Catholic Teaching - A Just War
A Catholic who limits himself to lament the
present disorder, to declare himself a pacifist at all
costs, and does nothing to give a Gospel input to temporal realities, does not
render a good service to the cause of peace, which is the work of justice.
A Just War by Cardinal
Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI
·
Q: Is there any such thing as a "just war"?
Cardinal
Ratzinger: This is a major issue of concern. In the preparation of the
Catechism, there were two problems: the death penalty and just war theory were
the most debated. The debate has taken on new urgency given the response of the
Americans. Or, another example:
I'd say
that we cannot ignore, in the great Christian tradition and in a world marked
by sin, any evil aggression that threatens to destroy not only many values,
many people, but the image of humanity itself.
In this
case, defending oneself and others is a
duty. Let's say for example that a father who sees his family attacked is
duty-bound to defend them in every way possible -- even if that means using proportional violence.
Thus,
the just war problem is defined according to these parameters:
1)
Everything must be conscientiously considered, and every alternative explored
if there is even just one possibility to save human life and values;
2) Only the most necessary means of defense
should be used and human rights must always be respected; in such a war the
enemy must be respected as a human being and all fundamental rights must be
respected.
I think
that the Christian tradition on this point has provided answers that must be
updated on the basis of new methods of destruction and of new dangers. For
example, there may be no way for a population to defend itself from an atomic
bomb. So, these must be updated.
But I'd say that we cannot
totally exclude the need, the moral need, to suitably defend people and values
against unjust aggressors. …
3. Not
all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For
example, if a Catholic were to be at
odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the
decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to
present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil
authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in
imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms
to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of
opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty,
but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”
The Just War by ST. THOMAS AQUINAS
I reply that it must be said that,
in order that a war may be just, three things are necessary.
In the first place, the authority of the prince, by whose order
the war is undertaken; for it does not belong to a private individual to make
war, because, in order to obtain justice, he can have recourse to the judgment
of his superior. Neither does it belong to a private individual to summon a
multitude of people together as must be done to engage in war. But, since the
care of the State is confided to Princes, it is to them that it belongs to
defend the city, the kingdom or province which is subject to their authority.
Just as it is permissible for them to defend these, by the material sword,
against those who trouble them from within, by punishing the evil-doers
according to the word of the Apostle: "The
prince beareth not the sword in vain for he is the
minister of God to execute His vengeance against him who doeth evil"
(Romans xiii: 4), so, in like manner, it is to them that it belongs to bear
the sword in combats for the defense of the State against external enemies.
Also, the Psalmist says to princes: "Snatch the poor and deliver the needy
out of the hands of the sinner" (Psalm lxxxi:
4). This is what makes
In the second place, there must be
a just cause; that is to say, those
attacked must have, by a fault, deserved to be attacked. This is what makes St.
Augustine say in Book VI, Question 16, of Questions on Joshua: "Just wars
are usually defined as those which avenge
injuries, when the nation or city against which warlike action is to be
directed has neglected either to punish wrongs committed by its own citizens or
to restore what has been unjustly taken by it. Further, that kind of war is
undoubtedly just which God Himself ordains."
In the third place, it is necessary
that the intention of those who fight should be right; that is to say, that
they propose to themselves a good to be
effected or an evil to be avoided. This is what made
To the second argument (viz. that
war is a sin, as being "contrary to a divine precept") it must be
replied that these precepts, as
To the third argument the reply is,
that those who wage wars justly have peace
as the object of their intention, and so they are not opposed to peace, but
only to that evil peace which the Lord did not come on earth to bring (St.
Matthew x: 34). Hence Augustine says (Ep. ad Bonifacium, CLXXXIX) :
"For peace is not sought in order to the kindling of war, but war is waged in order that peace may be
obtained. Therefore, even in waging war, cherish the spirit of the
peacemaker, that, by conquering those whom you attack, you may lead them back
to the advantages of peace . . . ."
To the fourth argument the reply is
that manly exercises in warlike feats of arms are not all forbidden but those
which are inordinate and perilous, and
end in slaying or plundering. In olden times warlike exercises presented no
such danger and hence they were called exercises of arms or bloodless wars.
Is It Always Sinful to Wage
War? ST. THOMAS AQUINAS
Objection 1: It would seem that it
is always sinful to wage war. Because punishment is not inflicted except for
sin. Now those who wage war are threatened by Our Lord with punishment,
according to Mt. 26:52: "All that take the sword shall perish with the
sword." Therefore all wars are unlawful.
Objection 2: Further, whatever is
contrary to a Divine precept is a sin. But war is contrary to a Divine precept,
for it is written (Mt. 5:39): "But I say to you not to resist evil";
and (Rm. 12:19): "Not revenging yourselves, my dearly beloved, but give
place unto wrath." Therefore war is always sinful.
Objection 3: Further, nothing, except sin, is contrary to an act of
virtue. But war is contrary to peace. Therefore war is always a sin.
Objection 4: Further, the exercise of a lawful thing is itself lawful,
as is evident in scientific exercises. But warlike exercises which take place
in tournaments are forbidden by the Church, since those who are slain in these
trials are deprived of ecclesiastical burial. Therefore it seems that war is a
sin in itself.
On the contrary,
Augustine says in a sermon on the son of the centurion: "If the Christian
Religion forbade war altogether, those who sought salutary advice in the Gospel
would rather have been counseled to cast aside their arms, and to give up
soldiering altogether. On the contrary, they were told: 'Do violence to no man
. . . and be content with your pay' [Lk. 3:14]. If he commanded them to be
content with their pay, he did not forbid soldiering."
I answer that, In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary.
First, the authority of
the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged. For it
is not the business of a private individual to declare war, because he can seek
for redress of his rights from the tribunal of his superior. Moreover it
is not the business of a private individual to summon together the people, which has to be done in wartime. And as the care of
the common weal is committed to those who are in authority, it is their business
to watch over the common weal of the city, kingdom or province subject to them.
And just as it is lawful for them to have recourse to the sword in defending
that common weal against internal disturbances, when they punish evil-doers,
according to the words of the Apostle (Rm. 13:4): "He beareth not the sword in vain: for
he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil";
so too, it is their business to have recourse to the sword of war in defending
the common weal against external enemies. Hence it is said to those who are in
authority (Ps. 81:4): "Rescue the
poor: and deliver the needy out of the hand of the sinner"; and for
this reason Augustine says: "The natural order conducive to peace among
mortals demands that the power to declare and counsel war should be in the
hands of those who hold the supreme authority."
Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should
be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault. Wherefore
Augustine says: "A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges
wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends
for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized
unjustly."
Thirdly, it is necessary that
the belligerents should have a rightful
intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of
evil. Hence Augustine says: "True religion looks upon as peaceful those
wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandizement, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting
the good." For it may happen that the war is declared by the
legitimate authority, and for a just cause, and yet be rendered unlawful
through a wicked intention. Hence Augustine says: "The passion for
inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific
and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust
of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war."
