Militant: The War of Mercy

Last updated on: June 20, 2007 at 6:00 am By voxnovablog

Part 2: Justice vs. Mercy
Part 3: The War of Mercy

(Disclaimer: I hope that this discussion can lead all of us to a closer look at Church teachings, and so I have tried to keep my thoughts focused upon the Magisterium’s teachings. It’s my hope that any discussion provoked by this post will maintain the same mindset. Though we can find truth in many places, why not go to its source – Christ and his Church? I’ve avoided scripture because as Catholics, our understanding of scripture should first be firmly grounded within Catholic thought. I’ve avoided specific situations of pacifism because they focus on application before understanding. And finally, I’ve avoided judgmental talk of good and evil, of sins and saints. I’m not out to condemn anyone. I’m out to discover truth.)

Recap of Militant, Parts 1 & 2:

Part 1 concluded that the Church is absolutely clear about the duty of self-defense, but equally clear that love is the only solution to evil. In the end, the mercy of nonviolence and the justice of war were held in tension.

“The pillars of true peace are justice and that form of love which is forgiveness .”
– Pope JPII (2005 Peace Message)

Part 2 explored the relationship between justice and mercy, and found that justice can only be established through mercy.

“Mercy is in a certain sense contrasted with God’s justice, and in many cases is shown to be not only more powerful than that justice but also more profound. Even the Old Testament teaches that, although justice is an authentic virtue in man, and in God signifies transcendent perfection nevertheless love is “greater” than justice: greater in the sense that it is primary and fundamental. Love, so to speak, conditions justice and, in the final analysis, justice serves love. The primacy and superiority of love vis-a-vis justice – this is a mark of the whole of revelation – are revealed precisely through mercy.”
– Pope JPII (1980 Encyclical Dives in misericordia)

Part 3 has taken weeks to write, because I’ve found my heart moving on this subject. After having read encyclical after encyclical, after having looked at the Church’s teachings in a depth that I never have, I’ve come to a startling conclusion.

I’ve been wrong.

I am no longer a pacifist.

I’ve always hated that label – ‘pacifist’. I’m glad to see it go. So what am I? A Catholic, sure. But what else? I am, strangely enough, exactly what my father predicted I would become – a person who has renounced violence yet recognizes the legitimate use of force – both individual and societal force – in combating injustice within our world.

The Way of Violence

“The way of violence cannot obtain true justice.”
– Pope JPII (1987 Peace Message)

On June 6th, 1944, D-Day, countless men lost their lives on the beaches of Normandy. I find it hard to accept their deaths as anything but folly. I certainly honor every soldier’s courage and heart in facing death with the intention of defending the common good. I can understand and appreciate those who join the military with the intention of serving peace. That is what I did. It is what my father did. It is what my little brother is doing.

But understanding isn’t the same as endorsing. Honoring an intention isn’t the same as condoning an action. Just as the ignorant soldiers of Stalin, Mao, and Hitler can be honored for their dutiful yet misguided hearts, so too can those same soldiers be admonished for their lack of faith – their refusal to follow the lead of our Church’s newest martyr, Franz Jägerstätter, who wrote:

“As a Christian, I prefer to do my fighting with the Word of God and not with arms,” he wrote. “We need no rifles or pistols for our battle, but instead spiritual weapons — and the foremost among these is prayer.”

These are the words of a martyr. Those who lack faith in spiritual weapons of mercy must first face down the witness of the martyrs!

We who were filled with war and mutual slaughter and every wickedness have each of us in all the world changed our weapons of war … swords into plows and spears into pruning hooks.” (Trypho 110) “We who formerly murdered one another now not only do not make war upon our enemies but, that we may not lie or deceive our judges, we gladly die confessing Christ. (I Apol. 39)
– St. Justin Martyr

The Folly of Violence

Those who died on the beaches of Normandy died in futility, fighting for justice with all the wrong weapons – weapons in opposition to the prayers of their heart. While a forceful defense against Nazi Germany was warranted, while aggressive action was needed to restore justice to a conquered continent, while the conditions of the just-war theory were clearly met, and while justice required the use of force to combat the Nazis, justice did not demand machine guns, bombers, tanks, killing, and violence. Justice did not and does not demand death. Justice does not demand violence. Rather, justice demands mercy. The true weapons of justice, of the just-war, are forgiveness, prayer, love, and mercy.

