Augustinians and War

[Ernie]

A question for Augustinians. (Joey, I hope you will chime in here.)

Do you conscientiously object to serving in the military or in warfare? If yes, please explain further.
If yes, on what basis are you comfortable communing with people who do not?

If no, are there potential wars you would not participate in?
If no, are there potential wars in which you would aid the cause of those who are not your fellow country men or do you feel responsible to aid your own country?

For non-conscientious objectors who also profess Christianity, I would like some engagement on the following.

For the sake of discussion, let's consider a senario that often happens in warfare.
Let's say that you or people from your church congregation are drafted into the military, and your corner of the world is at war with people in my corner of the world. (Whether civil war or war between countries.)
Your military wants to accomplish missions in my region and since my house is an impediment to your commander's military strategy, he orders you to raze it. Would it make a difference to you if I lived there as to how you would respond to his command?

Let's assume that you appealed to your commander to save my house, he rejected the appeal, and you or one of your congregants razed my house.
How would you explain to me your calling and role as an ambassador for the Kingdom of Heaven?

And what if he asked you to blow up the house (not knowing if I was in it) simply because there was evidence that I was tending to the wounds of an enemy of your countrymen?

[Ken]

A question for Augustinians. (Joey, I hope you will chime in here.)

Do you conscientiously object to serving in the military or in warfare? If yes, please explain further.
If yes, on what basis are you comfortable communing with people who do not?

If no, are there potential wars you would not participate in?
If no, are there potential wars in which you would aid the cause of those who are not your fellow country men or do you feel responsible to aid your own country?

For non-conscientious objectors who also profess Christianity, I would like some engagement on the following.

For the sake of discussion, let's consider a senario that often happens in warfare.
Let's say that you or people from your church congregation are drafted into the military, and your corner of the world is at war with people in my corner of the world. (Whether civil war or war between countries.)
Your military wants to accomplish missions in my region and since my house is an impediment to your commander's military strategy, he orders you to raze it. Would it make a difference to you if I lived there as to how you would respond to his command?

Let's assume that you appealed to your commander to save my house, he rejected the appeal, and you or one of your congregants razed my house.
How would you explain to me your calling and role as an ambassador for the Kingdom of Heaven?

And what if he asked you to blow up the house (not knowing if I was in it) simply because there was evidence that I was tending to the wounds of an enemy of your countrymen?

I'm not an Augustinian, but hypothetically if I were in that situation I would remind my commander that it is a war crime under the 1949 Geneva Convention and 1950 Nuremburg Principles to deliberately target civilian infrastructure including houses. And it is also a war crime under the Geneva Convention to deliberately target medics and medical facilities.

[Josh]

Great thread and topic, Ernie.

Now it might be a good idea for the rest of us who aren’t Augustinians to let them speak.

[joey_the_ox]

A question for Augustinians. (Joey, I hope you will chime in here.)

Do you conscientiously object to serving in the military or in warfare? If yes, please explain further.
If yes, on what basis are you comfortable communing with people who do not?

If no, are there potential wars you would not participate in?
If no, are there potential wars in which you would aid the cause of those who are not your fellow country men or do you feel responsible to aid your own country?

For non-conscientious objectors who also profess Christianity, I would like some engagement on the following.

For the sake of discussion, let's consider a senario that often happens in warfare.
Let's say that you or people from your church congregation are drafted into the military, and your corner of the world is at war with people in my corner of the world. (Whether civil war or war between countries.)
Your military wants to accomplish missions in my region and since my house is an impediment to your commander's military strategy, he orders you to raze it. Would it make a difference to you if I lived there as to how you would respond to his command?

Let's assume that you appealed to your commander to save my house, he rejected the appeal, and you or one of your congregants razed my house.
How would you explain to me your calling and role as an ambassador for the Kingdom of Heaven?

And what if he asked you to blow up the house (not knowing if I was in it) simply because there was evidence that I was tending to the wounds of an enemy of your countrymen?

I'll probably have to punt on this thread as well - it is complicated and takes some background. In brief, in answer to the first question "Do you conscientiously object to serving in the military or in warfare?" - almost certainly yes as things stand today, but I cannot categorically rule it out.

For the scenarios you presented, I would refuse both on the war crime grounds and on the more fundamental ground that it would be a violation of the moral law of God. And I would be willing to suffer the consequences for that refusal up to and including execution.

From the Catechism (I realize this isn't a real answer but just to give some background):

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, 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.

and

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 way.

[Soloist]

I'm not an Augustinian, but hypothetically if I were in that situation I would remind my commander that it is a war crime under the 1949 Geneva Convention and 1950 Nuremburg Principles to deliberately target civilian infrastructure including houses. And it is also a war crime under the Geneva Convention to deliberately target medics and medical facilities.

