Tėvynės gynimas ginklu – nuodėmė ar dorybė? Katalikų bažnyčios požiūris

LTRomos Katalikų Bažnyčios tikintieji anksčiau ar vėliau kelia klausimą – ką derėtų daryti tėvynę užpuolus agresoriui. Straipsnyje apžvelgiamas Katalikų Bažnyčios mokymas akcentuojant būtent tėvynės gynimo ginklu moralumą. Apžvelgiamas Romos Katalikų Bažnyčios požiūris į karo ir taikos sampratą. Išryškinami momentai, kuriais atvejais ginkluotas pasipriešinimas neperžengia būtinosios ginties ribų, o kada gynyba yra neteisėta ir nepateisinama, sąlygos, kuriomis leistina ginkluota savo krašto gynyba, paliečiama biblinė gynybos samprata. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Ginkluota gynyba; Būtinoji gintis; Karas; Moralinė teologija; Romos Katalikų Bažnyčios požiūris.

ENThe article reveals the attitude of the Roman Catholic Church towards the defence of homeland using weapons from the perspective of moral theology. It introduces the problem the essence of which is a wrong conviction among Catholics and others that the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church prohibits to defend one’s country using weapons. Based on the documents of the Roman Catholic Church and the insights of the theologians, the article reveals the Magisterium’s attitude to war and peace. The latter is presented as a fragile balance between international relations and power which at any time can lead to war. It is emphasized that peace is not an elementary lack of war. Peace is an effort of solidarity of all the countries of the world. The article presents how the Magisterium describes military service, an alternative service to those who cannot use weapons due to conscience or moral convictions and the approach of the Magisterium to the state military forces. In this case, the defence of homeland is perceived as the right and duty of citizens to act honorably, while the avoidance proves incorrect behavior.Based on the fact that the Roman Catholic Church does not support radical pacifism, another part discusses the morality of armed resistance and presents the criteria allowing the use of a weapon for defence, for example, when all the measures are exhausted and there is no other way to resolve an international conflict peacefully. It also explains the cases when the assassination of an aggressor is morally acceptable and permissible. The natural right to defend one’s relatives and own life and to preserve the sovereignty of the nation is emphasized as well. The article also addresses the violations of international and military law. The part that incorporates the biblical approach is limited to discussing a specific quotation, namely do not remember evil, but if it does light up on the right cheek, give it another (Mt 5:39) that is usually used to indicate the position the Christians should take when facing an aggressor. The article points out why the traditional concept does not correspond to the biblical or ecclesiastic theological ideas. The article came to the conclusions that if an aggressor attacks the state, its citizens must defend their land; the use of weapon is permissible if it does not go beyond the reasonable and proportionate conditions. [From the publication]