“Justice makes whole, it does not destroy; it leads to reconciliation, not to revenge.“
– Pope JPII (1998 Peace Message)

It isn’t difficult to highlight the folly of violence as a means of restoring justice.

“The way of violence cannot obtain true justice.”
– Pope JPII (1987 Peace Message)

Pope JPII refers specifically to terrorist violence in this Peace Message, yet his teaching remains valid for ‘the way of violence’ – the belief that violence can truly obtain justice. ‘The way of violence’ trusts in violent force as a means of fighting injustice. ‘The way of violence’ does not trust in merciful force as a means of fighting injustice. It does not trust in forgiveness. It does not trust in self-sacrifice. It only trusts in other-sacrifice.

As an Army veteran and former Ranger, I was indoctrinated in the way of violence. I was taught to have faith in violent force. Every time I hear or read a soldier’s story, I see the same thing, I see myself 4 years ago, drowning in the same futile faith:

Here is your situation Marine:

You just took fire from unlawful combatants (no uniform – breaking every Geneva Convention rule there is) shooting from a religious building attempting to use the sanctuary status of their position as protection.

But you’re in Fallujah now, and the Marine Corps has decided that they’re not playing that game this time. That was Najaf. So you set the mosque on fire and you hose down the terrorists with small arms, launch some AT-4s (Rockets), some 40MM grenades into the building and things quiet down. So you run over there, and find some tangos (bad guys) wounded and pretending to be dead. You are aware that suicide martyrdom is like really popular with these idiots, and they think taking some Marines with them would be really cool. So you can either risk your life and your fire team’s lives by having them cover you while you bend down and search a guy that you think is pretending to be dead for some reason. Most of the time these are the guys with the grenade or vest made of explosives. Also, you don’t know who or what is in the next room. You’re already speaking English to the rest of your fire team or squad which lets the terrorist know you are there and you are his enemy.

You are speaking loud because your hearing is poor from shooting people for several days. So you know that there are many other rooms to enter, and that if anyone is still alive in those rooms, they know that Americans are in the mosque. Meanwhile (3 seconds later), you still have this terrorist (that was just shooting at you from a mosque) playing possum. What do you do? You double tap his head, and you go to the next room, that’s what!!! What about the Geneva Convention and all that Law of Land Warfare stuff? What about it.

Without even addressing the issues at hand, your first thought should be, “I’d rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.” Bear in mind that this tactic of double tapping a fallen terrorist is a perpetual mindset that is reinforced by experience on a minute by minute basis . . . there is no compelling reason for you to do anything but double tap this idiot and get on with the mission.

If you are a veteran, then everything I have just written is self evident. If you are not a veteran, then at least try to put yourself in the situation. Remember, in Fallujah there is no yesterday, there is no tomorrow, there is only now. Right NOW. Have you ever lived in NOW for a week? It is really, really not easy. If you have never lived in NOW for longer than it takes to finish the big roller coaster at Six Flags, then shut your hole about putting Marines in jail for “War Crimes”.

The ‘way of violence’ makes sense in a world without Christ crucified and risen. Soldiers are taught how to kill, they are taught that killing makes sense, they are taught that killing works. We’ve all been taught that killing works. But it doesn’t. ‘The way of violence’ doesn’t forge justice, it doesn’t forge peace. The way of violence is folly.

“Violence is a lie . . . violence destroys what it claims to defend: the dignity, the life, the freedom of human beings.”
– Pope John Paul II (Address at Drogheda, Ireland 1979)

A History of Folly

Throughout history, our Church has demanded that men and nations turn away from the way of violence, and pursue another path – a path of mercy:

We implore those in whose hands are placed the fortunes of nations to hearken to Our voice. Surely there are other ways and means whereby violated rights can be rectified. Let them be tried honestly and with good will, and let arms meanwhile be laid aside . . . Let them not allow these words of a friend and of a father to be uttered in vain.
– Pope Benedict XV (1914 Encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum)

In 1914, at the beginning of WWI, our Pope asked men to try another way to restore justice. But they had more faith in ‘the way of violence’ than the way of mercy. ‘The way of violence’ did eventually work to end the killing, but it did not work to end the injustice – an injustice which led straight to WWII.

