|
Michael McCabe, SMA Introduction There now exists growing evidence for the emergence of a new paradigm in official Catholic teaching on war, which, up to recent times, has been dominated by the "just war" theory elaborated by St. Augustine in the 5th century A.D. The recent evolution in the magisterium’s teaching on issues of war and peace, without explicitly rejecting the ‘just war’ tradition, certainly relativizes and transcends it. This evolution, it seems to me, is moving in a direction that requires a new framework of reference or new paradigm. The purpose of my paper is to show that certain elements of this new paradigm are already in place. I will do this by indicating the main lines and overall direction of the Church’s recent thinking on war and peace, highlighting especially the contribution of the present Pope; John Paul II. However, before delving straight into my task I will give a very brief outline of the ‘just-war’ theory or paradigm The ‘Just-War’ Paradigm Following the official recognition of Christianity by the Emperor Constantine in the early years of the 4th century A.D., the Church gradually abandoned the strong pacifist and non-involved stance it had adopted during the first three centuries of its existence. The members of the Church became increasingly involved in the Emperor’s wars but without a doctrine on peace and war to guide them. The just-war theory, first articulated by St Augustine was an attempt to meet this lacuna. Further clarifications and refinements were added to it by St Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, by Francisco de Vitoria in the 16th century and by Francisco Suarez in the 17th century. The most up-to-date form of just-war doctrine has established two sets of criteria governing questions of both when and how war is to be conducted. The first set of criteria deals with the conditions that must exist prior to entering a war. These are: Just Cause War must be waged only in response to a grave, public evil, as, for example, the massive violation of the fundamental rights of the entire population of a region or country. Legitimate Authority War must serve public, not private, purposes, and the question of whether any particular war serves that purpose can be decided only by the highest public authority. Right Intention The war must be directed to just goals and not allowed to exceed these. Probability of Success Arms may are not to be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate means are required to achieve success. Proportionality The good to be achieved must outweigh the overall destruction expected from the use of force. Last Resort The war must be a last resort after all peaceful alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted. The second set of criteria concern the conditions that must be fulfilled while war is being waged. Immunity of non-combatants Innocents or non-combatants must be immune from intended, direct attack and care must be taken to avoid and minimize indirect harm to civilians. Proportionality In the course of hostilities, all possible efforts must be made to attain military objectives with the minimum force needed and to avoid disproportionate collateral damage to civilian life and property. The Second Vatican Council explicitly condemned the use of weapons of mass destruction (such as nuclear bombs) on cities. Right Intention Even in the midst of conflict, the aim of political and military leaders must be to establish peace with justice. Acts of vengeance and indiscriminate violence, whether by individuals, military units or governments are forbidden. The basic presupposition of the ‘just-war’ doctrine is that human conflict cannot always be resolved by peaceful means, and that, because of the fallen condition of human beings, wars are inevitable. As James Finn has remarked the just-war doctrine is based on the recognition that human beings are weak and broken and fallen and that they will resort to violence. The doctrine is simply an attempt "to place whatever civilising limitation on violence that one can". The restraining purpose of the just-war doctrine is even more strongly underlined by John Courtney Murray. He says that the just-war doctrine serves a triple function: "to condemn war as evil, to limit the evils it entails, and to humanise its conduct as far as possible". But has the just-war doctrine ever in practice functioned as a restraining and humanising force in the conduct of war? Has any war in practice ever fulfilled the conditions laid down in the just-war theory? Has the just-war doctrine moved the world closer towards lasting peace and justice? Hardly. As Richard McSorely states, the just-war theory "is essentially an effort to remove from war those characteristics that make it morally repulsive: murder, greed, desire for power, deceit, hatred. But when that is done you no longer have war. That is why the just-unjust war tradition is not and never was seriously followed by any nation. No nation accepts it as policy today nor ever did". When Paul Ramsey, the noted American Moral Philosopher, who has written extensively on issues of war and the Christian conscience, was asked if just war concepts had actually illuminated, clarified, and in some degree informed and modified the practice of war, he replied: "This body of teaching, in all its details, has never been widely known and probably has not itself had any