Do you honestly believe we as a country follow the Geneva conventions? because I have a bridge to sell you. I have many first hand accounts where we did not including razing an entire village as revenge for the killing of a corpsman.

[Ernie]

For the scenarios you presented, I would refuse both on the war crime grounds and on the more fundamental ground that it would be a violation of the moral law of God. And I would be willing to suffer the consequences for that refusal up to and including execution.

Ernie breathes a sigh of relief. And No need to worry tonight that Joey will raze my house some day in the future. That is a true friend!

[Ken]

I'm not an Augustinian, but hypothetically if I were in that situation I would remind my commander that it is a war crime under the 1949 Geneva Convention and 1950 Nuremburg Principles to deliberately target civilian infrastructure including houses. And it is also a war crime under the Geneva Convention to deliberately target medics and medical facilities.

Do you honestly believe we as a country follow the Geneva conventions? because I have a bridge to sell you. I have many first hand accounts where we did not including razing an entire village as revenge for the killing of a corpsman.

Of course we don't. We also do drone strikes on civilian targets. That wasn't my point.

My point was that your hypothetical scenario was actually describing actual war crimes. For which the actual correct response for any soldier regardless of their religious beliefs is to resist. The Nuremburg trials underscored this point. "I was just following orders" is no longer a defense. We could come up with a hundred different scenarios of obvious war crimes and the correct answer for any soldier is to resist. For example summary executions of prisoners would be another example of a war crime.

The more difficult moral questions are acts of war that are perfectly acceptable under international rules of warfare but that may be morally objectionable. For example, firing a drone strike at a target that hasn't been 100% confirmed as legitimate as was the case in Afghanistan during the recent pullout. The higher-ups in the chain of command "cleared" the target and so the drone operator fired the missile. Or perhaps a submarine commander firing a torpedo at a ship that will kill hundreds, legitimate military target or not. Or even just firing on enemy soldiers and killing them.

In my mind, the only way to justify that sort of thing is to have a higher-order moral calculus that suggests some collateral damage is necessary in warfare to bring war to a faster resolution or defend higher principles. Like, for example, the belief that it was necessary to bomb Nazi Germany in order to bring the war to a faster end. And that if we had fought the war with more meticulous caution it might have lasted until 1947 and millions more might have died. And it of course assumes that the alternative approach of appeasement and peacemaking with a regime like Nazi Germany would not have achieved a peaceful and free Europe. But the problem is that few enemies are as easy to characterize as evil as Nazi Germany. And at least half the time your hypothetical soldier is going to be on the "wrong" side.

I honestly think very few soldiers escape combat with their moral calculus 100% intact. That is the nature of war and it always has been.

[joey_the_ox]

Ernie, I'm returning to this now - my replies might be spaced out over a period of days because my time is limited.

I'm guessing that in the end there might be not be a lot of space between our positions practically speaking given the time and place we live in, but that we do have some theoretical differences.

Some questions for you that will help me to pin down where the difference is:

• Do you believe that the New Testament categorically rules out all acts of violence as intrinsically evil?
• Do you believe that the New Testament categorically rules out all acts of coercion as intrinsically evil?
• Do you allow any applications of the principle of double effect, or do you believe that any form of such a principle is not legitimate in moral reasoning?

[Ernie]

A. Do you believe that the New Testament categorically rules out all acts of violence as intrinsically evil?
B. Do you believe that the New Testament categorically rules out all acts of coercion as intrinsically evil?
C. Do you allow any applications of the principle of double effect, or do you believe that any form of such a principle is not legitimate in moral reasoning?

So I have not thought through this in these terms so this is sort of an off the cuff answer.

A. I believe that violence by humans was never God's intention. In light of man's choices, the sword is ordained of God outside the perfection of Christ and is therefore not to be used by Christians in the NT.
B. I think coercion should not be used by humans in the kingdom of Christ, except with children, and with those who do not have full mental capability.
C. I think the principle of double effect only has a place outside the kingdom of Christ. Whether or not it is moral or amoral outside the kingdom of Christ I do not know. Within the kingdom of Christ, two wrongs never make one right.

[barnhart]

Joey, the wording of the Schleithiem Confession is "the sword", meaning coersive and violent action of the state, is "outside the perfection of Christ", and therefore intrinsically a part of the kingdoms of this world, and has no part in the kingdom of heaven. Today you will find Anabaptists quite divided on the questions you pose. It was clearer in the 16th century when the sword was being used on you rather than on your behalf. I think we need to sharpen our theology in this area.

Edit: I see Ernie responded while I was writing.