“The Great War . . . did not serve to lessen but increased, by its acts of violence and of bloodshed, the international and social animosities which already existed . . . Peace indeed was signed in solemn conclave between the belligerents of the late War. This peace, however, was only written into treaties. It was not received into the hearts of men, who still cherish the desire to fight one another”
– Pope Pius XI (1922 Encyclical Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio)

Justice, even international justice between warring states, cannot be achieved aside from the Gospel force of merciful love!

“Thank God, one may believe the time has passed when the call to moral and Gospel principles to guide the life of states and peoples was disdainfully thrust aside as unreal. The events of these war years have given ample evidence to confute, in a harder way than one could ever have imagined, those who spread such doctrine. The disdain that they affected towards this supposed unreality has been changed into stark reality: brutality, iniquity, destruction, annihilation.”
– Pope Pius XII (1944 Christmas Message)

Sadly, men and women continue to thrust aside the Gospel as the solution to peace within and among nations. They lock the Gospel into a box that says, “Do not open until the Parousia,” and outside of that box, in a world without the Gospel of Love, merciless injustice reigns:

Let all of them remember what war brings in its wake, as we know only too well from experience—nothing but ruin, death and every sort of misery . . . there have never been lacking, either in ancient or in more recent times, those who tried to subjugate the peoples by the use of arms; on the other hand, We have never ceased to promote a true peace. The Church desires to win over peoples and to educate them to virtue and right social living, not by means of arms but with the truth. For “the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty to God”
– Pope Pius XII (1950 Encyclical Summi Maeroris)

The Weapons of Mercy

The weapons of Christian warfare are not bombers and bullets. In ignorance, we have been waging just-wars with unjust weapons. We have been warring for justice with weapons that betray justice. And the injustices of war will continue until we pick up the weapons of mercy.

The Magisterium condemns “the savagery of war” and asks that war be considered in a new way. – CSDC 497

While some Americans seem to dismiss anything our Bishops have to say about violence, the successors of the Apostles have demanded that war be reconsidered. This doesn’t mean that the Church is asking us to lay down on our bellies and let terrorists kill our loved ones. Rather, we are being asked to tackle the ‘savagery of war’, and in this light, to reconsider war – to reconsider the savage weapons of war. The Church has a history of questioning not so much our right to self-defense, but the weapons we use in such self-defense.

We prohibit under anathema that murderous art of crossbowmen and archers, which is hateful to God
– Lateran Council II : 1139 A.D.

The Church has never ceased to fight against the injustices of the just-war. While always recognizing the right to self-defense, the Church has adamantly opposed methods of defense that violate the foundations of mercy and the pursuit of justice – from torture to crossbows, from nuclear weapons to crucifixion. On the positive side, our Magisterium has also proposed for us the supreme weapon of mercy – nonviolence.

“We have need of the God who overcomes on the cross, who does not conquer with violence, but with his love . . . through the nonviolence of his cross . . . (it) is a way of conquering that seems very slow to us, but it is the true way of overcoming evil, of overcoming violence, and we must trust this divine way of overcoming.”
– Pope Benedict XVI (26July2006 Zenit)

Nonviolent Force

Nonviolent force is the only force that has a chance of restoring justice, because it is the only force founded upon mercy – the only force unwilling to harm or kill. While those who use violent force are prepared to sacrifice their enemy, those who use nonviolent force are prepared to sacrifice themselves. Yet both seek the same goal:

The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm.
– CCC 2265

The only difference between nonviolent force and violent force is who we are willing to sacrifice – ourselves or our enemies. In each case, the use of force has dangers. The use of force is never guaranteed to achieve what we set out to achieve. The use of force often fails. But there is a question of hope. Violent force has no hope of restoring justice. Nonviolent force, being founded upon merciful love of enemy – a love willing to go to death for the enemy – such force is the only weapon capable of restoring justice to a splintered world.