particular influence upon policy decisions and magistrates as they made their decisions". It is an interesting fact that the Church has never employed the just-war doctrine to judge the morality of a war that was finished. Given the current availability and destructive potential of nuclear arms, it is highly unlikely that the just-war doctrine is either helpful or relevant. In any case, the Second Vatican Council, following the lead of Pope John XXIII in Pacem in Terris, called for "a completely fresh appraisal of war" (GS, 80). The Teaching of Vatican II The context in which the Second Vatican Council dealt with the issue of war was the concern to establish lasting peace among the community of nations. Peace, the Council tells us, "is more than the absence of war… It is the fruit of that right ordering of things with which the divine founder has invested human society and which must be brought about by humanity in its thirst for an ever more perfect reign of justice" (GS, 78). This peace which is the fruit of justice and love is not some distant and unrealisable ideal, but an achievable goal for which we must constantly strive. The Gospel message, the Council insists, is directly relevant to this struggle for peace: "Peace on earth, which flows from love of one’s neighbour, symbolizes and has its origin in the peace of Christ which proceeds from God the Father. Christ, the Word made flesh, the prince of peace, reconciled all men and women to God by the cross, and, restoring the unity of all in one people and one body, he abolished hatred in his flesh" (GS, 78). The Council urges Christians to speak the truth in love and to "join with all peace-loving people in pleading for peace and trying to achieve it" (GS, 78). The Council then goes on to express its "admiration for all who forgo the use of violence to vindicate their rights and have recourse to those other means of defence which are available to weaker parties" (GS, 78) According to commentators, the Council is here advocating the path of non-violence for individuals, but not for states. True enough the Council’s approval of non-violent activism is qualified by the rider, "provided it can be done without detriment to the rights and duties of others and of the community" (GS, 78). Nevertheless, given the context in which this statement occurs, i.e., the obligation to promote peace in line with and on the basis of the Gospel message, I see the Council’s affirmation of non-violent resistance as far more than a token gesture towards a tradition that had been, by and large, abandoned by the Church since the fourth century. The way of non-violence is being advocated as the Church’s preferred option for resisting unjust oppression. In line with its option for non-violent resistance, the Council calls for "the complete outlawing of war by international agreement" (GS, 82). In the strongest possible terms it condemns the arms race as "one of the greatest curses on the human race" and argues that "new approaches, based on reformed attitudes, will have to be made in order to remove this stumbling block, to free the earth from its pressing anxieties, and give back to the world a genuine peace" (GS, 81). The Council also endorses "the condemnations of total warfare issued by recent Popes (Pius XII, John XXIII, and Paul IV)" and declares that "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and humanity, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation" (GS, 80). And yet, for all its condemnations of war and the arms industry which feeds it, the Council does not abandon entirely the just-war theory. However, it accords it only a reduced and conditional status: "Certainly war has not been rooted out of human affairs. As long as the danger of war remains and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defence, once all peaceful efforts have failed. State leaders and all who share the burdens of public administration have the duty to defend the interests of their people and to conduct such grave matters with a deep sense of responsibility" (GS 79). The right of nations to defend themselves against an unjust aggressor (one of the fundamental principles of the just-war doctrine) is here clearly affirmed but not as an absolute for all time. In fact it is envisaged that even this right could become obsolete with the emergence of an "international authority with the necessary competence and power" to resolve the conflict by means other than war. To summarise the teaching of the Council then, we can say it affirms both non-violence and just-war as suitable means for opposing public evil. As we will see, the teaching of Pope John Paul II will give greater emphasis to non-violent alternatives to war, and recommend the path of non-violent resistance to grave injustice and oppression for States and international bodies as well as for individuals. The Teaching of Pope John Paul II Prior to September 11, 2001 Pope John Paul II’s approach to the questions of war and peace was certainly influenced by the Council but also by the events which led to the ending of the Cold War and the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe. Reflecting on these events in his encyclical letter, Centesimus Annus (199l), he writes: "It seemed that the European order resulting from the Second World War and sanctioned by the Yalta Agreements could only be overturned by another war. Instead, it