Thanks, bro.

• The gun is a toy.
• The gun while real, has no bullets.
• The gun while real, and the bullet while real, is a dud.
• The gun while real, with real bullets, can do me serious damage.

The Just and reasoned response to the situation is different for each of the different possibilities above – but if a police officer were to come on the scene at that moment what would they assume – and how would they respond?

Now, lets flesh out the scenario – let’s say that prior to the scene above, you’ve heard that ‘someone’ proclaim to the world how much they hate you and your family, and you saw the ‘someone’ load the gun in your presence (and show you additional boxes of ammo that they have available), then they proceed to use the gun to kill your spouse and children before your eyes. What does that do to your list of assumptions?

This is the situation with Israel and Hamas. Hamas has continually loaded the gun – has continuously used the gun to bring destruction to those around you – and is continuing to hold the gun to Israels head.

From there, should you

• Plead for them to put the gun down – for now?
• Plead for them to shoot the next guy – not you?
• Plead for them to stop loading the gun?
• Hope that a sniper takes them out before they take you out – and STOPS THEM FOR GOOD?

http://greensrealworld.blogspot.com/2009/01/far-left-loves-hamas-terrorists.html

But that simply isn’t the case. The lynchpin of the Catholic just war doctrine is the judgment and decision of the legitimate leader of a just, sovereign nation. That leader evaluates everything and makes a call. How well he evaluates the situation and the conditions, including those you discuss above, is between him and his advisors, and, ultimately, between him and God. You and I can opine all we like, but whether the threat is grave enough, whether there is a reasonable chance of success, whether the harm inflicted will be less than the harm sustained, etc., are all judgment calls left to the one(s) qualified, elected, in position to make that judgment.

You know just enough about Catholicism to get all hot and bothered by the partial explanations you’ve received and/or sought out (and bolt when you didn’t like them), but you don’t know enough actually to know the Church from within and fully understand her. I find that a common theme amongst “I was raised Catholic, but…” types.

Two quotes come to mind in re: your last line: “Catholicism has rarely been tried and found lacking, but it has frequently been found hard and not tried at all.” And “I know very few people who dislike the Catholic Church, but I know many who dislike what they mistakenly believe the Church to be.”

Peace.

Whether the criteria have been met is left to the judgment of the legitimate leader of a just, sovereign nation. That’s the little-noted final part of the just war doctrine.

In a monarchy, that would be the king. In a democracy or republic, it’s up to the duly elected public officials empowered and charged with the common defense/good. So the final decision of whether or not the criteria have been met is up to the PM of Israel, just as the invasion of Iraq was up to President Bush, and not to Pope Benedict or John Paul II.

http://catholicism.about.com/od/thechurchintheworld/f/popes_on_iraq.htm

Even those who choose to stare at their navel all day, and according to you ignore the good that God does. Those exact attitudes and opinions sir is exactly why I no longer consider myself a Catholic.

“It is obviously necessary to combat accusations that a nation is violating the laws of war for having the temerity to defend itself. Yet in doing so we often fail to question a central assumption of the lawfare crowd; that the conduct of war should be subject to a hairsplitting recitation of legal niceties, that the justness of a nation’s conduct in defending itself should not revolve around issues of morality or commonsense, but rather whether this conduct meets a supposed legal definition enumerated in an antiquated section of a particular international convention or military code. This is not a challenge to the vital importance of the laws of war per se, nor an argument that a nation should intentionally violate them, but a concern that questions of war and self-defense not be reduced to a purely juridical discussion of legal definitions and interpretations. It is precisely such a misapplication of the laws of war that the lawfare crowd attempts to effect. In meeting their criticisms, it is important that we do not thoughtlessly accept the framework upon which their entire line argument depends; that there is a clear, unambiguous body of well defined legal principles that control the practice of war, and that the sole justification of any military action is not whether it is right or wrong in the moral sense, not the real world consequences and costs of doing otherwise, not the practical realities that govern a nation’s ability to survive and protect its people, but rather whether a certain military action meets a certain alleged legal definition, consequences be damned.”

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/totten/48801?cp=6 (comment by ian)

Secondly, while as a Catholic I appreciate your giving credit to the Church on this one (since the earliest extensive formulations of JWD were formulated by Church theologians, e.g. Augustine and Aquinas, that’s not even needed.

Surprising as it may be to some (though less to others with an understanding of the Left’s hijacking of Church doctrine), secular ethicists have jumped on the Just War idea and it is now its own philosophically viable theory separate from any “inconvenient” religious ties. For example, the Left cited the secular Just War Doctrine against the Iraq War to redundancy as if the doctrine were something assumed inherent in all rational people.

It’s always those who cannot think critically who try to steal others’ ideas and represent them within their own framework, not realizing that the ideas were formulated within a specific philosophical framework that enhances and explains the ideas better than any other (and yes this applies to any issue hijacked by the Left, including birth control).

Thanks for the great post.

(A rhetorical question, really, since it would be a threadjack if this was seriously pursued here…)

God helps everyone; those who don’t screw themselves up with regularity because they are focused squarely on their own navel notice it better because they aren’t working against and ignoring God’s incessant attempts to help.

And in circles like RedState, where there is more than one knowledgeable and committed (and happily so) Catholic involved, “I know I was raised a Catholic” [sic] falls a wee bit short of compelling grounds for a trustworthy testimonial.

All that aside, Neil’s post is, IMHO, spot-on with regard to Catholic just war doctrine and Israel’s current situation… I’m likely a decent interlocutor in this one: I studied Catholic just war doctrine during my three years in seminary.

As far as the Catholic views of war, they also don’t believe in birth control either, everything is in God’s hands, I know I was raised a Catholic. I prefer to believe that God helps those that help themselves. Israel is helping itself.