Pope Bob rarely fails to disappoint.
LeoWatch: Earning the Title of Francis II
- Donald R. McClarey
Donald R. McClarey
Cradle Catholic. Active in the pro-life movement since 1973. Father of three, one in Heaven, and happily married for 43 years. Small town lawyer and amateur historian. Former president of the board of directors of the local crisis pregnancy center for a decade.
I haven’t read the encyclical, but isn’t it possible that the framework of the Just War Theory would become obsolete when human decision-making is removed from the battlefield?
Just War has nothing to do with the battlefield and everything to do with the initiation of the war. Iron dome defenses against missiles use AI but this has nothing to do with why the conflict that causes missiles to fly has been initiated, let alone the morality underlying the conflict. Pope Bob is simply a pacifist and will do what he can to make the Catholic Church pacifist. A very odd stance for an Augustinian.
Guidance systems be they scope over iron sights, AI over radar, are still under human control until activated. And human beings are still wounded by sin. The idea that it’s wrong to defend the innocent is an evil one.
The SSPX priests who will be ordained bishops are all very solid. They’ve taught, built, instructed and defended the Catholic Faith. All reasons priests were once chosen to be bishops. They did not hold Pride masses, remove kneelers, bless homosexual couples…. to be awarded with ordination.
The difference is striking. And that’s the reason Cardinal Fernandez is having a hissy fit and will throw his excommunication handbag.
No, Don, you’re wrong. Just War Theory applies both to reasons for war and conduct during war.
Atrocities do not require AI to be committed Pinky. I doubt that is the point Pope Bob, or the AI he used, or the Francis hold overs he used to draft this mess, were struggling to make.
I know that up votes and down votes are small matters, but my factual statement about Just War Theory just went from +1 to 0, so someone must have down voted a clear, true statement about Catholkc teaching on The American Catholic.
I was on Substack and in my feed was a prompt from Dr. Janet Smith, calling attention to another scholar, Michael Pakaluk, who had written a detailed review of Magnifica Humanitas. The fact that someone of Dr. Smith’s caliber was encouraging folks to read this critique made me curious.
Turns out that in an interesting twist, Pakaluk used AI to analyze the text. He gave it the prompt “suppose you were looking at this text as if it were a draft, and were asked to address it critically, from the point of view of a sound, Catholic, well-educated person: list all of the issues you would flag for revision, from most egregious to least”.
What followed was a list of thirty areas where the encyclical was problematic, and a detailed analysis of why that was so. Dr. Smith was right: it’s a fascinating read.
Posting links in blogs that aren’t mine seems like bad manners, but if any commenters here are interested in reading the article, just Google or DuckDuck “Special Post on Magnifica Humanitas Michael Pakaluk”, it’s well worth reading.
I think you’re putting the cart before the horse, Pinky … AI doesn’t render just-war-theory obsolete, just in need of revision. AI makes it necessary to incorporate the uses of AI on the battlefield into the theory. The human decision-making occurs when one decides how to use the AI weapon. Unfortunately, I doubt our enemies will make any effort toward using battlefield AI justly.
Posting links in blogs that aren’t mine seems like bad manners
I usually don’t mind Clinton.
small matters
So small Pinky that I never look at them!
I’m not sure what was meant by the statement,
“Just War has nothing to do with the battlefield …”
The Church’s traditional teachings regarding just war include both ius ad bellam and ius in bello. Both the decision that entering into warfare is morally justified, and the conduct of the participants after war has begun, are included in the Church’s moral teaching.
The Church’s teachings have everything to do with the battlefield.
Just war has nothing to do with the tactics of the battlefield. AI gives no greater or lesser opportunity for atrocities than the Mark I human brain.
Rhineland 1936, China 1937, Austria 1938, France et al 1939, Soviet Union 1941, Pearl Harbor 1941. All could have been prevented by AI but at what cost. The left is afraid of automated war but has not the imagination to harness the useful parts of AI. The pro-defense people want to nip incipient wars in the bud but can not get support for a strong military in peacetime to maintain that peace. Great Britain is an example of a country that gave up fighting small actions to maintain order and simply let events drag the country where it may.
Don, it’s rare for you to get called out for factual errors. Please take a minute and search “jus in bello Aquinas”.
God I am not leaving you and your church. The Church is not Catholic anymore!
I have read it Pinky. Aquinas condemned atrocities. He said little about the warfare of his time, including sieges, which led to the indirect deaths of many non-combatants.
“No, Don, you’re wrong. Just War Theory applies both to reasons for war and conduct during war.”
Now, there are moral principles that govern the conduct of war once it has commenced. I think this is known as ius in bello. For instance, it is immoral to DELIBERATELY attack non-combatants.
I did not read the encyclical but I did some keyword searches. It expresses concern for civilian casualties, but, as far as I can tell, says nothing about the use of civilians and civilian structures as cover from which to launch offensive attacks, as we see the Palestinians doing in Gaza and the Imperial Japanese did during WWII. For the Church to not condemn this is quite scandalous in my view. We talking about something not only immoral, but a war crime.
I am also somewhat surprised the encyclical doesn’t talk about the death penalty. But on second thought, I think that might be the case for strategic reasons. Perhaps the pope is thinking if he condemns it in non magisterial venues like press conferences etc, he can keep up the impression that it is against Church teaching when in fact he knows that’s not the case.
What’s God got to do with it?
Catherine:
We have a lot of work to do.
Greg Mockeridge:
Christ and the mill stones in the depth of the sea for scandalizing an innocent soul is the death penalty.
Mary,
Catherine has a point…
“Where Peter is, there is The Church” is a phrase attributed to St. Ambrose, emphasizing the belief that the presence of Peter, as the first pope, signifies the true Church.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio was elected pope on March 13, 2013.
Where is the pope? It’s been 13 years now without a pope that upholds catholic doctrine. A child reaching the age of reason at 6 years would be almost 19 now.
I’m not a sedevacantist, but where is the pope? TMK until now there has never been a pope, never mind two, that hasn’t upheld catholic doctrine. There bad popes who did terrible things and lived terrible lives but they did uphold catholic doctrine.
YUP. Bergoglio II. Mini-me.