Nonviolent Weapons

Only under the most strict conditions can the following weapons ever be considered for use against an aggressor – conditions detailed by the just-war theory. Otherwise, nonviolent force would become simply another means of domination. Nonviolent force ought only to be used as a last resort, in response to a violation of justice that is lasting, grave, and certain. But if those conditions (among others) are met, then we must respond. We must protect ourselves with force.

This is a major change of heart for me. It leads me down strange paths that are unfamiliar – paths that have barely been explored. But they must be! In a world that adores violence, how are Christians to forcefully defend themselves with nonviolence?

Why not go to those who are experts in force, to the military? For those who doubt that nonviolent force could be used effectively to defend ourselves, take a close look at why the military would expend so much time and effort researching the following nonviolent weapons:

1) The Stink Bomb

“GOTTA get out of here. Heart’s pounding. Can’t think. Can’t speak. Daren’t breathe. Just run . . . They don’t know what the evil-smelling odour is but their noses tell them it’s dangerous, and within seconds their stomachs sound the general alarm. In two minutes the streets are empty. All that’s left is a terrible stink.

This hasn’t happened yet, but it could if the US Army succeeds in its effort to create the mother of all stink bombs . . . The search for the perfect stink bomb is part of the Pentagon’s Nonlethal Weapons Program . . . It could also help peacekeeping forces keep warring factions apart by creating stench-filled exclusion zones . . . ideal for ending a siege without firing a shot, or for dispersing rioters or even marking the ringleaders so they can’t escape into the crowd.” (New Scientist)

2) Liquid Ball Bearings

Sometimes keeping an enemy down but not out is good enough. The Southwest Research Institute in Texas has created a sprayable antitraction gel for the Marines that is so slippery it is impossible to drive or even walk on it; one researcher describes it as “liquid ball bearings.” Spray the stuff on a door handle, and it becomes too slippery to turn. The antitraction gel is mostly water, so it dries up in about 12 hours. It is also nontoxic and biodegradable. (Time)

3) Sticky Foam

an incapacitant . . . consisting of various extremely tacky and/or tenacious materials carried in compressed form with a propellant and used to block, entangle, and impair individuals (wikipedia). . . some facilities storing uranium and plutonium now boast steel doors with containers of hydrocarbon solution built into them. Breach the door, and the liquid comes foaming out under high pressure, expanding in bulk by a factor of forty and sealing the breach with an impassable obstacle. (DefenseTech)

4) Dazzlers

The Veiling Glare Laser . . . obscures a wide field of view by creating a dazzling wall of light that swamps your vision. It is rather like looking through a dusty windscreen illuminated by bright sunlight . . . (it) exploits a rather unsettling phenomenon called lens fluorescence. The lens of the human eye is transparent to visible light, but certain violet or ultraviolet wavelengths can make it fluoresce, or glow. When your lens fluoresces, all you can see is glare. (New Scientist, LaserDazzler.net)

As an absolute pacifist, I didn’t have to think much. Now, I have to discern when force is appropriate, when it is not. I have to discern what is harmful to a person and what is not (the different between a restraint hold and a taser gun). But in the end, the law of love always holds true. I must always fight for justice with nonviolent and sacrificial love!

The War of Mercy

No force, no matter how nonviolent, can ever hope to bring peace to the world. Peace is brought through love, and through love alone. What are we defending with nonviolent force? We are defending our right to love, to . . .

To feed the hungry
To give drink to the thirsty.
To clothe the naked.
To visit and ransom the captives.
To shelter the homeless.
To visit the sick.
To bury the dead.
To admonish sinners.
To instruct the ignorant.
To counsel the doubtful.
To comfort the sorrowful.
To bear wrongs patiently.
To forgive all injuries.
To pray for the living and the dead.

War truly is an expedient. But only if waged nonviolently. Only a nonviolent war can allow us to work mercy upon the world, and to see it united in peace and justice.

Christian nonviolence . . . does not consist in surrendering to evil — as claims a false interpretation of “turn the other cheek” (Luke 6:29) — but in responding to evil with good. (Romans 12:17-21), and thus breaking the chain of injustice.
– Pope Benedict XVI (Angelus 18FEB2007)

“. . . the pity of Bilbo, may rule the fate of many – yours not the least.”
– Gandalf

I am no longer a pacifist. I am Catholic. I am . . .

