If your own
Christmas-season ponderings parallel some of those I've been posting here,
you've seen how one seemingly-small event indeed had quite a range of sides, or
facets – aspects – to it, reaching far beyond that event's singular locale and
moment. It is obvious how, down through the ages, monks and nuns – whole
religious orders – have spent their entire lives contemplating and writing on
this little wondrous event, the birth of a baby in Bethlehem.
You and I and
the stranger walking downtown this morning, and of course the accredited
theologian and philosopher… could easily find much more to say and ponder about
the impact of Jesus' coming into our wounded, mortal world. I've written here
as a flawed, very imperfect – while greatly curious – man, about some things
that such contemplation has been bringing out in me, and shine forth in some
people I've paid heed to, such as our co-pastor. So we've looked at piety here,
and humility, poverty, and simplicity… what about peace?
Let me sidestep
focusing on one of Jesus' many titles, Prince of Peace, which itself inspires
much troubling, trembling thought and contemplation. With our nation uselessly
at war, and mired in the bloodied sand for going-on five years now, the concept
of – and pleas for – peace is easily lost behind the shouting and the shooting.
That Jesus weeps today I have no doubt, and I greatly agree with the saying
that each transgression we commit pounds the nails and thorns and spear deeper
into the living flesh of His heart and soul.
Rather than
expound, myself, on this unacceptable blood-evil that so many of us have bought
into, I'd like to stick my neck out in another way and quote (without express
permission) most of a recently published article titled "What Makes a War
Just?" This appears in the current issue (January/February) of The
Catholic Answer, an excellent periodical on Catholic teachings, practices,
and history. I've found it a great aid and source as my faith continues to
deepen and grow. And, no, you don't have to be Catholic to read it and learn
from it.
The article can
be accessed and read online in its entirety, free of charge, until the
magazine's next issue is published. Its author is a columnist for the magazine,
Father Francis Hoffman, JCD; his bio there adds that he "is
chaplain of Northridge
Preparatory School in suburban Chicago, and a chaplain for Youth
Service International summer service projects. He is also a regular contributor
to Relevant
Radio's 'Morning Air' program".
Acknowledgment: This
issue of The Catholic Answer is copyright © 2008, Our Sunday Visitor
Publishing. The Catholic Answer (USPS 000-843) (ISSN 1044-1581) is published
bimonthly by Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division, Our Sunday Visitor, Inc.,
200 Noll Plaza, Huntington IN 46750; email TCAnswer[at]OSV.com,
webpage www.OSV.com.
Father, my blog
is yours.
Great
minds have wrestled with the morality of war in every age, because war has
seemed both unavoidable and at the same time reprehensible. Over the centuries
the Church has developed doctrine about the criteria for determining whether a
war is just or unjust.
This
"just-war doctrine" attempts to balance the rights of victims against
the social benefits of peace and stability in order to serve the common good.
In all cases, people agree that war should be a last resort to vindicate
rights.
How
did just-war doctrine develop? Even before the time of Jesus Christ, great
thinkers urged limits on war, and offered rules of engagement.
In
classical antiquity, the Greek philosophers Plato
(c. 428 - c. 348 B.C.) and Aristotle (384 - 322 B.C.) argued that war is
reasonable only in order to reestablish peace. Cicero
(106 - 43 B.C.), the renowned Roman statesman and jurist, went further and
established three rules for war: 1) just cause; 2) declaration of
war by the legitimate authority; and 3) just conduct of the war.
In
the century after Cicero, Jesus Christ came preaching forgiveness and
reconciliation in the Sermon on the Mount: "Blessed are the peacemakers"
and turn the
other cheek. Later, when St. Peter tried to defend Jesus from those
who had come to take Him away by force, Jesus told the apostle to put away
his sword.
But
was Jesus truly a pacifist? Some think not, and have taken His words about the
spiritual battle to justify armed conflict.
Our
Lord said: "Do you think that I have come to establish peace
on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division". Then, later: "One
who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one".
Moreover,
inspired Scriptures quoting St. John the Baptist and St. Paul recognize the
legitimacy of the soldier's profession (see Romans 13:4;
Luke 3:14).
If the Sacred Scriptures were our only point of reference, reasonable people
might argue about whether revelation supports the just-war doctrine, since the
Scriptures just cited seem to contradict one another.
Fortunately,
we have recourse to the living Tradition and Magisterium
of the Church for guidance on such important matters.
Just
a few centuries after the time of Christ, St. Ambrose (340 - 397) adopted Cicero's rules of
war, and his student St. Augustine (354 - 430) would later expand on
just-war doctrine in a number of his works. Augustine recognized the horror of
war, but understood armed conflict to be a necessity and not so much a matter
of choice.