has been overcome by the non-violent commitment of people who, while always refusing to yield to the force of power, succeeded time after time in finding effective ways of bearing witness to the truth. This disarmed the adversary, since violence always needs to justify itself through deceit, and to appear, however falsely, to be defending a right or responding to a threat posed by others" (CA, 23). For the Pope, the events of 1989 highlight the direct relevance of the Gospel ethic to the conduct of international affairs and the search for universal peace: "The events of 1989 are an example of the success of willingness to negotiate and of the Gospel spirit in the face of an adversary determined not to be bound by moral principles. These events are a warning to those who, in the name of political realism, wish to banish law and morality from the political arena. Undoubtedly, the struggle which led to the changes of 1989 called for clarity, moderation, suffering and sacrifice. In a certain sense, it was a struggle born of prayer, and it would have been unthinkable without immense trust in God, the Lord of history, who carries the human heart in his hands. It is by uniting one’s own sufferings for the sake of truth and freedom to the sufferings of Christ on the Cross that one is able to accomplish the miracle of peace and is in a position to discern the often narrow path between the cowardice which gives in to evil and the violence which, under the illusion of fighting evil, only makes it worse" (CA, 25). Here the Pope is not only praising and recommending the path of non-violent resistance in the conduct of international affairs, he is also issuing a rebuff to the political and even Christian realists who would regard the use of forces as a necessary means for the attainment and maintenance of justice in the realm of international politics. Drew Christiansen, commenting on the above passage, states that: "The Holy Father reveals his growing suspicion of even legitimate uses of force when he writes of ‘the violence, which under the illusion of fighting evil, only makes it worse’ (CA, 25)". The generally anti-war tenor of Centesimus Annus is even more evident in the following passage which was to be reiterated many times in later papal statements: "’Never again war!’ No, never again war, which destroys the lives of innocent people, teaches how to kill, throws into upheaval even the lives of those who do the killing and leaves behind a trail of resentment and hatred, thus making it all the more difficult to find a solution to the very problems which provoked the war" (CA, 52). There is a way, however, that the injustices which give rise to wars can be addressed and resolved and this is by an international solidarity in the promotion of justice and human development. "Just as there is a collective responsibility for avoiding war, so too there is a collective responsibility for promoting development. Just as within individual societies it is possible and right to organise a solid economy which will direct the functioning of the market to the common good, so too there is a similar need for adequate interventions on the international level. For this to happen, a great effort must be made to enhance mutual understanding and knowledge, and to increase the sensitivity of consciences. This is the culture which is hoped for, one which fosters trust in the human potential of the poor, and consequently in their ability to improve their condition through work or to make a positive contribution to economic prosperity. But to accomplish this, the poor — be they individuals or nations – need to be provided with realistic opportunities. Creating such conditions call for a concerted worldwide effort to promote development, an effort which also involves sacrificing the positions of income and of power enjoyed by the more developed economies" (CA, 52). In response to the conflict in the Balkans, the Pope again appealed to the principle of solidarity (we are all our brothers and sisters’ keepers) and took the lead in calling for humanitarian intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo to protect the lives and rights of the innocent. According to Drew Christiansen, the Pope’s response to the Bosnian and Kosovan has led to "a careful refocusing of what constitutes a just war from the Catholic point of view". Force may still be legitimately employed, but only to prevent, check and punish genocide, ethnic cleansing and similar crimes where the entire population of an area are at risk. Church Teaching Post-September 11, 2001 The horrific September 11th terrorist attack on the United States remains vividly etched in our memories. It represents all too forcefully the evil face of global terrorism, blind to any consideration other than sheer destructive impact. The question of how to respond to such an unconscionable crime resurrected the just-war debate. In effect, however, the debate resolved nothing but merely highlighted the ambivalence of just-war theory as a tool in the quest for justice and peace. On the one hand, there were those who sought to use this tradition to give moral backing to the U.S.