Reply to Objection 1: As Augustine says: "To take the sword is to arm
oneself in order to take the life of anyone, without the command or permission
of superior or lawful authority." On
the other hand, to have recourse to the sword (as a private person) by the
authority of the sovereign or judge, or (as a public person) through zeal for
justice, and by the authority, so to speak, of God, is not to "take the
sword," but to use it as commissioned by another, wherefore it does
not deserve punishment. And yet even those who make sinful use of the sword are
not always slain with the sword, yet they always perish with their own sword,
because, unless they repent, they are punished eternally for their sinful use
of the sword.
Reply to Objection 2: Such like precepts, as Augustine observes, should always be
borne in readiness of mind, so that we be ready to obey them, and, if
necessary, to refrain from resistance or self-defense. Nevertheless it is
necessary sometimes for a man to act otherwise for the common good, or for the
good of those with whom he is fighting. Hence Augustine says: "Those whom
we have to punish with a kindly severity, it is necessary to handle in many
ways against their will. For when we are
stripping a man of the lawlessness of sin, it is good for him to be vanquished,
since nothing is more hopeless than the happiness of sinners, whence arises a
guilty impunity, and an evil will, like an internal enemy."
Reply to Objection 3: Those who wage war justly aim at peace, and so they are not
opposed to peace, except to the evil peace, which Our Lord "came not to
send upon earth" (Mt. 10:34). Hence Augustine says: "We do not seek
peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace. Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that
you may vanquish those whom you war against, and bring them to the prosperity
of peace."
Reply to Objection 4: Manly exercises in warlike feats of arms are not all
forbidden, but those which are inordinate and perilous, and end in slaying or
plundering. In olden times warlike exercises presented no such danger, and
hence they were called "exercises of arms" or "bloodless
wars," as Jerome states.
This article
examines the paradox of war and pacifism in the Bible, where paradox means
apparent contradiction. The examination includes a review of the major
positions Christians have taken on the paradox historically, from that of
pacifism, to qualified participation, to the crusade. Borrowing from the
natural and social sciences, as well as the science of biblical hermeneutics, a
resolution of the paradox is put forth. Essentially, the resolution fits
closest with the tradition begun by Augustine of qualified participation, known
as the "Just War" doctrine. However, the resolution also offers a
unique critique of the "Just War" doctrine, and lays the basis for
further study.
One
longstanding and troubling debate in the history of Christianity has been the
dispute over the paradox of war and pacifism found in the Bible. From the
earliest records to the many debates in the 1980s, Christians and
non-Christians have debated whether a literal, or even metaphorical, reading of
the Bible provides reasons for Christians to support, oppose, or qualify their
participation in wars sponsored by the nation. Even today, national leaders,
both Christian and non-Christian, publicly justify support for wars in terms
familiar to many people that reflect this debate. Wars of defense are labeled
"just" wars; wars of aggression are not.{1}
Given the nature of the positions adopted
by different Christians, one would conclude that the Bible is contradictory on
the issue of war and pacifism. Some scholars have even argued that the God of
the Old Testament is a vengeful God, while the God of the New Testament is a
loving God. I believe, however, that a careful reading of the biblical passages
which treat the issues of war and pacifism (or non-retaliation, to be more
precise), and a comparison of the results of this reading with the positions of
many debate participants, reveal the issue to be more of a paradox than a
contradiction, where paradox means an apparent contradiction. If so, then, the
debate may be amenable to resolution.
I will attempt to bring forth the
resolution in the following way. First, the essential positions of the paradox
will be developed as fully as can fit in a short article; second, I will
examine the historic resolutions that Christians have provided to the problem
and offer a critique of each; and third, I will propose a new way to look at
the problem which I hope will yield a common ground upon which Christians can
unite.
The focus of this paper will be on the
position Christians, as part of their larger society, can take. It will not
address the specific concerns of Christians that live in a democratic versus a nondemocratic society. For the Christian, different
problems emerge in a democratic society that do not
appear in a nondemocratic one. The right to
participate, the challenge of deciding when, where, and in what form Christian
values ought to be made law, and the role of the Christian in a non-Christian
government all deserve serious attention, but are not the emphases here.
Obviously, such problems are not the lot of Christians in non-democratic
societies, and democracy is still, historically, a novel form of government, so
one would expect that specific Christian solutions to these problems are still
being worked out. Here, the focus will be narrowed to that which I hope all
Christians in all societies can agree.
Pacifism: The principal support for the view that the Bible
advocates pacifism comes from Christ's Sermon on the Mount. In Matthew 5:39-44,
he states:
“But I say to you, do not resist him who is evil; but whoever
slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone wants
to sue you, and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. And whoever shall
force you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks of you and do
not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you. You have heard that it was
said, You shall love your neighbor, and hate your
enemy. But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute
you.”{2}
In addition, in Luke 6:27-35, from
Christ's sermon on the plain:
“But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray
for those who mistreat you. Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other
also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him
either. Give to everyone who asks of you, and whoever takes away what is yours,
do not demand it back. And just as you want men to treat you, treat them in the
same way. And if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For
even sinners love those who love them. And if you lend to those from whom you
expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, in
order to receive back the same amount. But love your enemies, and do good, and
lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will
be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men.”
This position seems extreme, especially to
modern man. Seemingly, for any offense, the Christian is not to respond to even
violent behavior directed at himself. If stolen from,
the Christian is to offer even more than was taken in the first place. And
rather than lend money to someone in need, we are, if called upon, to give it
without expectation of return.
There are at least two fundamental
assumptions to the pacifist position.{3} The first is that killing is always wrong. Murder is murder,
whether in one's own society or another's society. If murder cannot be
justified at home, then it cannot be justified in another country, whatever the
reasons given for it. War ought therefore to be regarded as murder on a mass
scale.
A second assumption of the pacifist
position is that resisting evil with force is wrong. Evil should never be
resisted with physical force, but with the spiritual force of love. The
Christian and Old Testament Hebrew is never to
retaliate, nor repay evil with evil, for vengeance belongs to God (Deuteronomy
32:35). Paul seems to confirm this in Romans 12:19-21.
“Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the
wrath of God, for it is written, Vengeance is Mine, I will repay, says the
Lord. But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a
drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head. Do not be
overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”
Private and public capacities do not alter
the command that "Thou shall not kill." What a private citizen cannot
do in his neighborhood, he cannot do in another country, simply because he
holds political office and responsibility.
War: Support for the position that the individual has a responsibility to
fight in wars directed by the leaders of his nation is more complicated.
Generally, support is derived from a study of ancient
The first record of war before
A theocracy is a unique form of government
in which God himself is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, and his laws are
taken as the statute book of the kingdom.
The wars of extermination were also
specific to the enemies
One famous war of this type is the one
recounted in the destruction of
So the people shouted, and the priests blew the trumpets, and
it came about, when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, that the people
shouted with a great shout and the wall fell down flat, so that the people went
up into the city, every man straight ahead, and they took the city. And they
utterly destroyed everything in the city, both man and woman, young and old,
and ox and sheep and donkey, with the edge of the sword. And they burned the
city with fire, and all that was in it. Only the silver and gold and articles
of bronze and iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the Lord. Then
Joshua made them take an oath at that time, saying cursed before the Lord is
the man who rises up and builds this city
In this case, not only was everything
except the riches destroyed, but a curse was put on the city so that no one
would attempt to rebuild it. Other examples of such wars can be cited:
1. With the Benjamites
of Gibeah, Judges 19:22-30.