In
addition to the two Ciceronian reasons that justify the right to go to war
(jus ad bellum), he specified that part of conducting a war fairly
(jus in bello) meant recognizing the rights of clerics to be exempt from
military service.
Later,
St. Thomas Aquinas would expand on this and
resolve the doubts about the legitimacy of fighting on holy days and laying
ambushes. Finally, in recent times, the Church's reflections on the horrors of
world wars led an ecumenical council and several popes to plead for "war, never again!"
Principles
of Just-War Doctrine
The
just-war doctrine of the Church presumes in favor of peace and establishes a
rigorous moral framework that seeks to prevent war. The justification for war
is based on a right to self-defense, but self-defense must always be
proportional to the act of aggression.
The
difficulty with these principles, of course, is that they are necessarily broad
and open to interpretation.
Let's
take a closer look at the four conditions for a just war, which must all be
present at one and the same time:
Father
references here the conditions cleanly outlined in the Catechism
of the Catholic Church, No. 2309:
The strict conditions for legitimate
defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity
of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy.
At one and the same time:
1) The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the
nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain.
This
statement assumes that the damage is unjust, and therefore one side is right
and the other side is wrong. In other words, the war can be a just action for
one side, but not for the other.
This
conclusion is based on the principle of noncontradiction. In reality, both sides might
think they are right, but in a truly just war, only one side can be right. In
fact, many times wars are unjust, and both sides are wrong.
Besides
being lasting and grave, the damage must be certain. There are three levels of
certainty: subjective, moral, and absolute.
Some
writers argue that only moral certainty about the damage inflicted is
necessary. Yet moral certainty is a category more suitable for
marriage-nullification cases in which it is often impossible to reach absolute
certainty about the psychological capacity of a spouse.
Because
of the awful consequences of war, more prudent moralists argue that absolute
certainty about the damage inflicted, and the identity of the aggressor, must
be present before launching an attack.
This
first set of conditions makes it difficult to understand, for example, how a
"preemptive strike" against a potential aggressor who threatens to
use weapons of mass destruction could be justified unless there is absolute
certainty the foe does indeed possess weapons of mass destruction.
(If I might
step in here a moment, Father: a certain sitting American president never
considered our present military disaster in such terms, before committing our
lives and the lives of innocents abroad. George, you cannot wash the blood of
our children, and theirs, from your hands any more than Lady Macbeth could.
Excuse me, Father.)
2) All other means of putting an end to it must
have been shown to be impractical or ineffective.
Again,
this principle is open to interpretation. An impatient government would be
inclined to attack rather than rehearse another charade of diplomacy with a
wily enemy. But the point here is simply this: War is just only as a last
resort.
3) There must be serious prospects of success.
This
principle largely depends on the will of the people. Great Britain did not have
much hope at the beginning of World War II, but the British were convinced they would rather die than serve Hitler's
designs. The American colonists were potentially outnumbered and poorly armed,
but they were convinced that liberty was worth the fight.
4) The use of arms must not produce evils and
disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of
destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
This
final criterion is perhaps the most difficult to meet. That's because the use
of military force often incites hatred and retaliation, leading to an escalation
of conflict and a downward spiral of violence and degradation.
The Catechism
concludes:
The evaluation of these
conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who
have responsibility for the common good.
Who
Evaluates?
The
question remains: Who has the responsibility to evaluate these conditions, to
determine if a specific war is actually just? That belongs to those who have
the responsibility for the common good.
In
the case of the United States, such responsibility rests with our elected
officials, and is a matter of prudential judgment.
Normally,
it's not the responsibility of the hierarchy of the Church to judge whether a
conflict is just according to these conditions, unless the circumstances are
clearly contrary to the conditions for a just war. Still, it is the
responsibility of the Church to teach the truth and urge people to
reconciliation, mutual trust, cooperation, and solidarity.
In
proposing these principles, the Church stands on a higher moral ground, with
a longer historical vision and a deeper understanding of humanity, than secular
governments. If the citizens of a particular democracy are convinced that
their elected officials have made an error of judgment, they have a responsibility
to make their voices heard.
[end of article]
And so we do.
Let it be known, George: this particular war (and I could list others) has been
unjust from Day One. You cannot make it "just" by plugging your ears,
and calling "unpatriotic" those of us who follow a moral standard
genuinely founded on the words we were given by the Prince of Peace… He to whom
you give, at best, perfunctory lip service. Sir.
Jesus weeps.
May He have mercy on us.
No comments:
Post a Comment