|
|
|
War |
|
The Bible sees peace within and among nations as the fruit of a proper relationship with God and as a sign of the coming of God’s reign: “[T]hey shall beat their swords into plowshares, / and their spears into pruning hooks; / nation shall not lift up sword against nation, / neither shall they learn war any more” (Is 2:4). Yet early Israel often found itself at war, seeing its own war efforts as ordered by God to protect his people and punish evildoers who rejected his reign. In the New Testament, Jesus begins a new order based on the inner peace that comes from God’s offer of love and forgiveness for all (Jn 16:33). Jesus blesses peacemakers (Mt 5:9) and warns that “all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Mt 26:52). Yet he knows his own message will bring conflict and division as some refuse to hear it: “I have not come to bring peace, but a sword” (Mt 10:34). The New Testament does not condemn military service and sometimes speaks of civil authorities as legitimately wielding “the sword” to suppress evil (Rom 13:3-4). Many early Christians nonetheless renounced service in Rome’s army, not least because it involved swearing allegiance to an unjust state and its pagan gods. A long tradition of Christian pacifism renounces all recourse to deadly force, in literal adherence to Jesus’ example of returning only good for evil even at the loss of one’s own life (cf. Mt 5:39, 1 Pt 2:23-24). But the Church has held that those who have others under their care must defend them from attack so that “legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the state” (CCC 2265). True peace will never be established simply by force of arms; yet such force may sometimes be necessary to protect the innocent. The Just War Theory • In the fifth century, when Rome was threatened by barbarian invasions, St. Augustine taught that waging war is sometimes a tragic necessity in a sinful world – “but beyond doubt it is greater felicity to have a good neighbor at peace, than to conquer a bad one by making war” (City of God, IV, 15). He outlined moral criteria that were developed by others and accepted by the Church as the “just war” criteria. Their intent is not to justify war but to embody the strong presumption against going to war unless all criteria are met. First, one must have a just cause, such as the protection of basic human rights or the defense of the innocent from unjust aggression. Second, the use of force must be ordered by a competent and lawful authority with responsibility for the common good. Third, all peaceful means of resolving the conflict must be exhausted; war must be a last resort. Fourth, one must have a “right intention” in seeking to restore order and justice; even those with a just grievance cannot go to war out of hatred or a thirst for vengeance. Fifth, there must be a reasonable probability of success, and the expected benefits must be proportionate to the human and other costs of war. These criteria relate to what is sometimes called the ius ad bellum, or legitimacy of going to war. Two additional criteria affirmed by Catholic teaching relate to the ius in bello, or moral limits during war. The first, sometimes called proportionality of means, demands that the degree of force used be reasonable in light of the military goal; one must not needlessly risk lives or cause more harm than one is trying to prevent. The second, known as the principle of discrimination or of noncombatant immunity, forbids targeting civilian populations. The principle of discrimination is of special importance, because it is simply a restatement of the fifth commandment: Directly taking innocent human life is always wrong. This principle has led Popes beginning with Pius XII to condemn the modern theory of total warfare, which holds that any means necessary to achieve victory may be used. When the Allies engaged in obliteration bombing of Dresden and other cities to terrorize Germany and hasten the end of World War II, Catholic theologians condemned the act. Similar objections have been raised to the use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, because the valid goal of ending the war and saving Allied soldiers’ lives could not justify the evil means of directly killing many thousands of noncombatants. Such destruction cannot be defended as the kind of “indirect” killing involved in using the minimum force necessary to defeat an attacking army. Recent Development • In light of the carnage made possible by nuclear weapons in our time, the Second Vatican Council urged “a completely fresh reappraisal of war” (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes, 80). By this the Council did not mean that the just war criteria were obsolete, but that it is far more difficult to fulfill them in the nuclear age. The Council solemnly reaffirmed the principle of discrimination: “Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation” (Gaudium et Spes, 80). Recognizing that any war between the major world powers risked a nuclear exchange that could be indiscriminately destructive, the bishops of the world pledged to “spare no effort in order to work for the moment when all war will be completely outlawed by international agreement” (Gaudium et Spes, 82). Thus the near impossibility of respecting the requirements of ius in bello in a nuclear war render it increasingly difficult to fulfill the requirements of ius ad bellum so as to justify going to war at all. Pope John XXIII said in 1963 that in the nuclear age “it is irrational to think that war is a proper way to obtain justice for violated rights” (encyclical Peace on Earth, Pacem in Terris, 127). In modern circumstances, only defense of the innocent from direct attack by an aggressor may constitute a clear “just cause” for going to war. During the Cold War, the United States and Soviet Union maintained an unsteady peace through nuclear deterrence. Each nation stockpiled nuclear weapons and threatened the other with widespread destruction if it initiated a conflict. The Church objected to this policy on two grounds. First, such a balance of terror is a precarious and dangerous approach that may in fact touch off the devastation it tries to prevent. Second, the huge resources devoted to this arms race are thereby diverted from the constructive and humanitarian efforts that could build the foundations for genuine peace (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 81). Modern Popes have said that deterrence can only be justified as a temporary stance leading to mutual disarmament; some theologians have gone further, urging unilateral nuclear disarmament because a policy of threatening indiscriminate destruction is intrinsically evil. Since the dissolution of the Soviet empire, the Church has continued to apply the just war criteria to new realities and new threats, such as abhorrent modern tendencies to see terrorism or even genocide or “ethnic cleansing” as legitimate means of waging war. See: Absolute Moral Norms; Authority; Capital Punishment; Common Good; Deterrence; Homicide; Human Life, Dignity and Sanctity of.
Suggested Readings: CCC 2265, 2307-2317. Vatican Council II, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes, 77-82. John XXIII, Peace on Earth, Pacem in Terris, 109-119. National Conference of Catholic Bishops, The Challenge of Peace: God’s Promise and Our Response. W. Nagle, ed., Morality and Modern Warfare. J. Finnis, J. Boyle, G. Grisez, Nuclear Deterrence, Morality and Realism. D. Hunter, “A Decade of Research on Early Christians and Military Service,” Religious Studies Review (April, 1992). Richard Doerflinger Others: GEORGE WEIGEL ON JUST-WAR PRINCIPLES, "Pre-emptive Military Action Against Terrorists Is Morally Legitimate".
|
|
|
|
|