2. With
3. With Makkedah, Joshua
10:28.
4. With
5. With Eglon, Joshua 10:35; Debir,
verse 39; and all the cities of the
6. In the northern campaign against Hazor, Madon, Shimron,
and Achshaph, Joshua 11:11-14.
While these wars of extermination are
difficult to come to terms with, they nonetheless were for a purpose. According
to one biblical scholar:
In every case the baneful
infection of degenerate idolatry and moral depravity had to be removed
before
There were, of course, other wars fought
during the theocracy of
After
1.
2. Civil War (2 Samuel 2:8-5:5). After Saul died, the house of David
fought the house of Saul for control of the throne.
3. Defensive Wars (2 Samuel 5:17-25; I Chronicles 18:1; 2 Samuel
21:15-22). Because of David's previous successes, the neighboring Philistines
attacked
4.
The monarchic period includes civil,
defensive, and aggressive wars. Notably absent was a rebellion against the
divinely sanctioned authority of King Saul.
In a general statement from
Nebuchadnezzar's dream, it is revealed that God rules over all nations, not
just
Other passages treat the issue of God raising up Gentile nations through war. In Daniel 1:1-2, God
delivers
In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim
king of
God is also depicted as setting up Cyrus
the Great in Isaiah 44:28.
The New Testament confirms the authority
given to men to establish and govern their respective societies. In Romans
13:1-2, Paul writes:
“Let every person be in subjection to the governing
authority. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are
established by God. Therefore, he who
resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed
will receive condemnation upon themselves.”
These periods in the Old Testament reveal
that war was waged and the responsibility of citizens was to fight for their
nations. Moreover, wars were fought throughout
Historically, Christians have adopted many
positions on war. However, three broad positions encompass the range of choices
made over the millennia: (1) pacifism, (2) qualified participation, and (3) the
crusade. A brief examination of the three positions is warranted here.
The argument is that historically Christianity
was originally pacifist.{10} After the closing of the New Testament canon, historians
note that there is no evidence that Christians served in the Roman army.
Indeed, in 174 A.D. the famous heretic Celsus
reproached Christians for their failure to serve in the military and defend the
empire.
If all men were to do the same as you, there would be nothing
to prevent the king from being left in utter solitude and desertion and the
force of the Empire would fall into the hands of the wildest and most lawless
barbarians.{11}
Between 180-313 A.D., both Eastern and Western Christianity repudiated
Christians participating in warfare, though some were allowed military service
if arms were not taken up. By the time of
Some elements of pacifism were reborn
during and soon after the Reformation. Contemporary pacifists account for a
small minority of Christians today. They include the Anabaptists and their
continental descendants: the Mennonites, the Amish, the Hutterites,
the Swiss Brethren and the Quakers. All but the Quakers believe not only in
pacifism, but also in complete social and political separation from the society.
Although they do not deny the state the right to bear the sword, the
separatists believe that Christians ought not to participate in the government
at all. The Quakers, on the other hand, believe in participation, but are not
allowed to take up arms, lest they resort to a sub-Christian ethic. But by
suffering and patience, the Quakers are enjoined to reform the society in which
they participate.
There are several reasons and traditions
for their pacifism. Some believe that participation in war is completely
incompatible with the commands of Christ. Tertullian
was noted to have asked, "If we are enjoined to love our enemies, whom are
we to hate? If injured, we are forbidden to retaliate.{12}
Origen stated another reason. He believed that Christians, by their prayers and
disciplined lives, are of more use to kings than are soldiers.{13}
Early on, there were other reasons to
avoid military service. Christians during the early
Modern pacifists tend to follow more
closely the first idea, that participation in warfare is incompatible with the
commands of Christ. Since official persecution (with minor exceptions) ceased
by 380 A.D. there have not been the same historical reasons to justify
pacifism. Perhaps the best expression of the sentiment of contemporary pacifism
is found in a Dunker tract of about 1900 that notes:
in support of the principles of
nonresistance the following scriptural facts: "Christ is the Prince of
Peace" (Isa. 9:6). "His kingdom is not of
this world" (John 18:36). "The weapons of our warfare are not carnal" (II Cor. 10:4).
"We are to love our enemies" (Matt. 5:43). "We are to overcome
evil with good" (Rom. 12:21). "We are to pray for them which
despitefully use us and persecute us" (Matt. 5:44).{14}
The most longstanding and widespread
attempt to resolve the paradox follows the tradition of the "Just
War" doctrine. The "Just War" doctrine was first developed by
Augustine (354-430), who became Bishop of Hippo. Until his conversion to
Christianity, Augustine was steeped in pagan philosophy, especially neo-platonism and Manichaeism. Against the attack by pagan
philosophers that the sack of
The just war is to be
fought under the authority of the state, and is to limit its goals to the
restoration of justice or the preservation of peace. Moreover, the just war ...
in order to be just ... must be a last resort, entered into only after all
methods of solving disputes non-violently have been exhausted. Further, the
just war must be fought justly, that is, with special care taken to protect
non-combatants, and with the level of violence strictly limited to the minimum
necessary to accomplish the goal of justice, that is, the restoration of peace
or the preservation of justice.{15}
With modifications as to intent in war
added later by Thomas Aquinas, there are seven generally accepted tenets of the
"Just War" doctrine. They are divided into two types of arguments.
The first, jus ad bellum, are the principles that establish the justness
of the war itself; the second, jus in
(1) Competent authority: A war must
be declared by politically responsible authorities and not by private
individuals.
(2) Probability of success: A war should not be undertaken if there is
no obvious hope for success.
(3) Last Resort: A war must be a last resort after sincere efforts have
been made to resolve the controversy peacefully.
(4) Just Intent: The object of a war must be peace and reconciliation and
not the unlimited destruction of the enemy state.
(5) Just Cause: The war must be an act of defense in response to armed
aggression.
(6) Proportionality: The good
brought about by a war should outweigh its evils in cost and destruction to
both sides and the means used should be proportional to the harm caused.
(7) Discriminate means: Military actions should not be waged that
directly intend to take the lives of noncombatants (i.e., civilians or
innocents).{16}
Throughout history, some have sanctioned
the "Just War" doctrine, while others have condemned it. Some have
used it to support almost every war their country has fought in, and others have
used it to oppose every war their country has fought in. From the time of
Augustine until approximately 1000 A.D., most Christian soldiers were required
to do 40 days of penance for fighting in a war and killing enemy soldiers,
however "just" the war was declared. After Thomas Aquinas, a
Christian soldier was given the responsibility to not fight in an unjust war.{17}
Modern day application of the "Just
War" doctrine has led to many problems with the advent of nuclear weapons.
In 1983 the Catholic Bishops issued a paper that renounced nuclear war, but
allowed for the interim acceptability of nuclear deterrence in the pursuit of a
better means of preserving the peace.{18}
In 1986, the Methodist Bishops went further and not only renounced nuclear
weapons as well as nuclear deterrence, but also renounced defenses against
nuclear weapons, specifically the U. S. Strategic Defense Initiative.
