Just War

As Catholics we are bound to inform ourselves concerning social developments, particularly those of civic interest, and to consider them in light of the Church’s social doctrine.

The invasion of Ukraine has rekindled discussion of the status of the Church’s “Just War Doctrine.”  In an age of nuclear, biological, chemical, and robotic weapons, can war ever be justified?

Catholic Social Teaching
 

• The classic formulation of the Just War doctrine is set out in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2309:
  • (2309) The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
    • The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
    • All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
    • There must be serious prospects of success;
    • The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. the power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
      
      These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

• Importantly, the conditions are expressly limited to defensive action, after all other options have been exhausted.  The Catechism explains that:
  • (2302 – 2303) By recalling the commandment, “You shall not kill,” our Lord asked for peace of heart and denounced murderous anger and hatred as immoral… If anger reaches the point of a deliberate desire to kill or seriously wound a neighbor, it is gravely against charity; it is a mortal sin. The Lord says, ‘Everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment…’ ‘But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven.’
  • (2304 – 2305) Respect for and development of human life requires peace. Peace is not merely the absence of war, and it is not limited to maintaining a balance of powers between adversaries. Peace cannot be attained on earth without safeguarding the goods of persons, free communication among men, respect for the dignity of persons and peoples, and the assiduous practice of fraternity. Peace is ‘the tranquillity of order.’ Peace is the work of justice and the effect of charity… He has declared: “Blessed are the peacemakers.’
  • (2306) Those who renounce violence and bloodshed and, in order to safeguard human rights, make use of those means of defense available to the weakest, bear witness to evangelical charity, provided they do so without harming the rights and obligations of other men and societies…
  • (2307) …the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war.
  • (2308) All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war. However, “as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed.

• In his recent encyclical Fratelli tutti, Pope Francis has reminded us that war and other forms of violence are caused by lack of common purpose and understanding, and of the dangers brought to violent confrontation now by recent technological developments:
• (258) War can easily be chosen by invoking all sorts of allegedly humanitarian, defensive or precautionary excuses, and even resorting to the manipulation of information. In recent decades, every single war has been ostensibly “justified”. The Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks of the possibility of legitimate defence by means of military force, which involves demonstrating that certain “rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy” have been met… At issue is whether the development of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and the enormous and growing possibilities offered by new technologies, have granted war an uncontrollable destructive power over great numbers of innocent civilians. The truth is that “never has humanity had such power over itself, yet nothing ensures that it will be used wisely”. We can no longer think of war as a solution, because its risks will probably always be greater than its supposed benefits. In view of this, it is very difficult nowadays to invoke the rational criteria elaborated in earlier centuries to speak of the possibility of a “just war”. Never again war!

Points to Ponder

Consider discussing the following questions with your local candidates, elected officials, the political parties, and with your family, friends, neighbors, coworkers, and fellow parishioners. On prayerful reflection, consider sharing your conclusions with your elected representatives by writing respectful and informative letters. Or, perhaps consider engaging in the issue more intensively, by participating in advocacy organized by civil society organizations or by joining and participating in a political party or other movement.

• To whom is Just War theory addressed? To aggressors? To innocent victims of aggression? To those charged with protection of the innocent? To third-party observers in areas not yet threatened with violence?
• How do principles of the common good, solidarity, subsidiarity, and human dignity inform or direct our analyses?
• It seems clear that violent aggression can never be justified. It also seems clear that Christ has instructed Christians to avoid violence even in defense of self: “I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on your right cheek, turn the other one to him as well.”  But to what extent can Christians leave the innocent—children, the elderly, the defenseless—open to violent assault?
  • To what extent are Christians called to counsel those charged with protection of the innocent to avoid engaging in violent acts?
• In 2005, heads of members states of the United Nations adopted the following formulation of a “responsibility to protect” imposed on national governments for the protection of their people:
  
  138. Each individual State has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. This responsibility entails the prevention of such crimes, including their incitement, through appropriate and necessary means. We accept that responsibility and will act in accordance with it. The international community should, as appropriate, encourage and help States to exercise this responsibility and support the United Nations in establishing an early warning capability.
  
  139. The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. We stress the need for the General Assembly to continue consideration of the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and its implications, bearing in mind the principles of the Charter and international law. We also intend to commit ourselves, as necessary and appropriate, to helping States build capacity to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and to assisting those which are under stress before crises and conflicts break out.
  
  • Is the UN resolution on the responsibility to protect consistent with the Church’s Just War doctrine?  Is it consistent with the New Testament?

• What can we, as individuals, parishes, and as a Church, do to prevent or end wars?  Prayer and non-violent resistance in interventions seem like obvious choices.
  • As one excellent example, on the Feast of the Holy Name of Mary in 1948, Franciscan priest Fr. Peter Pavlicek organized a daily Rosary crusade in Soviet-occupied Austria.  A reported ten percent of the Austrian people participated, and on May 13, 1955, in the midst of continued belligerent rhetoric, the Soviets suddenly and without explanation withdrew from Austria, although they remained in Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, and other countries for a further thirty years.
  • For non-violent intervention, what sorts of demonstration are we called to?  Perhaps joining picketers on sidewalks, contributing to letter-writing campaigns, or even standing peacefully between aggressors and the oppressed while wearing a blue scarf?

Sources:

• Catechism of the Catholic Church
• Fratelli tutti
• United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect