sorry for the break, something came up that i had to attend too.
{having spent quite a bit of time processing origen, machiavelli & his "the prince", Saint Augustine & "just war" theory, and an examination of WWII we find ourselves...}Here we have already one complete cycle. A country begins a defensive "just war." It starts by declaring its firm adherence to the ethical principles held by its Church, and by the majority of its civilian population. The nation accepts unjust suffering heroically. But then the military begins to grow impatient, seeing that its own methods of retaliation are not effective. It is the military that changes the policy. The new, more ruthless policy pays off. The civilian protest is silenced before it begins. Those who might otherwise have objected, come to accpet what they are told: "This will save lives. It is necessary to end the war sooner, and to punish the unjust aggressor."
The standards of justice are still in view - still partially in view. The injustice of the aggressor is very clearly seen. Justice in the use of means has been lost sight of, and what counts most is expediency....
Needless to say, both were now strenuously arguing and convincing themselves, in exactly the same terms, that their war effort was just, that their methods were just, and that it was necessary to do all that they did in order to win the victory; end the war quickly and "save lives."
Note also, on both sides there were sincere Christians, encouraged by the clergy and by the Christian press to accept and support these claims. There were therefore Christians believing that each side was completely just. Christians on both sides "served God" by killing each other... What had become of the meaning of the doctrine of the "just war?"
merton, in coming to understand the way St. Augustine come to fill out "just war" sees that it is generally good in intention & ideal, but all to easily sucks the person into a scenario that could no longer be claimed as justice at any level. in drawing together a parallel into todays world we have the 'just war' in the war on terrorism & 'gihad' the Islamic holy war. both play historic roles in their respective faiths, but it is easy to see that distortion of these can easily come about and be accepted by masses.
as we look over the landscape of the war on terror, will there be an upscaling of destruction done in the name of 'saving lives?' as the media highlights the failures and some successes of the war, thus putting more and more pressure to feel success by the masses, will that in turn bring pressure to the decisionmaking that takes works to keep the 'justice' part of the war on terror. some may say that it is already passed that point. that is to be argued on another forum.
