Juan Pablo I ETHICAL USE OF FORCE
1. Peace
2. Public policy and judicial function
3. Purpose penalties
4. Death Penalty
5. War
6. Civil War
7. War subversion
8. Conclusion violence
2. Public policy and judicial function
3. Purpose penalties
4. Death Penalty
5. War
6. Civil War
7. War subversion
8. Conclusion violence
1. Peace
violence can not be described any use of force. Violence is the unjust use of force-physical, psychological and moral in order to deprive a person of property you are entitled, or force him to do what is contrary to free will, to his ideals its interests. Violence hinders peace , which is the "tranquility of order ", according to St. Augustine. Therefore, all what is done to avoid clutter helps to maintain or restore peace and prevent violence.
To ensure peace is necessary: \u200b\u200bto safeguard the assets of persons, free communication between human beings, respect for the dignity of persons and peoples, and the assiduous practice of fraternity. It is the work of justice and the effect of charity.
2. Public policy and judicial function
To maintain peace in society, the State, through its courts, must:
a) settle contentious disputes and define situations arising from conflicting interests among the people; such is called civil and commercial justice;
b) prosecute and punish the violator of the law; that criminal justice and correctional
c) resolving disputes between individuals and government agencies, such contentious administrative justice;
To this end, we need also a police force, that seeks to avoid violence and repression have the means of material.
The State is the manager of the common good, this mission gives rise to a public authority the power to punish and coerce those who obstruct and hinder the realization of the common good. Therefore, the authority may impose penalties physical mal who violate the law, by need of the society to defend itself against unjust aggressors and disturbers of public order.
accordance with the natural right of every man to legal certainty, the authority must comply with these guidelines:
a) no resident will be punished if it is not under prior law the crime or offense charged;
b) has to substantiate a procedure that is given opportunity to defend the accused;
c) the penalty must be in relation to the crime or offense.
3. Purpose penalties
The State, in applying appropriate penalties for the offenses, must search for multiple purposes: medicinal ►
: ensure that the offender be amended and refitted to live in society;
► vindictive, punishing the crime itself, restoring justice violated by Atonement committed the penalty;
► copy : tell the rest of the population which will be the end of the offenders, disrupting public order.
Some modern penal theory, rooted in positivist-ej. " garantistas " - not accept the vindictive character of punishment, considering that the offender is a patient, or commits the offense under the influence of unjust social structures. Pius XII
expounds the doctrine of the Magisterium of the Church:
" vindictive punishment is rejected by many (...) yes, then it would be unfair in principle and reject totally the role of vindictive punishment (...) is greater conformity with the sources of revelation and traditional doctrine teach about the coercive power of legitimate author ness. " [1]
4. Death Penalty
Christianity always accepted the application of the death penalty in certain circumstances (CCC, No. 2266). Aquinas argued that "every person singular compares the entire community as part to whole, and therefore, if a man is dangerous to society and corrupted by a crime, praiseworthy and healthy life is taken away for conservation of the common good. " [2]
The Catechism summarizes the current position of the Church:
" If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and he the safety of people, such authority will limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the specific conditions of the common good and are more satisfied with the dignity of the human person . "(CCC, No. 2267)
5. War
Proudhon said that the war needs no definition, because everyone knows what it is, some because they have seen and others because they have taken part in it. However, the precision of concepts is a requirement of scientific prudence and necessary in any analysis. Above all, war should not be confused with the conflict and struggle, terms they can designate different realities.
War is: the armed struggle between two rival human factions try to impose an opponent a goal for violent means of military force .
Christian understanding of war can be summarized in three points:
► War is a moral and legal issue : it is a necessary phenomenon, because determinism where there is no room for morals or for justice issues. The decision of war is a human decision. ►
War is a grave evil and a source of evil : therefore, can only be fair where the only means available, is to prevent another greater evil, is to achieve a greater good than the evils it produces. ►
All governments should pursue peace : because this is the normal means through which to achieve the common good. When conflicts arise, the ruling Christian should seek a solution by peaceful means. The war is a last resort. So while Christianity accepts the legality of war under certain conditions, and admits the possibility of a just war can not be considered a warmonger, because it enhances or make apology for the war.
When San Juan Bautista Empire soldiers asked why they should do the precursor does not require abandoning his military career, but merely advised the performance of their duties within the profession:
" Do violence to no one and useis of fraud, and be content with your pay ( Lk 3.14).
The Catechism says the stringent conditions required for a war to be fair:
► the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave and certain. ►
That all other means of putting an end to aggression have been shown to be impractical or ineffective. ► May
will be serious success. ►
That the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means requires destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition (CCC, No. 2309).
Christian doctrine promotes peace, but can not be called pacifist, because it supports the legality of the military profession, the public contribution to the armed forces and the legitimacy of defense against an unjust aggressor. While the war is the negation of all Christianity, pacifism must be regarded as an extreme stress, usually mysticism, Christian principles. And the attempt to impose a unilateral disarmament, would not favor the cause of peace, but would be an incitement to aggression and war on the part of you got stronger.
Therefore, the same Catechism explains:
" However, while there is a risk of war and missing an international authority and provided with appropriate force, having exhausted all means of peaceful settlement, not be denied governments the right to self-defense "(CCC, No. 2308).