Perhaps the complexity of the problem of
reconciling nuclear deterrence and the "Just War" doctrine may be
best summed up by a provisional study document of the World Council of
Churches, issued in 1958, that stands to this day:
Christians must never consent to [the] use [of nuclear
armaments] in all-out war . . . We are agreed on one point: This is that
Christians should openly declare that the all out use of these weapons should
never be resorted to. Moreover, that Christians must oppose all policies which
give evidence of leading to all-out war. Finally, if all-out war should occur,
Christians should urge a cease fire, if necessary, on the enemy's terms,
and resort to non-violent resistance. We purposely refrain from defining the
stage at which all-out war may be reached (emphasis added).{19}
Such a position is not likely to simplify
the problem or help Christians make decisions during a crisis about whether the war is just or not, nor whether to support
nuclear deterrence in peacetime or not. Indeed, it is more likely to add to the
confusion that already exists.
A third alternative in the resolution of
the paradox that Christians have attempted (primarily in the middle
ages) has been the crusade. The crusade is fundamentally different from
the above two positions. According to one scholar:
A crusade was to be fought under the
authority of the church or of a charismatic religious leader, but not by the
state itself, although it might potentially be conducted by a theocratic state.
The goal of the crusade was not to be limited to restoring peace or preserving
justice; the goal instead was to uphold,
preserve, or expand the dominion of the church itself against the threats, real
or imagined, of its enemies.{20}
The crusades began first in the late
eleventh century at the instigation of the Byzantine Emperor Alexius Comnenus (1081-1118) in an attempt to regain territory lost
to the Seljuk Turks. But Alexius lacked workers. He appealed to Pope Urban II
with some arguments for help that remain to this day unknown to historians. At the Council of Clermont in 1095, the
Pope gave an eloquent speech in favor of a crusade against the infidels.
The reasons were probably twofold: first, because many Christians were irked by
Turkish (i.e., Muslim) control over
The appeal was accepted by a wide array of
people in
Historical attempts at resolving the
paradox have taken three forms. However, in practice, contemporary Christians
for the most part reject the crusade. Of the two remaining resolutions,
pacifism and qualified participation, the vast majority support the latter. One
of the problems with the "Just War" doctrine, however, is that it
does not seriously address the concerns of the pacifists, especially with
respect to Christ's sermon on the mount. One of the
principal problems of the pacifist position is that it fails to address the
concerns of the "Just War" adherents that Christians are to obey
authority and participate in the life of the state. The two extreme positions,
however, are the pacifist and the crusader. As will be demonstrated below, they
are based on similar logical fallacies and abuse of biblical hermeneutics. Once
corrected, the paradox can be resolved.
The historical attempts at resolving the
paradox of war and pacifism are similar in some respects to how Christians have
historically resolved other paradoxes.{24}
However, borrowing from the tools of good biblical scholarship (hermeneutics)
and the methodology of the natural and social sciences, there are certain
methodological tools for addressing the problem of paradox resolution. Of the
five principles or tools available, two are important here:
1. Establish the true frame of reference,
or point of view, of a given passage or passages; and
2. Establish the correct definition of a given system or systems under
consideration.{25}
The first thing to note about all passages
that treat the issue of the justifiability of war, do so with regard to the
state, not the individual. All passages that treat the principles of
nonviolence (nonretaliation) do so with respect to
the individual, and not the state. The point of view and the systems under
consideration are different in each case. In other words, the biblical
principles of warfare are for the state and the biblical principles for nonretaliation are for the individual. In the former, the
system in view is the state system, that is, the system of states in the
international community and their relations among one another. In the latter,
the system in view is the individual within the state and their relations among
one another within that system.
The problem one encounters when applying
the morality of nonretaliation (the morality given to
individuals) to the morality of the state is what is called in political theory
the "cross-level" fallacy.{26}
Just as in the natural sciences, one must regard the paradox of light as both a
particle (photon) and energy (wave-electromagnetism), yet not impute the
results of one study onto the other, so also it is important to separate the
systems under consideration. With two different systems under consideration, we
should regard those passages that treat one without application to the other,
unless specifically warranted by scriptures - i.e., the morality or right to
warfare may be okay for the state against other states, but not for individuals
against one another within the state, and the morality of nonretaliation
may be okay for the individual within the state, but not for the state itself.
Several theorists have identified that the
state system is fundamentally different from the system of individuals within a
state, and each has different conditions.{27} Within a state, there exists the condition of authority.
Among individuals, when confronted by a wrong, the victim can appeal to the
governing authorities for a just resolution, so long as the wronged
individual's morality is nonretaliation. There is
scriptural support for the condition of authority within a state, and the right
of the state to execute vengeance on behalf of individuals. According to Paul
in Romans 13:1, 3-4:
Let every person be in subjection to the governing
authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist
are established by God... For rulers are not a cause
of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of
authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; for it is a
minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it
does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger
who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil.{28}
Violence as a way of life is abhorred.{29}
But while the individual should not retaliate, he is allowed to appeal to the
authorities for a just settlement. In Acts 25:9-11, Paul uses the appeal
process when confronted with an unjust charge against him:
But Festus, wishing to do the Jews a favor, answered Paul and
said, "Are you willing to go up to
Here, Paul does not deny the state the
authority and the right to execute him if he had done evil. But he also avails
himself of the governing authorities.
For the international system, there exists
no higher human authority than the state itself. In other words, if a state is
wronged by another state, there is no higher authority to which it may appeal.
Technically, this condition is called anarchy. Anarchy within the system
of states compels states to seek self-help methods for redressing grievances,
such as diplomatic remonstrances, embargoes,
coalitions, alliances, and the ultimate form, war. The history of nations
engaging in warfare, empire building, counter-hegemonic coalitions, and even
border disputes testifies to the effectiveness of this act in precluding the
rise of a universal tyrant. Nationalism today remains the principal force in
the fractionalization of international politics. The downfall of the
The Bible posits God as the source for the
distinct conditions at the level of the state and the international system. As
noted above, authority was established within a state to restrain evil, and the
individuals within the state were given a morality of nonretaliation
and the right of appeal to the governing authorities to execute vengeance. For
the international system, Genesis 11 depicts God as dividing people into
different nations, tribes, and tongues also for restraining evil, this time as
unlimited tyranny. In Daniel 10:20-11:1, God's angels are shown to be engaged
in human warfare to prevent the domination of the world by one power. The
purpose for such engagement is explained in Zechariah 1, for there is no peace
for God's people when the unbelieving nations are at peace with one another. And in Matthew 10:34, Jesus Christ is
depicted as coming to bring war, not peace, for war will not cease until
unbelief ceases.
