MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Location: file:///C:/24F46892/Churchteachingonwar.htm Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" THE CHURCH’S TEACHING ON WAR

THE CHURCH’S TEACHING ON WAR

 

History

 

   &n= bsp;        Current Church teaching builds on the reli= gious traditions of Judaism and Christianity developed over more than three millennia. 

 

Early texts in the Hebrew= Bible characterize God as a warrior god: “YHWH will fight for you” (E= xod 14:14) and “YHWH is a warrior; YHWH is his name” (Exod 15:3).  Israel was to wage a holy war; all= its defeated enemies, including noncombatants, were to be sacrificed to God: &#= 8220;Now go and smite Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare th= em, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass” (1 Sam 15:3); “and when YHWH your God delivers them up to = you and you defeat them, then you must utterly destroy them” (Deut 7:1-2)= .

 

   &n= bsp;        The sixth commandment, “You shall not kill” (Exod 20:13 =3D Deut 5:= 17), applied strictly only to a member of the covenanted community.  But other texts strike a somewhat different note: “He who handles the bow shall not stand” (Amos 2:14-15); “Because you have trusted in your chariots and in the multi= tude of your warriors, turmoil shall break out among your tribes, and all your fortresses shall be destroyed” (Hos 10:13-14); “It shall come to pass in the latter days that…  they shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, nor shall they train for war any more” (Isa 2:2-4 =3D Mic 4:1-3); and “Thus sa= ys YHWH, the God of Israel: ‘Behold, I will turn back the weapons of war which are in your hands and with which you intend to fight.’”

 

        &= nbsp;   The teaching of the New Testament, reflecting the teaching of Jesus, is radical= ly different: “You have heard that it was said to your ancestors, ‘= ;You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment.’  But I say to you, whoever is angry= with his brother will be liable to judgment” (Matt 5:21-22); “You ha= ve heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’  But I say to yo= u, offer no resistance to one who is evil” (Matt 5:38-39): “You ha= ve heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’  But I say to yo= u, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your heavenly Father” (Matt 5:43-45 =3D Luke 6:27-28): “See that no one returns evil for evil” (1 Thess 5:15): “= Do not repay anyone evil for evil” (Rom 12:17).

 

        &= nbsp;   Followers of Jesus seem to have been pacifists in practice, but an early accommodatio= n to political realities was made after the establishment of Christianity as the religion of the Roman Empire.  It is called the just war theory. = As enunciated by Augustine of Hippo (4th century), it opposes all killing as contrary to the law of love.&nb= sp; It holds that no Christian should ever kill even in self-defense sin= ce one should not love property or even one’s own life more than God or neighbor.  However, to maintain peace, legitimate rulers have the right and the duty (and their subjects ha= ve the duty to obey) to wage war if it is not contrary to divine law.  Defense of peace is the only justification: there could be limited war depending on the purpose (peace),= the authority (legitimate ruler), and mode of conduct (no “overkill” and respect for noncombatants).

 

        &= nbsp;   Thomas Aquinas (13th century) follows Augustine’s just war theory, but roots the justification of war in natural law and natural justice rather than in charity or love.  His = thesis is that the supreme authority of the state cannot lack the necessary means = for the common good, and this means includes the right to wage war if (1) there= is a just cause; (2) it is ordered by lawful authority; and (3) it is waged wi= th the right intention, i.e., all other means have been tried, and war is wage= d in the right manner (no destruction of the innocent).

 

 &nbs= p;          Modern Catholic thinkers such as Richard McCor= mick, S.J., have refined the just war theory by laying down the following princip= les: (1) wars of aggression are immoral, i.e., one may not wage war simply becau= se rights are infringed (e.g., property stolen but no destruction of life); (2) war is not defensible or justifiable simply to punish an offense or to reco= ver a thing; (3) defensive preparations are justifiable; one need not be indifferent to aggression; (4) war must be the last resort; (5) the princip= le of proportionality is to be observed, with the destruction and death accompanying war for both sides weighed against the evils of the injustice = or aggression; (6) the use of force must be limited to the extent necessary to achieve the goal of peace; and (7) there must be a probability of success.<= o:p>

 

Modern Church Teaching

 =

        &= nbsp;   Of= ficial Church documents on war over the past 50 years have t= ended to move away from the just war theory to return to an earlier Christian stance.  Pope John XXIII in hi= s 1963 encyclical Pacem in Terris declared: “Men are becoming more and more convinced that disputes which arise between states should not be resol= ved by recourse to arms, but rather by negotiation” (§126).  And: “We grant indeed that t= his conviction is chiefly based on the terrible destructive force of modern weapons….  Therefore, in= an age such as ours which prides itself on its atomic energy it is contrary to reason to hold that war is now a suitable way to restore rights which have = been violated” (§127).

 

        &= nbsp;   The Second Vatican Council, in its decree Gaudium et Spes, upheld the ju= st war tradition but recognized and praised “those who renounce the use = of violence in the vindication of their rights and who resort to methods which= are otherwise available to weaker parties, too, provided this can be done witho= ut injury to the rights and duties of others or the community itself” (§78).

