It's Iimi! Doomed to Fail?

In logic class, Iimi finds herself the center of attention as they focus on the war in the Gaza Strip. Can she convince the class to look beyond assumptions towards what must be done in a just war? Or will the class falsely assume she is "pro-Hamas" and leave her mission… Doomed to Fail?

Pre-Comic Notes:

This comic concerns the Catholic moral teaching of war and peace. This is not always easy to see in the face of heinous evil. Yes, Hamas must be condemned. Terrorism is never justified. But it is easy to fall into the temptations of "If you're not 100% on my side, you're 100% on theirs!" and "They deserve what happens to them!" But not all Palestinians are guilty, and not all responses are morally acceptable under the teaching of Just War.

So, if anyone thinks I have equated the crimes of Hamas with the morally questionable acts of Israel, they have misunderstood my point entirely.

I began scripting the comic roughly the third day (10/10) after the terrorist attacks and finished the comic on 10/15. Netanyahu had announced Israel was at war. Reservists were called up, and Gaza was encircled and cut off. Hamas and Israel were exchanging rocket and artillery fire. Israel told the Palestinians living in North Gaza to evacuate. But there were no significant ground conflicts yet. Since the comic was finalized, the bombing of the Gaza hospital happened. It would have been discussed with the changing perspectives of what happened and the assumptions made. Certainly Pope Francis calling for a day of fasting and prayer would have been discussed. The issues of refugees and aid convoys could have been added as well.

I was surprised that, as of the night before this comic was to be published, the invasion had not happened yet. May God guide those involved to seek a just peace.

Post-Comic Notes:

The reference to the male witnesses at the detective agency comes from the Islamic rules on the testimony of female witnesses having half the value of male witnesses. While Abu Dhabi has decreed that the testimony of men and women have equal weight, lawyers in the Emirates still advise that if the case involves Muslims, there should be a minimum of two male or one male and two female witnesses.

The price Sumeja was quoted was based on the websites I found belonging to Private Investigators in Dubai. Believe it or not, you can buy gold in certain ATMs in the UAE.

Art Credits:

This comic was a bit of an experiment. To reflect the dangerous mood of the real world, I used dark and menacing wallpapers behind the comic pages.

The Cover is AI. I had an additional reason this time. Given the loss of life in this conflict, I did not want to use an actual picture of the destruction. Doing so would seem disrespectful to the innocent among the people killed in the terrorist attacks and response.

The cover is framed by a page design by Figu-Design.

The street scenes of Sharjah on pages 13 and 16 and the house scenes on pages 17 and 18 are done by AI.

Page 3, 5, 7, 18 Wallpaper Backgrounds: Publisher's Choice Quality Stock Art © Rick Hershey/Fat Goblin Games.

Page 8: The chains wallpaper © John Buckley, used with permission. The additional top and bottom decoration by Figu-Design

Page 16: The gold frame frame is © John Buckley, used with permission.

 All other page wallpapers are by Figu-Design.

Once Again, The Blind Try to Lead the Blind: Reflection on the Rejection of Fratelli Tutti

St. Augustine, in his prologue to the work Christian Instruction describes a situation that very much sounds like what Pope Francis is going through… being criticized by people who do not understand either the teaching or the basis behind it:

Some will censure my work because they have failed to comprehend those principles of which I shall treat. Others, when they have desired to employ the principles which they have learned and have endeavored to explain the Sacred Scriptures according to these principles, but have failed to disclose and elucidate what they want, will think that I have labored uselessly; and, because they themselves have not been aided by this work, will think that no one could profit from it. The third category of critics comprises those who either actually interpret Scripture well, or seem to in their own estimation. These observe, or think they observe, that they have gained the ability to explain sacred writings, although they have studied none of the regulations of the sort that I have now determined to recommend. Accordingly, they will protest that those principles are essential to no one, but that whatever is convincingly revealed about the obscurities of those writings could be achieved more effectively by divine assistance alone.

—St. Augustine (Christian Instruction)

 Another Papal document, another round of dissent from certain Catholics alleging it is rank heresy. If ever there was an example of the adage, a little knowledge is dangerous, this is it.