Earlier it was shown that the Old
Testament supports the right of states to engage in warfare. While the New
Testament writings (and the Old) emphasize individual conduct within a state,
neither Christ nor any of the apostles repudiated the right of states to engage
in war. In Luke 14:31, Christ acknowledges the fact of kings engaging in
warfare, without either condoning or condemning it: "Or what king, when he
sets out to meet another king in battle, will not first sit down and take
counsel whether he is strong enough with ten thousand men to encounter the one
coming against him with twenty thousand?" Further, Christ predicts the
necessity of future wars (again, without either condoning or condemning them)
as a natural condition and a prelude to end-times prophecies in Matthew 24:5-7:
For many will come in My name,
saying, I am the Christ, and will mislead many. And you will be hearing of wars
and rumors of wars; see that you are not frightened, for those things must take
place, but that is not yet the end. For nation will rise
against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and in various places there will
be famines and earthquakes.{30}
A stronger support emerges from John
18:36, where Christ answers Pontius Pilate by saying, My
kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of
this world, then My servants would be fighting, that I might not be delivered
up to the Jews; but as it is, "My kingdom is not of this realm." Coupled with Matthew 26:53, where Christ claims that he could
readily call forth some 12 legions of angels at a moment's notice, the right
to fight is not disputed, but the time and place are. According to Zechariah 14, Psalm 149, Joel 2, I Thessalonians 3:13,
and Revelation 19, Jesus Christ and all the raptured
saints will return to exterminate the reprobates. When his kingdom is of
this world, he will fight, but not
until that time.
In Matthew 8:10 Christ praises the faith
of a non-Jewish believer, who was a centurion in the Roman army. More
importantly, Christ did not tell the centurion that a condition of discipleship
was that he not engage in military activities (similarly, another centurion,
Cornelius of Caesarea received high praise for his faith, in Acts 10). John the
Baptist was confronted with a more acute opportunity to inform believers that
military service was anathema to discipleship, were that the case, in Luke
3:14:
And some soldiers were questioning him, saying, "And
what about us, what shall we do?" And he said to them, "Do not take
money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your
wages."
Rather than explicitly instructing them to
get out of military service, or opt for noncombat
duty in the service, John instructs them to act justly within their sphere of
service, and to not abuse their position of power. Indeed, John's instructions
will be considered later as a crucial component of how Christians ought to
behave in warfare.
Paul uses military service frequently as
an analogy for the Christian way of life. For example, in 2 Timothy 2:3-4, Paul
says: "Suffer hardship with me, as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No
soldier in active service entangles himself in the affairs of everyday life, so
that he may please the one who enlisted him as a soldier." In this case,
as in the many others Paul uses, two assumptions emerge: (a) that military service
was well known and understood, for the utility of an analogy loses its force if
not; and (b) no qualification was given to military service in the analogies.
If military service, with the implication of potential for fighting in a war,
was objectionable to the Christian way of life, one would expect Paul to
qualify the analogy somewhat. Paul, and the many other authors, never used an
objectionable analogy. Indeed, when some behavior or action is detestable, the
most frequent way to illustrate it is to compare and contrast the godly versus
the ungodly behavior. Yet nowhere is military service deemed ungodly in the
Bible. Indeed, the role call of honorable godly service is given in Hebrews
11:32-34, where strong, godly believers are intimately associated with
distinction in warfare:
And what more shall I say? For time will fail me if I tell of
Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah,
of David and Samuel and the prophets, who by faith conquered kingdoms,
performed acts of righteousness, obtained promises, shut the mouths of lions,
quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, from weakness were
made strong, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight.
There are several problems that emerge
from the study of the various positions adopted by Christians over the
centuries. Each will be taken in turn. The principal problem with the crusade
is that the church incorrectly identifies itself with the function of the
state, and a theocratic one at that. Under
Since the New Testament, however, Christ
has declared that his kingdom is not of this world. Unlike Israel, where one
nation was called out from among the many nations of the earth to be the
caretakers of God's word and to be his missionaries to the world, since then
only a small minority of believers are called out from every nation, tribe, and
tongue (Revelation 5:9; 14:6). There is more focus on the individual rather
than on group or national identity (Acts 10:35). Because individuals in this
age comprise this "holy" nation (I Peter 2:9), and Christ's kingdom
is not of this world, spiritual warfare does not equal physical warfare
(see Ephesians 6:12). It is therefore a mistake, and not a benign one, to
misidentify the cause of the church{31}
with that of the state. Crusades cannot be justified by scriptures.{32}
Pacifism, on the other hand, misidentifies
the morality of the individual with the justification for (or morality of) the
behavior of the state. It too, though for different and more benign reasons,
commits the cross-level fallacy by generalizing from individual to collective
morality and violates principles of biblical hermeneutics. And the argument
from historical evidence that early Christians were pacifists is weaker upon
closer examination than at first glance.
Many non-Jewish believers, one can infer,
were in the Roman military, and some were recorded in scriptures, yet no
command was given them to leave military service. Neither Christ, nor John the
Baptist, nor any of the Apostles, when given the chance, told (or implied to)
such believers that military service was incompatible with discipleship or the
Christian way of life. Typically such believers were praised for their faith
and, in only one case, were enjoined to act justly in their profession and be
content with their wages.
As to the historical records for
Christians in military service, it is not surprising that no records have been
found, for at least two reasons. First, in the early period, most of the
Christians lived in the Middle East and not in
Political separation, a concomitant
proposition of many contemporary pacifists, is a separate problem and will not
be treated here. However, there is reason enough for separation or dissension
in certain cases, and many early Christians availed themselves of it. The rule
seems to be that the Christian has the right, indeed the obligation, to refuse
to obey a law that would force him into an ungodly act (for example, as a
condition of service in the Roman military, the obligation to worship Roman
gods; or in the former Soviet Union, the requirement to sign an oath of
atheism). Ungodly laws of compellence, as
opposed to laws of allowance (i.e., laws that permit ungodly activity)
require the Christian to dissent from obedience.{35} To extend this right of dissension to the entire sphere of
citizenship, however, seems strange.
There are several problems with the
"Just War" doctrine that are not as easily susceptible to resolution,
but nonetheless deserve some attention. First, implementing the "Just
War" doctrine as it now stands requires superhuman wisdom. No Christian
will ever have enough facts, or time, to know all the evidence regarding a
country's decision to go to war. At the highest levels, decisions to go to war
are shrouded in ambiguity and much more will that be the case in the society at
large. Second, the "Just War" doctrine sets a standard that was not
always followed by
Of the principles of jus ad bellum,
several are problematic from a scriptural standpoint. The one most supported by
scriptures is that the war must be declared and conducted by competent
authority. The sweep of scriptures supports the authority of government as
an instrument to keep evil in society in check. When authority breaks down, as
it has in
The other four principles have problems
associated with them. The idea of probability of success seems more an
idea of prudence than one of "justness." Now, it is claimed by
"Just War" theorists that there is a close association since, without
prudence, one can involve a nation in a war that leads to excessive misery for
its citizens if it cannot be won.{38}
However, the problem can be examined in a different way. Surely, it would make
no sense for a small nation to go on the offensive against a much stronger
nation. But can it be unjust for that same small nation to take every
precaution, and fight if need be, if that larger nation attacks the smaller? As
a matter of prudence, it may make sense to find some form of accommodation, but
the results cannot always be known beforehand. Indeed, during the winter war
between the Soviet Union and
War as a last resort is ideal in a
perfect world, but would be difficult to determine in some cases. For example, at the outset of the 1967
Arab-Israeli war, the dawn preemptive strike by the Israeli Air Force on
The last two principles of jus ad
bellum are fraught with the same kind of difficulties. How does one judge
the just intent of the leadership of one's country? Further, while peace
and reconciliation may be appealing goals, the soundest victories have been by
the destruction of the system of the enemy state (viz., Nazi Germany and
Imperial Japan). There are some
governments with whom reconciliation is not only impossible, but perhaps more
dangerous to attempt (e.g., Saddam Hussein's regime under which it continues to
seek nuclear weapons capability). Just
cause has come to mean defensive versus aggressive wars. But like the
above, the difficulty is in the details. Did
As for the principles of jus in
It would be very odd to praise Rommel for not killing
prisoners unless we simultaneously refused to blame him for Hitler's aggressive
wars. For otherwise he is simply a criminal and all the fighting he does is
murder or attempted murder, whether he aims at soldiers in battle or at
prisoners or at civilians Y But we do not view Rommel that way: why not? The
reason has to do with the distinction of jus ad bellum and jus in
Pursuing limited war, using discriminate
means, and avoiding unjust acts all conform to the biblical view of war. The
only time
In the attempt to resolve the paradox of
war and pacifism, it seems that several conclusions emerge. First, the two
extreme positions, the pacifist and the crusader, commit the cross-level
fallacy and violate principles of hermeneutics, however benign the intention.
