostilities) by the law of non-contradiction. It is incumbent upon the individual who contends that the CCC section allows for “initiating hostilities” to demonstrate it which has not and can not be done while adhering to first principles.

To state that it is illicit because it's doing evil that good might come of it appears to beg the question.

Not if we utilize the commonly accepted definition of terms for defense, offense, and aggression as the CCC does. Only if one engages in language deconstruction is it possible to argue “begging the question.”

I absolutely agree that there are moral absolutes. But the Magisterium has not included the initiation of hostilities among them, to the best of my knowledge.

Mr. Burgwald is simple wrong about that. The Magisterium has never advocated “initiating hostilities” since it would not be compatible with "legitimate defense." That means they have effectively ruled out "initiating hostilities" since it is impossible to prove a universal negative. They might some day but it appears exxxxtremely unlikely in the future due to the fact that the Magisterium has become more not less restrictive about the use of war as a means to solve problems. The entire 20th century record of Papal pronouncements on war establishes this and the Second Vatican Council accepted it. The record so far in the 21st century is in the direction of further restricting it if not outright banning all war. See Pope Benedict’s pronouncements in that regard.

Furthermore, the CCC section devoted to War is entitled: "Avoiding War" not initiating hostilities. In reading CCC #'s 2307-2317 one finds nothing about initiating hostilities even in cases of Genocide (which it does not specifically address), but rather the contrary, avoiding hostilities. The JWD principles (according to the CCC) must all be applicable in a situation where legitimate "defense" is being considered. “Initiating hostilities" is conspicuously absent from the CCC’s consideration of legitimate defense and “Avoiding War.” Thus the entire section and specifically # 2309 supports my position and provides absolute silence with respect to Mr. Burgwald’s position.

Genocide is a unique case which represents an "aggressive attack" on an entire race or ethnic group. The entity in question is morally justified in defending against it by the principles of the JWD. If a functional peace-keeping universal entity exists (such as the U.N) whose province it is to help defend against unjust aggression including Genocide, then such a defense is morally licit (by the second law of Christ) if the entity in question is unable to repel the aggressor without it. The Magisterium supports such an action if it is advocated by a properly responsible international body. This is supportable on the basis of mercy (love) if not in justice. Importantly, the defensive action is a response to the unjust aggression of Genocide. Any unilateral such action would be more problematic however but that is a fine-point not in question here.

2. Dr. Hubert's point about probability calculations is a strong one.

Thank you.

However, I think he makes too much of it. CCC 2309 states that "the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated". Can anyone say with the certitude sought after in Dr. Hubert's comments that such a situation will ever be the case that any public authority would know in advance and with complete certitude that greater evils would not ensue? NB: I'm not saying that 2309 imposes too high of a standard; rather, I'm saying that in an analogous instance, Dr. Hubert seeks too high of a standard of certitude, certitude not sought by the CCC.

Not True. Absolute cognitive certainty is not possible for mortals in this world other than in the realm of Divine Revelation. In science for example, we accept a “proof practical” standard since it is impossible to be 100% certain of anything in the material realm."[1] The prudential calculation which must be made here is one of “moral certainty” that is, certainty to a reasonable degree or “proof practical.” The fact that CCC # 2309 requires all “4” of the JWD conditions to be fulfilled in order for a military response to constitute a morally licit one that is; a “legitimately” defensive one, indicates that the Magisterium does expect that such an analysis can and will be carried out to at least a reasonable doubt standard (moral certainty). In that specific regard, Pope John Paul II warned that an invasion of Iraq would unleash forces which could not be controlled. He had indeed made just such a moral calculation based on the assembled evidence.

3. Where did I assign defense to the moral object as opposed to the intention? Dr. Hubert assigns error where there is none.

Mr. Burgwald has written that the “intent” or motive was to prevent WMD’s from falling into the hands of terrorists. In my remarks I outlined how the actual “moral” not natural intent was to secure the U.S. from Terrorism or at least to lessen the likelihood of it (since to intend it is a morally (defensive) licit motive. By incorrectly positing the “intent” Mr. Burgwald effectively places it in the object or “means.” In other words, that is the effect of mistakenly thinking that the “intent” or further “end” is to “prevent WMD’s from being given to Terrorists” which is actually a “natural” (instrumental) not “moral” one (from the perspective of genus and species) given that it cannot be accomplished in Mr. Burgwald’s proposition without offensive action. Thus it becomes part of the object freely chosen (means) no longer the intent, a direct result of failing to properly construct the moral analysis. That is why it involves metaphysical “slight of hand” or forgivable ignorance.

To recapitulate then Mr. Burgwald’s “intent” is actually to secure the U.S .against further Terrorist attack and his “means” is really invasion of Iraq due to his belief that Iraq possessed WMD’s which were about to be supplied to Terrorists. By improperly identifying the actual intent (motive) and means (object), Mr. Burgwald renders the tri-partite moral analysis defective.