6. Civil War
One way of war is called "civil ", which breaks within the same country, between two opposing sectors. For her, subject to the same conditions required to justify a foreign war. You can be the position for many reasons: political, ethnic, religious. If the result of a rebellion or revolution against a government seen as unfair, apply the detailed requirements in Module 7.
A dramatic case, which can serve as a model for the analysis, is the civil war in Northern Ireland, where Catholic and Protestant groups clashed, but for political reasons arising from desire for independence. Pope John Paul II, speaking in Ireland, said:
"But Christianity does not command us to close our eyes to the difficult human problems. Prevents us from seeing the unfair or social situations or international. What Christianity forbids us is to seek solutions to these situations and ways of hatred, the killing of defenseless people, terroristic methods. " [3]
urged the pontiff not to be blinded by the lie of violence: " that nobody can ever call murder by any other name than murder, that the spiral of violence will not be given never logical distinction inevitable or necessary retaliation. " [4]
Remarkable was the reflection aimed at politicians, supporting the lie that violence only leads to change in a society, and affirming that no political action can ensure justice. He assured them that violence is unleashed with no brakes when they have a political vacuum or a rejection of political activity. Therefore, encouraged to face their responsibility:
" If politicians can not decide and act in favor of the right hand, then the field is open to men of violence ." [5]
7. subversion War
A modern variant of the civil war, subversive action is taken by armed groups for the explicit purpose of taking power, to impose by force a particular ideology from the rule. Arises in this case, doubt about how the military can fight guerrilla groups that operate illegally. Is it possible to wage war in an effective manner without losing the soul?
To try to clarify the issue, remember, first, that the issue of the war was thoroughly studied by Christian theologians. Within our Hispanic tradition, we have the work of Francisco Vitoria, who said several centuries the most frequent questions about the war, and are applicable to this type of war could be subversive.
Vitoria argues that it is lawful to do in the war all that is necessary for the defense of a public good. Not everything necessary to win, because the basic principle is that the end justifies the means , ie the state of war does not suppress natural rights.
summarize what is lawful to do in this kind of war, on the main issues:
A. The right to kill contender :
► In combat: who takes up arms against the legitimate authority. ►
While prisoner: but deserves the death penalty may only be executed after being convicted in a trial due to defense. Sto. Thomas argued that man is sinful by nature than just men, therefore, will require a public hearing to decide whether he should kill of the common good.
admit any officer of the armed forces or police can provide for itself the death of an unarmed prisoner guilty, is to violate the law. It is morally unacceptable to give death of a clandestine subversive. The punishment should be public, the secret execution leaves intact the crime, not the criminal sanctions and becomes a victim and a murderer to his executor.
B. Torture
As a means of instruction (question), it is inherently unfair because ►
the accused may be innocent even if guilty ►
, torture violates the right to physical integrity.
As they are not permitted under any law and prohibited by international treaties, it is always illegal, which facilitates greater abuse, since they tend to dehumanize the perpetrators and take pleasure in the suffering of others (debasement).
The only exception that provides for the doctrine is in serious cases, to avoid a greater evil. For example, when he was arrested red-handed a terrorist who has planted a bomb in a place where the explosion would cause countless deaths and injuries. In this case, rare, can justify the physical constraint as bloodless as possible with the use of drugs, to confess in what exact location placed the explosive device and power off.
C. Appropriation of enemy property
It's just that he injures another as compensation to their property. But is the state that regulates and controls the procedure. In no case can be admitted that the military and police personnel serving in a raid, seizes the assets of a subversive way of spoils of war. Sto teach. Thomas that "unduly torn If something by force, commit robbery and theft also. "
D. innocent
Vitoria says that it is wrong in the republic to punish the innocent for the crimes of the wicked. This applies to relatives and friends of the rebels. " Not even in the war against the infidels is permissible to kill children ... because they are innocent ... Nor to women ... as in regard to war, are presumed innocent, unless a finding of guilt whatsoever. "
By the same token, should not be kept indefinitely in jail a suspect without a trial, and without acknowledging their detention.
Nor can the State have the sons of a warrior, giving them up for adoption instead of delivering them to their families.
8. Conclusion violence
" War born in the heart of man, because he is the man who kills and not its espada o, como diríamos hoy, sus misiles. Si los sistemas actuales, engendrados en el corazón del hombre, se revelan incapaces de asegurar la paz, es preciso renovar el corazón del hombre para renovar los sistemas, las instituciones y los métodos de convivencia .” [6]
Fuentes:
Castro Castillo, Marcial. “Fuerzas Armadas, ética y represión”; Buenos Aires, Nuevo Orden, 1979.
Palumbo, Carmelo. “Guía para un estudio sistemático de la Doctrina Social de la Iglesia”; Buenos Aires, EDUCA, T. II, 1987.
Sorge, P. Bartolomé. “La violencia”; Madrid, Cuadernos BAC, 1978.
Yurre Rodriguez, Gregory. "Christian Attitudes towards the war," in Social Institute Leo XIII, "Comments on the Pacem in Terris", Madrid, BAC, 1963, pgs. 448/485.
[1] Pius XII. Address at the Sixth International Congress of Penal Law, 03/10/1953.
[2] Summa Theologica, II-II, q.64, art. 2
[3] John Paul II, Homily, 9/29/1979
[4] Idem
[5] Idem
[6] John Paul II, Speech, 10/09/2001
0 comments:
Post a Comment