Upon closer examination, there is little support for these positions as fully
biblical ones. Each, taken logically to the extreme, distorts the role of the
Christian as a member of his society. In the pacifist, it requires him to
disengage from the society in which he lives. In the crusader, it requires him
to so identify the function of the church with that of the state that he
becomes more involved in it than with his call to Christian service (indeed,
causes him to confuse the two).
The "Just War" doctrine also has
several problems, but is perhaps the closer of the three positions held to that
which can be gleaned from scriptures. The principal problem with the doctrine
is with the principles of jus ad bellum. Except the stipulation that war
must be declared by competent authority, adherence to the other principles,
besides the problems noted above, requires the Christian to make a decision
that puts him above the authority of the state, yet does not provide him the
means (knowledge and wisdom) to make that decision. Further, it goes beyond
biblical mandates to not obey authority in very specific and fairly certain
cases (viz., ungodly laws of compellence).
On the other hand, the principles of jus
in
But what of the
tradition of conscientious objection to military service? Would such a reading of scriptures rule out the
possibility of avoiding military service for reasons other than to disobey an
ungodly law of compellence? I believe it is important
to allow for such a possibility, not simply on humanitarian grounds. Comparing
the law of liberty (I Cor. 6:12; 10:23; and James
1:25) with the law of love (Rom. 14:1-13), one can reasonably allow for some to
not serve in armed combat if such persons' conscience cannot allow them to do
so. Furthermore, some ought not to be put in combat situations for
psychological reasons. It makes sense to preclude those from military service
who have a history of cruelty, or a tendency toward other kinds of evil.
Others, who may for other reasons struggle with cowardice, probably ought to be
excluded from military service, especially combat, for the sake of morale.{43}
The problem of the paradox of war and
pacifism in the Bible, and its resolution, may lead to a better analysis of the
Christian's responsibility to the state. Further, the resolution to the
paradox, the separation of systems for consideration in light of scriptural
passages that treat each, may also lead to a re-examination and evaluation of
the role of the church in society. It is to be hoped that this analysis will,
at the very least, provide common ground upon which Christians can unite and
renew dialogue on so important a topic.
{1}The most recent one was found in President George
Bush's appeal to support
{2}New American Standard Bible, reference edition
(Chicago: Moody Press, 1973), p. 7. All scriptures cited throughout will follow
this translation.
{3}See, for example, Norman Geisler,
Christian Ethics (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker, 1989), pp. 221-225.
{4}See Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible
Difficulties (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan,
1982), pp. 90-91.
{5}I have
here labeled these as wars of extermination to distinguish them from genocide
(which is the systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group)
since they were limited in extent; and from unlimited wars, since the latter
term implies no limit in extent, method, or means. Nor do they fit the modern
conception of total war, which implies the entire nation working on behalf of
the war effort.
{6}Even so, the extermination was always limited to
the extent of reprobation. Sometimes the reprobation extended only to the
adults, other times to all human life, and other times to human life and soulish life (birds and mammals) that had significant
contact with reprobate humans, and still other times to human life, soulish life, the material possessions and the agricultural
land of the reprobates.
{7}Archer, op. cit., pp. 158-159.
{8}See Judges 4, 7, 11, and 14, for example.
{9}Indeed,
the priests and prophets of other ancient, as well as more modern, societies
served the interest of the state and were frequently paid well for their
services, or were fired (or worse) if they failed to support the king.
{10}While
this is the general argument, there is a sizeable body of evidence that
demonstrates that many early Christians staked out positions that supported the
right of the state to engage in war, and that Christians were obliged to fight
in them. See Keith B. Payne and Karl I. Payne, A
Just Defense: The Use of Force, Nuclear Weapons, and Our Conscience
(Portland, OR: Multnomah Press, 1987), p. 331.
{11}Cited in Robert Culver, "Between War and Peace:
Old Debate in a New Age," Christianity Today, October 24, 1980, p.
30.
{12}Cited in Ibid., p. 31. The context can be found in
Rudolph Arbesmann, Emily Joseph Daly, and Edwin A. Quain, trans., Tertullian:
Apologetic Works and Minucius Felix Octavius (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic
University of America Press, 1962), p. 94.
{13}Paraphrased in Culver, op. cit., p. 31. The context can
be found in Henry Chadwick, trans., Origen: Contra Celsum
(London: Cambridge University Press, 1980), p. 509.
{14}Ibid., p. 34.
{15}Ronald A. Wells, ed., "Introduction," The
Wars of
{16}For a discussion of these principles, but one critical of
just war, see Ronald E. Santoni, The Nurture of War:
`Just War' Theory's Contribution," Philosophy Today, Spring 1991,
p. 86.
{17}Paul Ramsey, War and the Christian Conscience: How
Shall Modern War Be Conducted Justly? (North Carolina: Duke University
Press, 1961), p. 115.
{18}For a thorough analysis of this decision, see Judith A.
Dwyer, ed., The Catholic Bishops and Nuclear War (Washington, D.C.:
Georgetown University, 1984); Michael Novak, Moral Clarity in the Nuclear
Age (Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson, 1983); James E. Dougherty, The
Bishops and Nuclear Weapons (Hamden, Conn.: Archon Books, 1984); and
Francis Schaeffer, Vladimir Bukhovsky, and James
Hitchcock, Who Is For Peace? (New York, N.Y.: Thomas
Nelson, 1983).
{19}Ramsey, op. cit., p. 96.
{20}Wells, op. cit., pp. 8-9.
{21}Robert S. Hoyt and
{22}1096
is considered the end of the golden age for Jews living in northern
{23}Donald Secrest, Gergory G. Brunch, and Howard Tamashiro,
"Empirical Investigation of Normative Discourse on War: The Case of the Donagan-Aquinas Thesis," Journal of Peace Research,
November 1991, p. 398.