Militant.

Taming the Tongue

Last updated on: June 12, 2007 at 7:51 pm By voxnovablog

I think, perhaps, that America could benefit from some training in nonviolent communication (NVC). Certainly the Catholic blogosphere could.

Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me.

The lies start early, and what’s worse – we tell them to ourselves. Words hurt. Words kill.

“The tongue is a small member and yet has great pretensions. Consider how small a fire can set a huge forest ablaze. The tongue is also a fire. It exists among our members as a world of malice, defiling the whole body and setting the entire course of our lives on fire, itself set on fire by Gehenna. For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by the human species, but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.

With it we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse human beings who are made in the likeness of God. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. This need not be so, my brothers.”
– James 3

The basics of nonviolent communication (NVC), as postulated by Dr. Rosenberg, are:

Observation
Feelings
Needs
Requests

Observation

“You!” Leonard shouted at me, pointing his quivering finger. “You never do anything! No chores, no nothing!”

I will admit that I sometimes fail to fulfill my duties within our community. But Leonard’s accusations are a perfect example of violent communication. By saying that I did nothing, he wasn’t attempting to communicate an observation. He was trying to get me to do something – more chores.

In NVC, observation simply means communicating what we have experienced without judgment. “You never do chores,” becomes “Yesterday I woke up and saw the the floor was dirty.” “You are a liberal,” becomes “I heard you say over lunch that you are going to vote for Hillary Clinton.” “You’re lazy,” becomes “When I left in the morning for work I saw you sitting on the couch eating Coco Puffs, and when I came back from work I saw you sitting on the couch eating what appeared to be the remnants of a pint of rocky road ice cream.”

Observing honestly takes great work. We can’t resort to labels when observing. Summarizing doesn’t work either. It takes very specific and very unbiased reporting of what we experienced. It is not a judgment. It is an observation.

“Muslims (have a) predilection for violence.”
– Ann Coulter

An objective observer might say, “Every day I turn on the television set and I see a news report of a suicide bomber in Iraq.” But Ann Coulter isn’t attempting to communicate observations, she’s not communicating her experiences. She’s communicating her judgment – namely that Muslims have a predilection for violence.

NVC maintains that we must base our communication off of objective experience before getting to our judgments. To place our judgments first is to enter into perilous territory, for our judgments are often erroneous. And yet, even if our judgments are correct, we cannot claim that our judgments are objective observations. Judgments must never be cloaked under the guise of objective experience. “You never do anything!” becomes the basis of conflict rather than reconciliation. “I woke up yesterday and saw that the floor was dirty,” serves truth before judgment, and leads to a truly nonviolent resolution of a conflict before it even begins.

Feelings

“I’m offended that you would say that.”

According to Rosenberg, most of us lack a language of feelings. We use words like ‘bad’, ‘good’, ‘happy’, ‘sad’, and so forth, but we don’t really go much deeper than that. And lacking such a vocabulary, we are often unable to articulate what we feel. Here are some words that we might know the definition to, but might not use regularly in reference to our feelings.

Amazed, Joyous, Comfortable, Moved, Confident, Optimistic, Eager, Proud, Energetic, Relieved, Fulfilled, Stimulated, Glad, Surprised, Hopeful, Thankful, Inspired, Touched, Intrigued, Trustful, Angry, Hopeless, Annoyed, Impatient, Confused, Irritated, Concerned, Lonely, Disappointed, Nervous, Discouraged, Overwhelmed, Distressed, Puzzled, Embarrassed, Reluctant, Frustrated, Sad, Helpless, Uncomfortable

You’ll notice that a few words are missing – insulted, offended, rejected, hated. When looked at closely, we notice that some ‘feelings’ aren’t primarily about our emotion. They don’t say as much about our internal feelings as they do about our external judgments. ‘Insulted’ doesn’t really say much about our feelings. It says a lot about how we view someone else’s words or actions. Same with ‘offended’ or ‘rejected’ or any of the other accusations we pass off as emotions.