-led military campaign against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. This could only be done, however, by accentuating and giving priority to some principles of the just war doctrine (e.g., just cause, right intention, legitimate authority) while ignoring of de-emphasising other more awkward principles (e.g., non-combatant immunity, proportionality, probability of success). On the other hand, there were those who employed the same theory to underline the immorality of the war against the Taliban. This was clearly the position taken up by the editor of The Tablet in his editorial of 3 November, in which he stated that the war on the Taliban regime did not fulfil several of the criteria required for a just war (p. 1555). The same editorial argued that "it was a dangerous mistake to speak of a ‘war on terrorism’ at all. The word ‘war’ should not be used in the context of a response to this kind of evil, for it dignified the attackers as combatants and legitimises their criminal acts" (Ibid). The pastoral statement of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, "Living with Faith and Hope after September 11", was interpreted by some sections of the media as a justification of the war. There were quite a few negative reactions to the bishop’s statement. William Johnson SJ found it "very disturbing" (Letter to The Tablet, 8 December, 2001, p.1748), while Bob Styles SJ felt that it did "not accord well with the more thoughtful and measured responses of the Holy See or of the bishops of England and Wales" (The Tablet, 15 December, 2001, p. 1783). These responses, it seems to me, were not based on a careful or balanced reading of the Bishops’ statement, which, in fact, neither condemns nor approves the U.S.-led military campaign. The purpose of the statement, it seems to me, was twofold: firstly, to urge those responsible for the military campaign to observe the in bello principles of just war ("The grave obligation to respect the in bello principles of non-combatant immunity and proportionality remains in force and must govern our nation’s political and military decisions"); secondly, to insist that terrorism could not be defeated by military might alone, but would require a concerted international effort to promote human rights, establish the rule of law and eliminate abject poverty — in other words, to address those ills which are the underlying causes of terrorism. A response to the bishops’ Pastoral Letter from a group of Americans representing Catholic institutions and religious congregations, as well as organisations with ministries to the Catholic community judges the military campaign to be immoral in the light of the principles of the just war doctrine. This response goes on to call for "a new direction in the worldwide response to terrorism", for a rethink of the just war tradition and the creation of a new paradigm for judging questions of war and peace today. It is clear to me, as I hope this paper has shown, that the response to this call had already begun with the Second Vatican Council and that a number of key elements for the desired new paradigm are to be found in the writings of Pope John Paul. His 2002 World Day of Peace statement would add a further element — drawn directly from the example and teaching of Christ — namely, forgiveness. Reflecting on the horrific events of September 11 and relating these to his personal experience of Nazi and Communist totalitarianism, the Pope states: "I have often paused to reflect on the persistent question: how do we restore the moral and social order subjected to such horrific violence? My reasoned conviction, confirmed in turn by biblical revelation, is that the shattered order cannot be fully restored except by a response that combines justice with forgiveness. The pillars of true peace are justice and that form of love which is forgiveness" (No. 2). The Pope was aware that he was likely to raise some eyebrows (even Christian eyebrows) by choosing to emphasise the inseparability of justice and forgiveness at a time when many people were seething with righteous anger. "But in the present circumstances, how can we speak of justice and forgiveness as the source and condition of peace? We can and we must, no matter how difficult this may be; a difficulty which often comes from thinking that justice and forgiveness are irreconcilable. But forgiveness is the opposite of resentment and revenge, not of justice" (No. 3). A few sentences later, he goes on to explain why peace requires forgiveness as well as justice: "True peace therefore is the fruit of justice, that moral virtue and legal guarantee which ensures full respect for rights and responsibilities, and the just distribution of benefits and burdens. But because human justice is always fragile and imperfect, subject as it is to the limitations and egoism of individuals and groups, it must include and, as it were, be completed by the forgiveness which heals and rebuilds troubled human relations from their foundations. This is true in circumstances great and small, at the personal level or on a wider, even international scale" (Ibid). For me the striking note in this passage and in the Pope’s message as a whole is its affirmation of the necessity of forgiveness not only in our personal relations, but also in our wider social and political relationships. For the Pope there can be no separation of the personal and socio-political spheres of human life. True, forgiveness begins with the individual person. It must "inhabit people’s hearts" before it can become a social reality. "It is above all a personal choice, a decision of the heart to go against the natural