{24}For
example, on the resolution of the paradox of free will and predestination,
various denominations will come down on one side or the other; that is, some
will emphasize predestination and others will emphasize free will. Other
paradoxes have had similar resolutions: heaven and hell; the Trinity; the deity
of Jesus Christ, etc. As will be detailed above, there is good reason to keep
the tension of the paradox. For example, in free will and predestination, it
keeps one from going to the extremes of legalism or antinomianism.
{25}Hugh Ross, Keys to Analyzing Scriptures (Pasadena,
CA: Reasons To Believe, 1980), P8001.
{26}The "cross-level" fallacy comes from the
study of "individual" and "ecological" fallacies, applied
to the study of the origins of war. In the particular theory called
"Realism," several distinct levels of analysis were noted: at the
level of the individual; at the level of the state; and at the level of
interstate relations. At each level, distinct independent variables were examined
for their relation to the causes of war. More importantly, often these distinct
variables were found to be mutually exclusive; thus, for the purposes of
analysis, the separation. See J. David Singer, International Conflict:
"Three Levels of Analysis," World Politics, April 1960, pp.
453-461; Shibley Telhami, Power
and Leadership in International Bargaining: The Path to the
{27}Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics
Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, 3rd edition (New York:
Knopf, 1960); See also Kenneth Waltz, Man, State and War: A Theoretical
Analysis (New York: Columbia University Press, 1959); and Telhami, op. cit., passim.
{28}See also Genesis 9:6 and Acts 25:11.
{29}See Leviticus 19:17-18; Matthew 26:52; and John
18:10-11.
{30}See also Mark 13:7-8.
{31}The
role and mission of the church as a corporate entity of believers is not
considered here except as far as its fallacious identification with the state
has been used to justify crusading warfare.
{32}The critical error of the crusaders was the presumption
that conversion was through state legislation rather than through personal
repentance; similar to the Muslim error that if one lives in an Islamic state,
one is therefore a Muslim.
{33}Eusbius, The History of
the Church from Christ to Constantine, G. A. Williamson, trans. (Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1965).
{34}Gaius Suetonius
Tranquillus, The Twelve Caesars, Robert
Graves, trans. (Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England:
Penguin Books, 1957), p. 221.
{35}The situation of when and where, and indeed whether,
believers may dissent from unjust rulers, though important, will not be
considered here. Such a discussion would have to accommodate the recent
development of liberation theology as well as many less radical positions.
{36}Compare the justness of the Persian Gulf war and the
justness of intervening in
{37}For a discussion on the concerns of Christians in the
American Revolution of 1776, see George Marsden,
"The American Revolution: Partisanship, `Just Wars,' and Crusades,"
in Ronald A. Wells, ed., The Wars of America: Christian Views (Grand
Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 1981), pp.
11-24. The moral struggle was more important to these Christians on the issue
of rebellion against established authority than on the issue of legitimate
warfare against a hostile nation.
{38}See Michael Walzer, Just
and Unjust War: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations (New York:
Basic Books, 1977), passim.
{39}See, for example, the discussion of surprise attacks in
Alex Roberto Hybel, The Logic of Surprise in
International Conflict (Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books, 1986).
{40}In 1939, C. S. Lewis similarly took issue with
theologians on the issue of the just war doctrine, preferring elements of jus
in
{41}See Walzer, op. cit., pp.
38-39.
{42}See, for example, Section VI, "Armed Conflicts,"
in Gerhard von Glahn, Law Among Nations: An
Introduction to Public International Law, 5th edition (New York: MacMillan, 1986), pp. 583-794.
{43}Deuteronomy 20 discusses this and other possible
exceptions. Here, I am interested only in those cases where Christians ought to
make allowance for other Christians. Whether such exceptions should be made law
for the entire society is a different matter.
Mark T. Clark, Ph.D., past chair of the
political science department at
Notes:
For the complete Just War Argument and Catholic Teachings:
http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/justwar/#additional_general
Additional
A Catholic Debate Mounts on the Meaning of "Just War"
by Peter Steinfels. New York Times April 14,
2007.
Christian Just War Theory and Moral Laxism:
A Chronically Misleading Episcopal Witness, by (Rev.) Emmanuel Charles
McCarthy. Center for Christian Nonviolence. May 2006.
[.pdf format]
An Interview With Michael Baxter on the Iraq War, Catholic Neocons, Mr. Bush and Iran TCRNews.com. May 17, 2006.
U.S.
Catholic Bishops' Statement on Iraq full text of Bishop Thomas Wenski's statement "Toward a Responsible Transition in
Just War?, by Craig White.
LewRockwell.com. April 7, 2005.
Bush
v. Benedict, by Daniel McCarthy. The American Conservative August
29, 2005.
"One Nation Under God" - Richard J. Neuhaus
in Time of War, by Michael J. Baxter,
The War in Iraq: How Catholic conservatives got it wrong,
by Peter Dula. Commonweal December 3, 2004 /
Volume CXXXI, Number 21. [Full Text]
What Is a Just
War?, by Garry Wills.
·
"Arguing
About War", By Jean Bethke Elshtain, Reply by Garry Wills.
A Year After Iraq: Catholic Just War
Doctrine, by Fr. Alfonso Aquilar, LC. National
Catholic Register March 28, 2004.
Preemptive War: What would Aquinas say?,
by Gregory M. Reichberg. Commonweal
Magazine January 30, 2004.
What
the War Revealed, by David Quinn. Crisis October
2003.
At Odds with the Pope: Legitimate Authority and Just Wars,
by William T. Cavanaugh is associate professor of theology at the
The Use and Abuse of Just-War Theory, by Michael M. Uhlmann. The
Claremont Institute, June 4, 2003.
Just war theory, by Rodrigue
Tremblay. Humanist, May-June, 2003.
Preemptive war: a prelude to global peril?, by Charles W. Kegley, Jr.
Vatican: Both Sides to Blame for Failure to Disarm
War No More? - How much of a pacifist is the Pope?, by William McGurn. Wall
Street Journal March 28, 2003.
Has the Holy Father Condemned the U.S. Action [in Iraq]?, by Carl Olson. Envoy Encore March 26, 2003.
The Vatican: When There Is No Peace. National Review,
March 10, 2003.
Peace:
How to Achieve It?, by Msgr. Lorenzo Albacete.
Traces March 2003.
Will war come?, Commonweal, Feb. 14, 2003.
Church of the Peacenicks, by Rod Dreher. NRO [National Review Online]. Feb. 7, 2003.
Whither the ‘Just War’? by Drew
Christiansen.
Pre-emptive Strike: a Two-Edged Sword. Archbishop George
Pell. The Australian Feb. 4, 2003.
Just and unjust wars: a diplomat's perspective, by Richard Holbrooke. Social Research, Winter,
2002.
The triumph of just war theory (and the
dangers of success), by Michael Walzer. Social Research, Winter,
2002.
Looking for Justice: Applying the just-war
tradition, by John F. Cullinan.
NRO Online. Dec. 19, 2002.
An Ethical
Analysis of War Against Iraq, by Gerard F. Powers.