Sharing our internal feelings is often hard. It makes us vulnerable. It also focuses on ourselves rather than someone else. And in a situation of conflict, the last place we want to turn a microscope is our own heart. But that is exactly the source of all conflict. Once we look inside and see our emotions – emotions disconnected from judgments – then we can really begin to make progress. Only once we specifically identify what we are feeling can we move on to the next stage.

In other words, when we read blogs, we often feel a whole assortment of feelings rush through us. Unless we sit down and probe those feelings, we are simply going to react. NVC is designed to get us to slow down for a second, to see what is happening inside us, and then to react with reason.

Needs

“I need you to SHUTUP!”

Rosenberg claims that our feelings come from needs that are either fulfilled or unfulfilled, that basically what we feel is related to our desires. He asks us to connect our feelings with our personal desires. Here’s an example:

I get home from a long day at work. The house is a mess, and everyone is sitting around watching TV. They’ve been watching TV all day. I’m angry. Why am I angry? Because they won’t clean the house!

Not exactly. What is my personal desire? Not my desire for someone else, by a personal desire directed inward? A desire related to what I need?

I need a clean house. I desire a clean house. I need to live in a place that is beautiful. I desire to have free time when I get home. I need relaxation. I desire tranquility and calm.

When we honestly evaluate our emotions, we will often get to desires and personal needs. We will see that a lot of our emotion is caused by not getting things we need. All too often, we try to justify our emotions by putting them on someone else. You did this, you did that. He didn’t do this, she didn’t do that. But NVC, again, asks us to look inside. What is it about my heart that is provoking my feelings? God knows that external events have an effect on me. But why do they have an effect? What is it about me that is causing my feelings?

When we own our feelings, and communicate our needs, we begin to see things in a way we never have before. We begin to feel empowered. We begin to see that the source of conflict often begins in our own needful and broken heart.

Requests

This is the hard part. We’ve identified our observations, “I saw that the floor was dirty.” We’ve identified our feelings, “I feel frustrated and angry.” We’ve identified our needs, “I feel frustrated because I need a clean home when I come home from work.” Now we get to the simple part – “Could you please clean the floor with me?”

If it was only that easy. NVC only really begins to produce fruit when the requests are denied, when the feelings grow stronger, when the conflict gets intense. It is a mindset rather than a method – a mindset of focusing upon our own heart, upon precise objectivity, upon the refusal to judge another person. It is about judging emotions and thoughts and events, not persons.

In the end, we have to ask ourselves – what are words for? Are they for communicating? Or are they for hurting? Are words meant to coerce, or are words meant to share who we are?

I think the answer is clear enough.

“But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.”
– Matthew 12:36

Should Catholics Follow the Utopian Vision of Modern Democracies? Part III-3 The Problems of Utopia

Last updated on: June 10, 2007 at 6:58 pm By voxnovablog

In a brilliant essay “Heroism and Asceticism,” written about the Russian Revolution of 1905, Sergius Bulgakov analyzed, to their ire, the religiosity of the so-called Russian atheistic intelligentsia. First and foremost, he believed that they took many spiritual principles from their Orthodox heritage; when taken out of their proper context, however, these principles, holistic in the Orthodox faith, are out of balance, easily abused, and end up turning what was once good into an evil. More importantly, to oppose the Church, they became a Church of their own. Bulgakov showed how the caricature they made of the Orthodox Church fit themselves more than it did the Church. “What is most striking about Russian atheism is its dogmatism and, one might say, religious frivolity with which it is adopted” Sergei Bulgakov, “Heroism and Asceticism” pages 23 – 63 in Landmarks.trans. Marian Schwartz (New York: Karz Howard, 1977), 30. Moreover, to promote their utopian vision, political theorists require heroes dedicated to the good of humanity to sacrifice themselves so they can be turned into martyrs for the faith: that is, by their willingness to sacrifice themselves, these heroes encourage others to follow their example, and to do whatever is necessary to help create utopia. “Heroism strives to save mankind by its own powers and by external means; hence their expectional regard for heroic acts that embody the program of maximalism to a maximal degree. Heroism preaches the necessity of causing something to happen, accomplishing something beyond one’s strength, and, in the process, to give up what is most dear, one’s own life. One becomes a hero and, at the same time, a savior of mankind through an heroic act far beyond the bounds of ordinary duty” (ibid, 39).

