So even after reading our article 'Traditions of Men', you still want to believe in the 'Just War Theory/Tradition'? The article below, The Just Adultery Theory, by the late Richard McSorley is copied from the website (
href="http://frjakestopstheworld.blogspot.com/2004_05_01_frjakestopstheworld_archive.html">http://frjakestopstheworld.blogspot.com/2004_05_01_frjakestopstheworld_archive.html). Our disclaimers toward the author would be multitudinous, beginning with his use of a man given title and that by association with the Jesuits he would have continued in other heresies/traditions practiced by Augustine of Hippo, who christianized the just war theory. On the other hand, his point is well taken, using the same unsriptural points which were concocted by Augustine to justify war, would justify adultery. Using the same principles, the sky is the limit to what one could justify. It has been queried of those who send their sons off to kill and destroy for their country, if they would also send their daughters to prostitute for their country. After all, both killing and prostitution violate New Testament kingdom living. Unless of course you subscribe to the 'just war' and the following 'just adultery' traditions.
Paralleling the just/unjust war theory is the Just Adultery Theory. A look at it helps us see how differently Christians towards murder and adultery. A Christian minister or priest who openly preaches the Just Adultery Theory would be run out of his church; not so with the just/unjust war theory. Yet both theories equally violate commandments of God; "Thou shall not kill," and "Thou shall not commit adultery." Both set up conditions to get around commandments. Conditions for just adultery are:Let's stop using the just war theory to justify the use of force. Let's stop claiming it is possible to love our enemies as we murder them. Over 11,000 innocent Iraqi civilians are dead. It is time to abandon absurd theories, and to begin to speak clearly.
1. Last Resort. Every other means of getting along must be tried: discussion, advice of a third party, reconciliation of differences, expressions of affection, anything short of adultery.
2. Good Intention. There must be no intent to harm one's spouse or any other person. Revenge for unfaithfulness of one's partner would not be considered a sufficient cause, nor would the need for more children, or a second home. The cause must be genuine love and affection for the companion in adultery, needs that cannot be satisfied in any other way, and conversely, a genuine need of that love and affection on the part of the one initiating the adultery. The main point to be kept in mind is that the adultery must be in defense of love. There must be pure intention. This condition entirely excludes aggressive adultery, which is sometimes called "rape."
3. Protection of the Innocent. The aggrieved partner must not be harmed. Every effort at secrecy must be made; no open flaunting or even informing the aggrieved partner would be consistent with this condition. If children are born of the adultery, both partners to the act must have the intention of caring for the children. The use of a contraceptive device, or the intent of having an abortion, violate this condition and make the adultery immoral.
4. Proportion. A favorable balance of good over evil must be reasonably hoped for. The foreseeable harm to absent partners, and to living children, must be weighed against the need for affection and love on the part of the adulterers. This need must honestly predominate over the cumulative harm.
The damage to family life, and the weakening of the respect for the marriage bond, must be offset by the marked increase in human love, affection and respect for the human person who is endangered by the social effects of adultery.
Provided these conditions are fulfilled, adultery is not a violation of the Gospel, but an act of love and mercy.
Absurd? Perhaps, but less absurd than the just/unjust war theory. Adultery is a personal act. It does not kill millions of people, or even one person. It does not have government support. It always allows for the possibility of repentance and reconciliation which are precluded by killing. On balance from the view of morality, the Just Adultery Theory has much more in its favor than the just/unjust war theory. Why is it, then, that most Christians understand the weakness of the Just Adultery Theory, but are blind to the greater weaknesses of the just/unjust war theory? Could it be that we understand morality to be limited to a person and to personal conduct, and that what a group or a government does is beyond the limits of morality?
Or do we put the authority of a government above that of God? If a president, king, dictator or general says an action is necessary for the defense of a country, do we say a Christian may do it, and not be guilty of sin? Since the president knows more about what is required for national security than anyone else, then each Christian can obey in good conscience. It follows that if the leader says, "Rape," the Christian rapes. If the leader says "Kill," the Christian kills.
If, as a follower of Jesus, a person can intentionally kill another human because the president says it is okay, then surely he can rape another if a president, king or dictator orders it.
Can we serve both God and government when the government orders what God forbids?