Looked at from a slightly different perspective; securing the U.S. against possible aggression or at least making it less likely is the correct “moral” intent, not a problem in itself. Nor is identifying the correct set of circumstances, which include the existence of 21st century suicide Terrorism and the possibility of WMD’s existing in Iraq. The problem is that the “means” (object rationally chosen) proposed are illicit that is, “offensive first-strike invasion” of Iraq is morally illicit since it is not “defensive” but offensive considered from the perspective of the “moral” species. Since not all “3” elements of the moral analysis are morally licit, the conclusion is that preventive invasion of Iraq is morally unjust.

4. "The magisterium never determined that the war was/would be unjust. Certainly, JPII saw war as a defeat for humanity, but he believed that in every instance, AFAIK"

I don't know if Mr. Burgwald is unaware that JPII sent a Vatican Cardinal to relay his opposition to President Bush prior to invasion, (Pio Laghi). Pope Benedict XVI's stated that the Iraq War was unjust; “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'.” ----Cardinal Ratzinger, Zenit May 2, 2003, (he has even stated that the concept of “preventive war” is not in the CCC). It seems impossible to me that the Magisterium has not definitively spoken on this issue. I don't know what more they could do short of an encyclical or ex-Cathedra pronouncement. I am unaware of any Vatican representative who spoke favorably about the Iraq invasion. Clearly none accepted the concept of a preventive war.

5. The crucial point in my disagreement with Dr. Hubert is #1 above. First strikes are not always morally illicit. I believe it's JT Johnson who makes the point that such a view implies a notion of absolute national sovereignty which is based not on Catholic teaching, but the politics of Westphalia. If Dr. Hubert's analysis is correct, I don't see how it would ever be licit to act against a government engaged in genocide within its own borders.

Yes my position is that offensive military "first strikes" are always morally illicit by virtue of the principles of the JWD particularly as outlined in the CCC and in view of Magisterial teaching on this subject over the past several decades which is all in the direction of avoiding war not justifying it in certain circumstances.[2] CCC #2309 refers to the 4 principles/conditions which must all exist in order for a case of legitimate "defense" by military force to be made. Since there is nothing in the CCC 2307-2317 which allows for "initiating hostilities", or anywhere else in Magisterial teaching for that matter, it is obvious that there is nothing in the CCC or Catholic teaching on War that would lead one to believe there are situations where an offensive first strike is indicated or morally licit. All the weight of evidence is in the other direction that is, against Mr. Burgwald’s position.

More importantly, the Iraq War fails to meet all 4 of the Just War Doctrinal Criteria and can be deemed immoral on that basis alone. Contrary to what Mr. Burgwald alleges above, I do not ground the immorality of the Iraq War in the moral illicitness of first-strike attack alone although that is sufficient. It is also immoral because at least "2" of the other "4" JWD conditions were not met (#'s 1, & 2 for certain and #'s 3 & 4 are either extremely problematic or actually not met).

As indicated above, Genocide is a special case which is not applicable to the question at hand and is covered under JWD doctrine since the Genocide itself represents an unjust aggression (attack). Certainly those individuals being subjected to it within their borders are morally justified to mount a legitimate defense against it and Mr Burgwald's objection is incomprehensible to me.

Unlike other opponents of the war, Dr. Hubert does not ground his opposition to the Iraq War on the alleged lack of proper authority (i.e. the UN) but simply on the assertion that first strikes are absolutely immoral.

It is not necessary to invoke the UN in order to demonstrate that the Iraq War is unjust, although a legitimate case can be made that if the U.S. agreed to abide by the U.N Charter, which it did, it has the obligation to honor that agreement. That meant not going to war without a specific resolution to do so, which the U.S. and its allies did not have. No one forced the U.S. to sign the U.N charter, a point made by the late Pope John Paul II.

Again, I don't think that this is the Magisterium's position, nor do I believe that such a position is a moral one itself, given examples as above.

It is clear that the Magisterium does not now and has never accepted the concept of a “preventive war” i.e. the “initiating of hostilities” and that for the multiple reasons I have elucidated, preventive war including the Iraq War is immoral. The example of Genocide proves my argument not Mr. Burgwald’s since it represents unjust aggression.

I thank Mr. Burgwald for raising the issues he did. It is useful to consider in detail the objections which have been and are still being made against the Magisterium’s position on the Iraq War and those of us who have been making the ethical case that it is morally unjust.

[1] See Gödel’s’ theorems and Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle.
[2] G.S. # 79, paragraph 4; “…it is one thing to wage a war of self-defense; it is quite another to seek to impose domination on another nation”; G.S. # 80, paragraph 2, “All these factors force us to undertake a completely fresh appraisal of war; Pope John XXIII, Pacem in Terris, 1963 “Therefore in this age of ours, which prides itself on its atomic power, it is irrational to think that war is a proper way to obtain justice for violated rights.” No reference to initiating hostilities is found in any of these.

Fr. D.L. Jones said...

Chris responds to John's comments on his blog - Iraq: A Just War?

Fr. D.L. Jones said...

Is the War in Iraq as it's being conducted just (ius in bello)? Consider for example the following story.

Fr. D.L. Jones said...

Refer to TCR Musings. Chris responds to the Musings on his post above.