 

        &= nbsp;   Pope Paul VI in Populorum Progressio proposes a fund, made up of money wh= ich would otherwise be spent on arms, to bring relief to the destitute of the world: “When so many people are hungry…, every exhausting armam= ents race becomes an intolerable scandal” (§53); and he emphasizes th= at the development of peoples, not defense budgets, is the best defense against war: “the new name for peace is development” (§87).

 

        &= nbsp;   Pope John Paul II echoed these words in his Centesimus Annus: “At t= he root of war there are usually real and serious grievances: injustices suffe= red, legitimate aspirations frustrated, poverty, and the exploitation of multitu= des of desperate people who see no real possibility of improving their lot by peaceful means.  For this reas= on, another name for peace is development” (§52).  And further: “No, never agai= n war, which destroys the lives of innocent people, teaches how to kill, throws in= to upheaval even the lives of those who do the killing and leaves behind a tra= il of resentment and hatred, thus making it all the more difficult to find a j= ust solution of the very problems which provoked the war” (ibid.).  And in Evangelium Vitae he writes: “Among the signs of hope we should also count the spread, at = many levels of public opinion, of a new sensitivity ever more opposed to war as = an instrument for the resolution of conflicts between peoples, and increasingly oriented to finding effective but nonviolent means to counter the armed aggressor” (§27).

 

        &= nbsp;   Three identifiable trends are found in these teachings: (1) a stronger antiwar st= ance prompted by the destructive potential of modern weapons; (2) a call for disarmament that includes a recognition of the role development of peoples = must play in achieving peace; and (3) praise for and promotion of conscientious objection and nonviolent alternatives to war.

 

        &= nbsp;   The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops further articulates these trends in Vatican teaching by asserting that the Christian ha= s two legitimate moral options in choosing a response to war: nonviolence or just war.  In The Challenge of P= eace (1983) they write: “The Christian has no choice but to defend peace.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>  This is an inalienable obligation.=   It is the how of defending peace w= hich offers moral options” (§73).&nb= sp; Similarly, in The Harvest of Justice Is Sown in Peace (1993), they acknowledge this as a normal development in the history of tradition: “Throughout history there has been a shifting relation between the two streams of the tradition which always remain in tension.”<= /span>

 

After September 11

 

        &= nbsp;   The war on terrorism and the threat of war in <= st1:place w:st=3D"on">Iraq challenge us to clarify = our principles.  We all stand or f= all before God on our own two feet.  None of us can abdicate our moral responsibility to any authority, c= ivil or religious.  We all have an obligation to form our consciences and to act accordingly.

 

        &= nbsp;   Should we follow the just war theory?  The conditions demand that the dam= age inflected by the aggressor be lasting, grave, and certain; that all possible nonviolent means of avoiding war are exhausted; = and that the evil inflicted not be greater than the evil to be eliminated.  The first condition was clearly me= t by the death of thousands in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania on 9/11.  Are the other two co= nditions being met?

 

        &= nbsp;   The initial response of the U.S. bishops in a letter of September 21 to President Bush urged a just response according to the just war tradition.  But it did not mention the requirement that all nonviolent means of resolving the conflict be exhausted and indeed seemed to presume that milit= ary conflict was inevitable.  Howe= ver, their pastoral message of November 14, “Living with Faith and Hope af= ter September 11,” recognizes the importance of the nonviolent witness of Christians and people of other faiths that serves as an “effective counter to terrorist claims of religious justification.”  They continue in a balanced fashio= n, “Some Christians profess a position of principled nonviolence, which holds that nonmilitary means are the only legitimate way to respond in this case.  This is a valid Christi= an response.  While respecting th= is position and maintaining a strong presumption against the use of force, the Church has sanctioned the use of moral criteria for a just war to allow the= use of force by legitimate authority in self-defense and as a last resort.̶= 1;

 

Conclusions

 

        &= nbsp;   What then does the Church teach us about war these days?  A tension is obviously still maint= ained between the traditional just war theory and conscientious objection and the principled nonviolence of a well-formed conscience.  But some clear mandates emerge.  The first is that we are all calle= d to work for peace, which includes recognizing that the just development of all peoples is the way to peace.  Second, we must always have an overwhelming presumption against violence, which can only be used as a last resort.  Third, we must be constantly open-= minded and willing to rethink our own positions in light of our developing knowled= ge of the complexities of the situation, the changing teachings of the Church,= and the insights of others.  Fourt= h, we would do well to reflect on the horrible cost of human lives and human dign= ity in wars past, including perhaps especially those of our own generation.  And fifth, we should pay special attention to the words our present pope uttered at this year’s World = Day of Peace: “No peace without justice, no justice without forgiveness.”  He contin= ued: “The ability to forgive lies at the very basis of the idea of a future society marked by justice and solidarity.&= nbsp; By contrast, the failure to forgive, especially when it serves to prolong conflict, is extremely costly in terms of human development.  Resources are used for weapons rat= her than for development, peace, and justice….  Peace is essential for development= , but true peace is only made possible through forgiveness.”