instinct to pay back evil with evil" (No. 8). "Forgiveness… as a fully human act is above all a personal initiative". And yet, as the Pope goes on to underscore, "individuals are essentially social beings situated within a pattern of relationships through which they express themselves in ways both good and bad. Consequently, society too is absolutely in need of forgiveness. Families, groups, societies, States and the international community itself need forgiveness in order to renew ties that have been sundered, go beyond sterile situations of mutual condemnation and overcome the temptation to discriminate against others without appeal. The ability to forgive lies at the very basis of the idea of a future society marked by justice and solidarity" (No. 9). The Pope even speaks of his hope for the emergence of a ‘politics of forgiveness (No. 8). This was the first time I have ever come across the term ‘politics of forgiveness’ in official Catholic teaching. The realisation of this hope, says the Pope, will depend on the extent to which an ethics and a culture of forgiveness can be created. In this regard, the Pope points out, the religions of the world have a particular and urgent responsibility to unite, not only "in publicly condemning terrorism and in denying terrorists any form of religious or moral legitimacy" (No. 14) but especially in "teaching forgiveness" and pursuing "the path of forgiveness" (No. 13). The logic of forgiveness may not be "easily understood or easily accepted" (No. 10) for it has its source and criterion in God. Nevertheless, its significance is amenable to human reasoning, especially when we reflect on the costly consequences of the failure to forgive. In contrast to the way of violence which "opts for an apparent short-term gain", the way of forgiveness is "the high road," which "may seem in some way to diminish us, but in fact… leads us to a fuller and richer humanity, more radiant with the splendour of the Creator" (No. 10). Conclusion In this paper I have tried to trace the evolution in official Catholic thinking on war and peace over the past 40 years. Beginning with the Second Vatican Council’s call for a "completely fresh appraisal of war", the teaching of Pope John Paul II, both prior to and after September 11, has consistently favoured the application of explicitly Christian principles of non-violence, international solidarity, humanitarian intervention, and forgiveness to the resolution of conflict situations. Without directly repudiating the just war tradition, it is clear that this tradition is no longer at the core of the Pope’s approach to the resolution of conflict and the promotion of justice and peace. To the contrary, his strong endorsement of non-violent methods of resisting public evil and his appeal for forgiveness challenge Catholics to rethink the just war tradition and work towards a new framework or paradigm. This new paradigm will move beyond both the radical but non-involved pacifism of the Early Church and the just war tradition. Fuelled by the conviction that Christians along with all men and women of good-will have a duty to resist grave public evil, it will further develop already existing international forums and strategies for the protection of innocent victims of unjust aggression. Above all, it will explore new and creative ways of applying the principles of non-violent resistance and forgiveness to the resolution of conflict situations and the pursuit of peace. Richard McSorley points out that wile the early Church practiced pacifism, "it had no doctrinal or theological definition of its attitudes" and so, by default, fell into the practice of war. Cf. his New Testament Basis of Peacemaking, Georgetown University, Washington D.C., 1979, p. 92. 2 In conversation with Daniel Berrigan, S.J. in James Finn, ed., Protest, Pacifism and Politics, Vintage Books, New York, 1968, p. 153. 3 "Theology and Modern War", in William J. Nagle, ed., Morality and Modern Warfare, Helicon, Baltimore, 1960, pp. 86-87. 4 Op. cit., p. 106-107. 5 Quoted in James Finn, op. cit., p. 419 6 Cf. McSorley, op. cit., p. 103. 7Cardinal Ottaviani is reported to have said in 1947 that modern warfare is such that the conditions which justify war and make it permissible are never present. Cited in Finn, op. cit., p. 498. 8 According to McSorely, the Second Vatican Council offers "a new perspective towards peace" — one that moves away from the just-war theory and "initiates a return to the gospel of love and peace", op. cit., p. 112. 9 Note that the Pope’s insistence on the direct relevance of the ethic of Jesus to the social and political areas of life stands in clear opposition to the central thesis of that great American theologian and political commentator, Reinhold Niebuhr. In one of his best known works, Moral Man and Immoral Society, Niebuhr agued that the love ethic of the Gospel is directly relevant only to our personal and interpersonal relationships, but cannot be realistically applied to the public spheres of political and social life. See McSorley’s critique of Niebuhr’s argument in New Testament Basis of Peacemaking, pp. 127-131. 10 "After September 11: Catholic Teaching on Peace and War" in Origins, Vol. 30, No. 3, p. 37. 11 Art. cit., p. 38. 12 Ibid. 13 "A Catholic Community Responds to the War: Living with Faith and Hope", 17 December 2001. 14 Ibid.
Ref.: Text from the Author. June 27, 2002. |