The kind of religious fervor which marked the 1905 Russian Revolution can be seen also within the utopian vision of modern democratic states. Freedom, liberty, and equality – all of which are good, to be sure — have become sacred; but like all things sacred, they can be sacrificed, with the belief that in that sacrifice, they will be reborn and given a new life, a new power which they did not have before. This expectation was seen in the Russian Revolution, and it continues to be seen today. Democracies as much as communist nations demand the self-sacrifice of heroes. These heroes can be found in many places, such as with a soldier fighting in Iraq, believing their work will help liberate not just Iraq, but the United States from people who threaten its freedom. If they die, they are turned into a martyr, and they become a witness of the efforts we need to make in order to create a secure, happy future. If we want to honor their life, we must make their sacrifice worthwhile. We must support their cause. We must do our part. We must transform the world, until, at last, through our democratic principles, a lasting utopia has been created.

Like most things sacred, freedom has been given such an aura to it that few properly can properly state what it is and where it can be found. There is a general belief among the people of a democracy that freedom is a gift which can be given to us by following democratic ideals. The United States has claimed for itself a leadership role in the world. More importantly, it believes itself as the fidei defensor, the defender of the faith in democracy, and wants to claim all democratic states as under its physical protection. If you disagree with the United States, if you criticize it for one reason or another, you are a heretic. You undermine its historical mission and you are working to help its enemies. Of course, the reason you do this is obvious: you hate freedom.

It is in this belief, that freedom or liberty finds itself solely through political means, where we can begin to understand the source of our modern utopianism. We must examine what a Christian should mean by the word freedom to understand why true freedom cannot be offered to us by political entities; but, before we even tackle this question, we should understand why any utopianism must be rejected from a Christian perspective.

Fundamentally, political utopianism is a pelagian notion. It does not take a proper account of sin, and the influence of sin upon society. It does not understand that it is impossible for a perfectly just and yet free human society to exist as long as humanity has not been transfigured by the grace of God. The problem which Marx could never solve is the same problem democracies can never solve, and that is the problem of evil. “Evil that finds expression in social injustice and hatred cannot be abolished by external and mechanical means. A certain amount of evil in social life must be left free, and the complete disappearance of evil can only be thought of as spiritual transfiguration” Nicolas Berdyaev, The Destiny of Man. trans. Natalie Duddington (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1960), 224. The ways people alienate themselves one from another is the result of the alienation of humanity from God, and it is through a proper relationship with God can the human problem truly be solved. “The final victory over evil is the business of the church rather than of society or the state” (ibid, 224). Indeed, we have tried to take the world into our hands, to steal it from God, who is its true owner; we were meant to be stewards of the earth, not its possessor. “The maximum of freedom and the minimum of tyranny is achieved when God is recognized as the absolute owner, and man merely as a steward and user. A man is responsible for his property both to God and to other men” (ibid, 218).

Beneath all utopian vision lies a misunderstanding of the human condition, and what we truly need to be made free. Freedom is misconstrued as the freedom to choose any possible action, without realizing the conditions which imprison our actions. Freedom is not the ability to do anything, but the ability to do good. While we might claim, because we choose a certain activity, we are free, when we look at the situation we find things to be entirely different. As long as we act according to the passions, we will never be free. They enslave us, creating those addictive habits which we find extremely difficult to overcome. And these passions, until properly ordered, are contaminated by sin, by concupiscence. How can we then say that in embracing the passions, we are liberated? Is it because we have no external coercion? Freedom is not merely an issue of externals; indeed, true freedom is found first and foremost within our conscious life; it can only be experienced when we are no longer ruled by sin. When we are transformed from the inside out, then we can be said to be freed, because we have then found the way out of our self-imposed imprisonment. “Only by admitting the guilt of our own will, which is influenced by reason, can lead us to a new life. We will free ourselves from this external oppression only when we free ourselves from internal bondage: that is, when we take responsibility upon ourselves and cease attaching the blame for everything to external forces” