Angilbert (fl. ca. 840/50), On the Battle Which was Fought at Fontenoy

The Law of Christians is broken,
Blood by the hands of hell profusely shed like rain,
And the throat of Cerberus bellows songs of joy.

Angelbertus, Versus de Bella que fuit acta Fontaneto

Fracta est lex christianorum
Sanguinis proluvio, unde manus inferorum,
gaudet gula Cerberi.

Saturday, May 12, 2012

Terrorism an Intrinsic Evil

TERRORISM IS AN OFFENSE AGAINST GOD AND MAN. It would not be far off to say that it is a moral crime that cries out to heaven with a vengeance. "Terrorism," says the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, "is one of the most brutal forms of violence traumatizing the international community today."  Terrorism "sows hatred, death, and an urge for revenge and reprisal."  From a moral standpoint, it represents an inexcusable violation of the natural moral law.  Its crime arises from the fact that it target complete innocents, destroying both property and person, without regard to innocence or guilt of the victim, and without the justification of defense.  (Compendium, No. 513)  It acts outside both law and morals.  It is an inhumane, intrinsic evil.  "Terrorism is to be condemned in the most absolute terms."  (Compendium, No. 514)

To the extent that the root causes of terrorism can be addressed, there is a moral obligation to try to alleviate those conditions.  (Compendium, No. 513)  Accordingly, there must be "a courageous and lucid analysis of the reasons behind terrorist attacks."  (Compendium, No. 514)  Additionally, there is a place for removing "the problems that in certain dramatic circumstances can foster terrorism."  (Compendium, No. 514)  The terrorist may be responding in an inappropriate way to long-term trampling and the suffering of injustice, real or perceived.  Therefore, the fight against terrorism is not limited to punitive or physical defense alone, but should involve efforts to reach the heart and minds.

That being said, it remains true that no condition whatsoever justifies the terrorist act, and a society has the near absolute right to defend itself against such a threat.  (Compendium, No. 514)  Even confronting this absolute moral evil, however, requires moral response.  Defending against an immoral act does not justify immoral response, and so the struggle against terrorism must comply with "moral and legal norms," with respect for human rights, and be within the rule of law.

One of the principles that must be recalled is that culpability for terrorism is "always personal," and it is therefore unreasonable to place culpability on religions, nations, or ethnic groups as a whole.  (Compendium, No. 514) 

Of all the execrable acts of terrorism, the most offensive are those in which the terrorist declares himself acting in God's name.
It is a profanation, and a blasphemy to declare oneself a terrorist in God's name. In such cases, God, and not only man, is exploited by a person who claims to possess the totality of God's truth rather than one who seeks to be possessed by the truth. To define as "martyrs" those who die while carrying out terroristic attacks distorts the concept of martyrdom, which is the witness of a person who gives himself up to death rather than deny God and his love. Martyrdom cannot be the act of a person who kills in the name of God.

(Compendium, No. 515)

The Muslim who advocates, sponsors, or participates in terrorism in the name of Allah stands condemned under the natural moral law as an offender against both man and God.  He acts in the spirit of darkness, pursuing the vicious desires of Baal, and not in the spirit of light, pursuing the suavity of God.



    I don't agree. The term "terrorism" is a modern word. And of course, you make mention of Muslims. Can't you do some history. Could you not say that the American Indian and their war against Europeans was Terrorism? Massacring and butchering civilians? If I think back thru history, wasn't the first leaders of modern terrorism though leftist ideologues? Were they not communists? Who set off the bombs in Tsarist Russia? Who assinated the Christian leaders of Russia? Why no mention of this in your article?

    If we look in Classical Antiquity we may see that it was the Scirarii that went around terrorizing their own populace cleansing it of traitors. The historical and preponderance of terrorism is NON-Muslim. So why are you picking on the Muslims for?

    Terrorism from Muslims ONLY occured in either the French occupation of Algeria or the British occupation of the Jordan. If there was no State of Israel, would there be huge amounts of Muslim terrorism?

    Isn't terrorism performed when there is a disproportion in the forces involved. The American Indian contra the European, the Scirarii contra the Greeks/Hellenizers, the Algerian contra French Forces, Jewish communists contra the Tsarist Regime, Communist agitators contra Reactionaries, Tamil rebels against Indonesian government forces. In all these cases the forces are unequal.

    Unequalness leads to what military experts call asymmetric warfare. It is just common sense! In order to overthrow a much powerful opponent, stealth and terror must be used. There is NO other way to conduct war. Asymmetrical warfare is the natural consequence of unequal ability to counter overwhelming technological and/or numerical superiority.

    Life is War. And common sense leads opponents of the status quo to engage in asymmetrical warfare. It is a logical consequence to massive superiorty.

    Terrorism is much a leftist phenomena more than it is Muslim. Before the State of Israel, a big part of terrorism was carried out by Jews. So why pick on the Muslims.

    There is No guarantee in life. You are NOT guaranteed a "fullness of life". That is not what Life is.

  2. is one of the most brutal forms of violence traumatizing the international community today,

    Here we go with this ""international community"". There is no such thing as an "international community". Community exists among things of likeness. The Natural Law is the Law of similitude, . The underpinning of any community is simularity. There is no such thing as an "international communty". That is an oxymoron because there is so much disimularity there can't be a "community". Moreover, this presupposes racelessness.