It seems that Vox Nova is being attacked for adopting pacifist positions and not giving enough consideration to traditional just war teaching. Christopher Blosser writes: “An absolute (pacifist) condemnation of the military cannot be reconciled with Catholic tradition or the Catechism”. Nonsense. In fact, the pacifist tradition is well established and respected within the Catholic tradition. If pacifism is incompatible with Catholicism, then Dorothy Day would not be on the road to sainthood. If a rejection of all war is antithetical to Catholicism, then the Community of Sant’Egidio would be under investigation by the CDF, instead of being regarded as a leading lay movement that has succeeded in bringing peace to many troubled spots of the world (after all, the Community of Sant’Egidio proclaims that “war is the absence of every justice.”)
There are different views on Vox Nova. While I respect and honor the views of my colleagues, I do not describe myself as an “absolute pacifist”. I believe in the just war principles. The problem is that many on the pro-war side are too quick to use whatever wiggle room is available under these principles to push for a policy of violence, a doctrine of war as first resort. And of course, when told of the Vatican’s staunch opposition to the Iraq war, we are told that this is a mere prudential judgment. But prudential judgment simply means apply Catholic moral principles to changing facts and circumstances. Let’s look at one of the conditions in particular, that “the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.” At the same time, “the power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.”
Quite simply, the nature of modern warfare and weapons stacks the deck against the use of military force. The threshold becomes much higher. This is an example of the Church applying moral principles to particular circumstances on the ground (the true definition of prudential judgment, as opposed to a “license to ignore”). Some would even say that the bar is set so high that hardly any modern war is justified. It also goes beyond destructive capacity. The concept of “disproportionate evils” is a broader one, encompassing factors such as the generation of chaos and instability in the region and beyond.
So I think the Church’s position on just war is changing with modern circumstances. And this relates not only to the penchant for disproportionate evils, but to the very nature of who is the competent authority in the first place. Notice that while the United States saw itself as a liberator in Iraq, the “liberated” saw things rather differently– in the guise of an occupying imperial power. Does any one country have a right to act in such circumstances? In an increasingly integrated and globalized world where threats can arise from any corner, who should make these decisions? Certainly not one country alone, as that would almost certainly awaken further hatreds.
John Allen discussed various winds of change at the Vatican:
“In recent years, however, the Holy See has tended to rely less on the traditional language of “just war” and more on the relatively new concept of “humanitarian intervention,” which generally sets the bar much higher to justify force, especially for initiating a conflict. The Holy See has opposed the two U.S.-led Gulf Wars, and Cardinal Renato Martino, President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, has even suggested that Catholic moral teaching is evolving in a quasi-abolitionist stance on the use of armed force…
Especially key is the question of sovereignty, and the extent to which one can meaningfully speak of a global sovereignty invested in international organizations such as the United Nations. Does justice ad bellum in the 21st century require that the United Nations approve the use of force? A closely related issue is the rule of law, and the binding force of international law. Events may well compel the pope to clarify how the traditional principles of Just War analysis, or “humanitarian intervention,” should be applied to new historical circumstances.”
In 2003, then-Cardinal Ratzinger also speculated along these lines, when he noted that “given the new weapons that make possible destruction that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a just war.”
Do those in the United States who purport to support the traditional just war doctrine pay any heed to these concerns? Do they take adequate note of concepts such as last resort, serious prospects of success, grave and lasting consequences, competent authority, and (especially) disproportionate evils? And do they pay sufficient attention to the Church’s call to overcome the disorders that threaten peace, such as injustice and excessive economic and social inequality? For that too is in the Catechism. No, at the end of the day, many on the American right are too keen to tilt Church teachings toward a prevailing secular ethos that supports the extension of American power through military means. And they downplay any role for the United Nations, simply because it goes against American nationalism or a protestant-inspired American exceptionalism.
At the end of the day, while I start from a different position from that of my pacifist friends, we end up not so far apart after all…
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In