INTERVIEW. Fr Mateusz Markiewicz: We have an work to defend the Homeland after its wrongful attack. Not necessarily on the front.
Published: 2 hours ago
author: Fratria za:PAP
Fr Mateusz Markiewicz, Secretary General of the Institute of Good Shepherd.
PAP: Is there a moral, ethical work to defend the Homeland?
Fr Mateusz Markiewicz: specified an work exists due to the fact that man is not an isolated unit from the remainder of society. He's born somewhere, he's gonna die somewhere, he's got connections. These relationships besides make us have any obligations towards another people, towards the community and Homeland, not just the laws themselves. If we do not accept an individualistic imagination of a human being, seeing a man who is by nature a social being, we besides see that he has any responsibilities towards his community. And thus the work to defend her erstwhile she is attacked wrongfully.
According to Catholic doctrine, what does it mean to defend the Homeland?
It is commanded by the 4th commandment, “Honor your father and your mother” which specifically indicates the relation between God and the remainder of the community. Parents are the ones who co-create the human person. Thus, in a alternatively delicate way, it was stressed that man has peculiar obligations toward these individuals, the closest members of the community to whom he owes his life. These obligations apply not only to parents, but besides to a larger natural community, which we as people are part of, or Homeland. So the request to defend the Homeland besides implies that we admit the fact that we did not come out of nowhere, but that we are enrolled in the community.
The 5th commandment contained in the Decalogue, however, says, "Do not kill." How do we apply them to the work to defend our homeland?
From the point of view of the Church's teachings, the 5th commandment is more: don't execution – in the sense of not inflict death in an intentional way to individual who is not a threat. For example, it could be said that 1 cannot origin someone's death, for example as a consequence of the essential defense. War is simply a essential case of defense, but on a large scale.
[...]
And are there any defence boundaries, assuming we're already in this war, we're already in it?
There are respective reasons why we should refuse to fight the enemy. For example, if war itself was caused by the actions of its own state. If, for example, this is wrongful aggression to take possession of property or to take the territory of another country. In addition, we must refuse to service in the army if what we are commanded does not straight concern the fighting of the enemy's army or its immediate backdrop, but alternatively focuses on the harassment and execution of civilians. Then specified a war is referred to as an unjust war.
Is there specified a thing as a fair war?
There have been many debates about this. Classical doctrine and theology believed there was a fair war. First, 1 of the uncommon cases of a just war is simply a war to defend against unjust aggression and to defend universal values specified as courage, defence of the weak, or rebellion against injustice.
A fair war is besides a war that aims to rebuild the relation of justice between nations if any another method has proved unsuccessful due to the reluctance of 1 of the states involved. We can set an example of a neighbour who, despite many negotiations and provisions by the competent global bodies, makes his neighbour access to the only origin of drinking water impossible. As a consequence of unilaterally breaking an crucial contract, life and wellness of the population of 1 country are in danger. Its authorities so have the right to intervene precisely to force their neighbour to respect global obligations.
There is, however, no complete list of examples of righteous wars, as it is alternatively a wise consideration of whether war is truly the only solution available in a given situation, for all others have proved ineffective. Even morally acceptable war is always the last resort.
Surveys show that a large part of Poles would not be able to defend the country in the event of a threat of war. How much have attitudes toward their homeland changed over decades? Did the concept of Homeland have a different meaning?
Today's times in which we can experience the planet from all sides, yes, they have good sides, but they besides origin any kind of alienation. The alleged mass culture, not only in Poland, but besides in another countries, does not convey values – whether human or national values; it does not show the Homeland as something good, something inherited, which must be passed on to the next generations.
It is besides a work and, unfortunately, a immense wine of mass culture that does not make cultural people, in the sense of having a resource of intellectual, artistic wealth; it only creates consumers of cultural-like products. It is improbable that individual who does not see Homeland and culture as its heritage, will want to stand up for it.
Tkwl/Ewelina Krajczyńska-Wujec
inpolitics.pl/Church/745291-interview-ks-markiewicz-we have-obligation-defence-homeland