The Holy Father’s encyclical, Fratelli Tutti, is a document that reminds us of our obligations under the Golden Rule and the Great Commandment. While written as an appeal to all people of good will, it is just as binding on us Catholics as any other Papal teaching. But those Catholics who want to reject the Pope (schism) or do not like his teaching (dissent) have twisted certain points in it to allege he is openly promoting heresy. In doing so, they are not only behaving dishonestly (whether deliberately or through vincible ignorance), but they show that they do not even understand the Catholic teachings they accuse the Pope of violating.

I plan to discuss the two most widely repeated claims that these anti-Francis Catholics make against the Pope and his encyclical. First, that he has denied the right to private property. Second, that he has rejected the Church teaching on just war. Both claims are false.

Fratelli Tutti and Private Property

The first claim—widely repeated in the secular media—is that the Pope has denied the right to private property. The problem is, this is not even an close as a paraphrase of what he said.

Pope Francis discusses this in three paragraphs (118-120):

118. The world exists for everyone, because all of us were born with the same dignity. Differences of colour, religion, talent, place of birth or residence, and so many others, cannot be used to justify the privileges of some over the rights of all. As a community, we have an obligation to ensure that every person lives with dignity and has sufficient opportunities for his or her integral development.

119. In the first Christian centuries, a number of thinkers developed a universal vision in their reflections on the common destination of created goods. This led them to realize that if one person lacks what is necessary to live with dignity, it is because another person is detaining it. Saint John Chrysostom summarizes it in this way: “Not to share our wealth with the poor is to rob them and take away their livelihood. The riches we possess are not our own, but theirs as well”.[92] In the words of Saint Gregory the Great, “When we provide the needy with their basic needs, we are giving them what belongs to them, not to us”.

120. Once more, I would like to echo a statement of Saint John Paul II whose forcefulness has perhaps been insufficiently recognized: “God gave the earth to the whole human race for the sustenance of all its members, without excluding or favouring anyone”. For my part, I would observe that “the Christian tradition has never recognized the right to private property as absolute or inviolable, and has stressed the social purpose of all forms of private property”. The principle of the common use of created goods is the “first principle of the whole ethical and social order”; it is a natural and inherent right that takes priority over others.[97] All other rights having to do with the goods necessary for the integral fulfilment of persons, including that of private property or any other type of property, should – in the words of Saint Paul VI – “in no way hinder [this right], but should actively facilitate its implementation”. The right to private property can only be considered a secondary natural right, derived from the principle of the universal destination of created goods. This has concrete consequences that ought to be reflected in the workings of society. Yet it often happens that secondary rights displace primary and overriding rights, in practice making them irrelevant.

Critics seized on one line “The right to private property can only be considered a secondary natural right, derived from the principle of the universal destination of created goods” and interpreted it as denying the right to private property. But they failed to recognize that this line is not a Marxist principle, but a Catholic teaching. We do have a right to private property. But we must make use of it for our brothers and sisters in the sense that the Good Samaritan made use of his property for the good of others in need. St. John Paul II made this point in his encyclical Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (#42):

It is necessary to state once more the characteristic principle of Christian social doctrine: the goods of this world are originally meant for all. The right to private property is valid and necessary, but it does not nullify the value of this principle. Private property, in fact, is under a “social mortgage,” which means that it has an intrinsically social function, based upon and justified precisely by the principle of the universal destination of goods. Likewise, in this concern for the poor, one must not overlook that special form of poverty which consists in being deprived of fundamental human rights, in particular the right to religious freedom and also the right to freedom of economic initiative.

Moreover, the Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us the same thing:

2404 “In his use of things man should regard the external goods he legitimately owns not merely as exclusive to himself but common to others also, in the sense that they can benefit others as well as himself.” The ownership of any property makes its holder a steward of Providence, with the task of making it fruitful and communicating its benefits to others, first of all his family. (307)

2405 Goods of production—material or immaterial—such as land, factories, practical or artistic skills, oblige their possessors to employ them in ways that will benefit the greatest number. Those who hold goods for use and consumption should use them with moderation, reserving the better part for guests, for the sick and the poor.