Director, Office of International Justice and Peace United States Conference of
Catholic Bishops. Written in conjunction with a symposium entitled, "Would
An Invasion of Iraq be a Just War?" The
symposium, held on December 17, 2002, in
The Bishops & Iraq: where was the
coverage?, by Paul Moses. Commonweal, Nov
22, 2002.
War and the Eclipse of Moral Reasoning, by Dr. Philip Blosser. Presented by Dr. Blosser at the Tenth
Annual Aquinas/Luther Conference held October 24-26, 2002 at
Preemption, aggression and Catholic teaching: Iraq war
highlights problems of seeking justice through force, by Joe Feuerherd. National Catholic Reporter, Oct 25, 2002.
On the War Path.
Commonweal Oct. 11, 2002.
A Just War?, by Jean Bethke Elshtain,
20 reasons to overthrow Saddam: the media say the Bush team
hasn't made its case for invading Iraq. But statements by Dick Cheney make
clear why the U.S. will invade Iraq and finish off Saddam, by J. Michael
Walker. Insight on the News, Sept 30, 2002.
Iraq & just-war thinking: the presumption against the use
of force, by George A. Lopez. Commonweal, Sept 27, 2002.
Indefensible war, by Miroslav Volf. Christian Century September 25, 2002.
Perils of Preemptive War: Why America's place in the world will
shift -- for the worse -- if we attack Iraq, by William Galston.
The American Prospect Volume 13, Issue 17. September 23, 2002.
Listening to Pacifists, by Darrell Cole. First Things 125 (August/September
2002): 22-25.
Just war divide: one tradition, two
views, by David P. Gushee. Christian Century,
August 14, 2002.
Iraq: don't go there, by George Hunsinger.
Christian Century, August 14, 2002.
"Hawks, Doves, and Pope John Paul II, By Father Drew
Christiansen, S.J. America, August 12, 2002.
Bush's "first strike" threat: Can it be justified?, by William Bole. Our Sunday Visitor June 23, 2002.
Just-War Theory, Catholic Morality, And The
Response To International Terrorism, a talk by Mark S. Latkovic. The Catholic Faith May/June 2002.
Some Reflections On The Present War,
by Martin K. Barrack. The Catholic Faith May/June 2002.
Terrorism & Just War, by Martin L. Cook, Glen Stassen, Jean Bethke Elshtain, James Turner
Johnson. Christian Century Nov. 14, 2001.
Osama
bin Laden and the Just Conduct of War, by John Kelsay.
War:
Beyond the hawks and the doves "In the wake of Kosovo, Catholic
leaders ponder whether traditional moral approaches to warfare still make
sense," by William Bole. Our Sunday Visitor July 4, 1999.
Additional
The Paradox of War and Pacifism, by
Mark T. Clark. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 47
(December 1995): 220-232.
Theological and Moral Perspectives on Today's Challenge of Peace. Speaking notes of Most Rev. Diarmuid Martin Coadjutor Archbishop of
What the
Just War Tradition has to offer today, by Bruce Duncan. CSsR.
Compass: Review of Topical Theology. Vol. 38, Winter 2003.
Good Wars, by Darrel Cole. First Things 116 (October
2001): 27-31.
Just War Tradition: Is It Credible?, by
John Howard Yoder. The Christian Century, March 13, 1991.
Catholic Answers Guide to Just War Doctrine
The Church's Just War Theory Part I & Part II, by Fr. William Saunders. reprinted
with permission from Arlington Catholic Herald.
"The Just War" and Is It Always Sinful to Wage War? excerpt
from St. Thomas Aquinas. The Summa Theologica.
Rising Up From Flanders Fields, by
Father Raymond J. de Souza. National Catholic Register April 2003.
Conditions of a Just War, by Bishop
Fulton J. Sheen. Chapter 4 of Bishop's Sheen's book, A
Declaration of Dependence.
Just War Theory, by Alex Moseley, Ph.D.
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Just
War Tradition: Is It Credible?, by John Howard Yoder.
Christian Century March 13, 1991, pps.
295-298.
Cardinal
Stafford on War and the Church's Thinking, by Delia Gallagher. Zenit interview
May 22, 2004. Critiques Positions by Some Catholic Scholars (George Weigel and James Turner Johnson).
Nuncio in Iraq Assesses Situation After One Year of War. Zenit interview With Archbishop Fernando Filoni. March 21, 2004.
To Exhaust All Options to War "Is Prudent, Just and
Necessary". Zenit Interview with Bishop del Hoyo López.
March 10, 2003.
Moral Criteria for Struggle Against
Terrorism. Zenit.org Interview with Professor at John
Paul II Institute in
How to Sustain a Lasting Peace, Zenit.org Interview w/ Philosopher Jesús
Villagrasa. February 27, 2003.
War on the Horizon: Is It Just?. Conversation between Christopher Hitchens, William Galston, and
George Weigel. Posted May
30, 2003.
The Points of Disagreement between Bush and the Pope. Interview with Jim Nicholson, Ambassador
of the
Iraq
and Just War: A Symposium. Monday, September 30, 2002. Sponsored
by The Institute for American Values, the Institute for Philosophy and Public
Policy at the
Military Intervention in Iraq and
International Law. Zenit
Interview With Ronald
War in Iraq: Is It Just?. Conversation between Christopher Hitchens, William Galston, and
George Weigel. Posted May
30, 2003.
Cardinal McCarrick
on the War in Iraq. Interview
with Zenit.org. March 25, 2003.
Symposium:
Just War Tradition and the New War on Terrorism. Friday, October 5, 2001. Sponsored by the Pew Forum for Religion and Public Life.
Just War
and Counterterrorism: Views from the Catholic Church. Edited transcript of
discussion held on Sept. 24, 2001, at the
Religious
Bishop Wilton D. Gregory (USCCB) Statement on War with Iraq. March 20, 2003.
Iraq Statement from Bishops of England and
Wales. March 18, 2003.
Irish Catholic Bishops' Statement on Iraq. March 14, 2003.
Canadian
Bishops' Statement on Iraq Crisis January 23, 2003.
German Bishops' Statement on Iraq Conflict. January 22, 2003.
Bishop
Wilton D. Gregory (USCCB) Letter to U.S. President Bush on Iraq, Sept. 18,
2002
Relevant
documents
·
The
Harvest of Justice is Sown in Peace. A Reflection of the National
Conference of Catholic Bishops on the Tenth Anniversary of The
Challenge of Peace. November 17, 1993.
·
The
Challenge of Peace: God's Promise and Our Response.
·
Gaudium Et Spes Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the
Modern World.
Organizations
Pre-emption,
Iraq, and Just War: A Statement of Principles, by David Blankenhorn,
Jean Bethke Elshtain,
Francis Fukuyama, William A. Galston, John Kelsay, Robert Putnam, Theda Skocpol, Max L. Stackhouse, and Paul C. Vitz.
Institute for American Values. November 14, 2002.
In Time of War, by the editors of First Things.
What We're Fighting for: A Letter from
America. An open letter in defense of the
Additional
Resources:
CatholicJustWar.Org, a website
started by Michael Hernon.
Articles
on Just War, compiled by Catholics in the Military (CatholicMil.Org).