2406 Political authority has the right and duty to regulate the legitimate exercise of the right to ownership for the sake of the common good. (1903)

As we can see, this was not a new teaching by Pope Francis. Catholics who think this is an endorsement of “Marxism” urgently need to revisit the teachings about our obligations to others.

Has Fratelli Tutti Cancelled the Just War Doctrine?

The next issue to consider is the issue of Just War. Critics seem to rely on their own interpretation—or more likely a favored media source—of #258, where it reads:

258. War can easily be chosen by invoking all sorts of allegedly humanitarian, defensive or precautionary excuses, and even resorting to the manipulation of information. In recent decades, every single war has been ostensibly “justified”. The Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks of the possibility of legitimate defence by means of military force, which involves demonstrating that certain “rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy”[239] have been met. Yet it is easy to fall into an overly broad interpretation of this potential right. In this way, some would also wrongly justify even “preventive” attacks or acts of war that can hardly avoid entailing “evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated”.[240] At issue is whether the development of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and the enormous and growing possibilities offered by new technologies, have granted war an uncontrollable destructive power over great numbers of innocent civilians. The truth is that “never has humanity had such power over itself, yet nothing ensures that it will be used wisely”.[241] We can no longer think of war as a solution, because its risks will probably always be greater than its supposed benefits. In view of this, it is very difficult nowadays to invoke the rational criteria elaborated in earlier centuries to speak of the possibility of a “just war”. Never again war![242]

Following the same playbook they used when criticizing Amoris Lætia, they take a footnote (242) and turn it into a doctrine while ignoring the section the footnote references. The footnote reads, “Saint Augustine, who forged a concept of “just war” that we no longer uphold in our own day, also said that ‘it is a higher glory still to stay war itself with a word, than to slay men with the sword, and to procure or maintain peace by peace, not by war’ (Epistola 229, 2: PL 33, 1020).” Critics take the first phrase in that sentence and act as if was rejecting the past teaching on War. But what the critics do not consider is how both warfare and the justification of it has changed. Modern warfare is indiscriminately destructive of the innocent and leaves them in bad conditions after victory is declared. Consider the case of Christians in Iraq for example. So, do we no longer follow St. Augustine? That should be obvious. The teaching has been further developed since then. So, we cannot appeal to his version against that further development^†.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church lists conditions of Just War:

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time: (2243; 1897)

— 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.

Critics tend to emphasize the first and third conditions while neglecting the second and fourth. In modern times, the decision is made to go to war, and we strike at the most advantageous moment, while the disorders produced are treated as unavoidable and therefore irrelevant. But unless we meet all of these conditions, what we have is not a just war.

Let us be aware: we no longer see governments leaving war until a last resort. Now we do preemptive strikes and launch cruise missiles at our enemies to strike them by surprise, which some Catholics defend. And, of course, on the anniversaries of the use of nuclear weapons in Japan, we will invariably see some Catholic defend their usage even though the Church itself has always opposed it.

What the critics do not understand is, The Pope hasn’t abandoned past teaching on Just War. He is deploring the fact that we no longer follow it, even though we label every war we favor “just.”

Conclusion

This is just a brief overview of the problems with the objections. It is more in depth than the manga version I created earlier, but critiquing the critics can be done in greater depth still and cover more issues. 

But the ultimate thing to remember when faced with the attacks on Fratelli Tutti is this: Not only are the critics of the Pope wrong about what he said, they’re wrong about what they think the teaching is supposed to be. 

We have a Pope and bishops—successors to the Apostles—to whom Jesus Christ given the authority to teach in a binding manner, even if it is not done ex cathedra. When they do teach the entire Church (and an encyclical is such a teaching), we are bound to obey^§ such teachings. Those critics who say that the Pope and bishops in communion with him teach error do not have such authority to teach in opposition, even if they are bishops or cardinals themselves^*. 

As a result, we need to be aware that these critics who claim to be more Catholic than the Pope are nothing more than blind guides. Following them will lead to ruin. We have an obligation to learn what the Pope intends to teach, not insert (eisegesis) our own preconceived notions over that actual teaching.

______________________

(†) Critics have done this for years over the Church teaching on social justice, appealing to an earlier version that does not mention a later abuse against a later version that does. Like critics today, they think that a development is a contradiction.

(‡) If you do not have the internet, you would not be able to read this anyway.

(§) Canon 752-753:

CAN. 752† Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

CAN. 753† Although the bishops who are in communion with the head and members of the college, whether individually or joined together in conferences of bishops or in particular councils, do not possess infallibility in teaching, they are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the Christian faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops.

(*) In such a case a bishop or cardinal would only be giving his own opinion, not a binding Church teaching.

If We Compromise Our Own Morality, We Become Like Them

The terrorists attacks in Paris were a terrible thing. That is undeniable. It also seems we cannot put off the task of opposing ISIS any longer. It seems nobody is debating these things. Even the Holy Father has condemned these attacks. So we’re all on the same page that what we are discussing. But I am seeing some of my fellow Catholics say things that seem to indicate that they think that the fact that these terrorists have done evil means we can do anything we want to them and it will be justified. We must realize that any military response to these terrorists requires us to behave according to our moral beliefs about war. That’s common sense. If we decide “anything goes,” then we really have nothing to say to the terrorists who already use “anything goes” as their tactic. 

The Catholic Church has a lot to say on the topic of Just War:

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time: (2243; 1897)

— 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 for the common good.

 

 Catholic Church, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Ed. (Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference, 2000), 556.

The Compendium of Social Doctrine of the Church, says something very similar:

500. A war of aggression is intrinsically immoral. In the tragic case where such a war breaks out, leaders of the State that has been attacked have the right and the duty to organize a defence even using the force of arms. To be licit, the use of force must correspond to certain strict conditions: “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 for the common good”.

If this responsibility justifies the possession of sufficient means to exercise this right to defence, States still have the obligation to do everything possible “to ensure that the conditions of peace exist, not only within their own territory but throughout the world”. It is important to remember that “it is one thing to wage a war of self-defence; it is quite another to seek to impose domination on another nation. The possession of war potential does not justify the use of force for political or military objectives. Nor does the mere fact that war has unfortunately broken out mean that all is fair between the warring parties”.¹⁰⁵²
 

 Catholic Church, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2014).

As I see it, the damage caused by ISIS is certain, lasting and grave. Other means of preventing the evil do have been shown to be ineffective. The only debatable issue seems to be over whether we can have serious prospects of success (as opposed to a quagmire). If we’re going to do this, we need to be committed to doing it right, as opposed to leaving a land in ruins only to have to do it all over again in 10 years time.

But, even though we have what looks like a just cause for a war, in my opinion, we are not permitted to conduct that war in a way which produces evils worse than whatever is to be eliminated. We are not permitted to sow indiscriminate destruction with the intent of wiping out all the terrorist leaders and fighters. While accidental killing of the civilian may be unavoidable, we must conduct ourselves in such a way as to avoid it as much as possible. If it ever becomes the goal of the attack, or happens because we are indiscriminate on our part in carrying out the attack, the action is not justified, but is evil instead.

That means we have the responsibility to undertake any military action in such a way that we do not act to punish the innocent along with the guilty. While it seems to me, we have the just cause for starting a war, our obligation continues in our conduct at war and how we handle the post-war. We’re not free to turn these places into a wasteland or a nuclear slag pit and then go on our way, leaving the survivors to dig their own way out. We’re not free to target all Muslims or all Arabs for the sins of some. Our strategy has to have a just purpose for war, a just behavior in war and a just conclusion at the end of the war.

So let us be aware of this obligation as we speak out about this vile act of terrorism and call for our leaders to act. Let us make sure that our actions reflect our beliefs and do not assume that we are now free to use any and all means in response.

___________________________

For the reader’s consideration, here is what St. Thomas Aquinas has had to say about Just War:

First Article

Whether it is Always Sinful to wage War?

We proceed thus to the First Article:—
 

Objection 1. It seems that it is always sinful to wage war. Because punishment is not inflicted except for sin. Now those who wage war are threatened by Our Lord with punishment, according to Matth. 26:52: All that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Therefore all wars are unlawful.

Obj. 2. Further, Whatever is contrary to a Divine precept is a sin. But war is contrary to a Divine precept, for it is written (Matth. 5:39): But I say to you not to resist evil; and (Rom. 12:19): Not revenging yourselves, my dearly beloved, but give place unto wrath. Therefore war is always sinful.

Obj. 3. Further, Nothing, except sin, is contrary to an act of virtue. But war is contrary to peace. Therefore war is always a sin.

Obj. 4. Further, The exercise of a lawful thing is itself lawful, as is evident in scientific exercises. But warlike exercises which take place in tournaments are forbidden by the Church, since those who are slain in these trials are deprived of ecclesiastical burial. Therefore it seems that war is a sin in itself.

 

On the contrary, Augustine says in a sermon on the son of the centurion (cf. Ep. ad Marccl., cxxxviii.): If the Christian Religion forbade war altogether, those who sought salutary advice in the Gospel would rather have been counselled to cast aside their arms, and to give up soldiering altogether. On the contrary, they were told: ‘Do violence to no man; … and be content with your pay.’* If he commanded them to be content with their pay, he did not forbid soldiering.

 

I answer that, In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary. First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged. For it is not the business of a private individual to declare war, because he can seek for redress of his rights from the tribunal of his superior. Moreover it is not the business of a private individual to summon together the people, which has to be done in wartime. And as the care of the common weal is committed to those who are in authority, it is their business to watch over the common weal of the city, kingdom or province subject to them. And just as it is lawful for them to have recourse to the sword in defending that common weal against internal disturbances, when they punish evil-doers, according to the words of the Apostle (Rom. 13:4): He beareth not the sword in vain: for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil; so too, it is their business to have recourse to the sword of war in defending the common weal against external enemies. Hence it is said to those who are in authority (Ps. 81:4): Rescue the poor: and deliver the needy out of the hand of the sinner; and for this reason Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii.): The natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority.

 

Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault. Wherefore Augustine says (Q. X., super Jos.): A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly.

 

Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil. Hence Augustine says (De Verb. Dom.*): True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandisement, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good. For it may happen that the war is declared by the legitimate authority, and for a just cause, and yet be rendered unlawful through a wicked intention. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii.): The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and suchlike things, all these are rightly condemned in war.

 

Reply Obj. 1. As Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii.): To take the sword is to arm oneself in order to take the life of anyone, without the command or permission of superior or lawful authority. On the other hand, to have recourse to the sword (as a private person) by the authority of the sovereign or judge, or (as a public person) through zeal for justice, and by the authority, so to speak, of God, is not to take the sword, but to use it as commissioned by another, wherefore it does not deserve punishment. And yet even those who make sinful use of the sword are not always slain with the sword, yet they always perish with their own sword, because, unless they repent, they are punished eternally for their sinful use of the sword.

 

Reply Obj. 2. Suchlike precepts, as Augustine observes (De Serm. Dom. in Monte i.), should always be borne in readiness of mind, so that we be ready to obey them, and, if necessary, to refrain from resistance or self-defence. Nevertheless it is necessary sometimes for a man to act otherwise for the common good, or for the good of those with whom he is fighting. Hence Augustine says (Ep. ad Marcellin.): Those whom we have to punish with a kindly severity, it is necessary to handle in many ways against their will. For when we are stripping a man of the lawlessness of sin, it is good for him to be vanquished, since nothing is more hopeless than the happiness of sinners, whence arises a guilty impunity, and an evil will, like an internal enemy.

 

Reply Obj. 3. Those who wage war justly aim at peace, and so they are not opposed to peace, except to the evil peace, which Our Lord came not to send upon earth (Matth. 10:34). Hence Augustine says (Ep. ad Bonif. clxxxix.): We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace. Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may vanquish those whom you war against, and bring them to the prosperity of peace.

 

Reply Obj. 4. Manly exercises in warlike feats of arms are not all forbidden, but those which are inordinate and perilous, and end in slaying or plundering. In olden times warlike exercises presented no such danger, and hence they were called exercises of arms or bloodless wars, as Jerome states in an epistle (cf. Veget.,—De Re Milit. i.).

(STh., II-II q.40 a.1) 

 

 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (London: Burns Oates & Washbourne, n.d.).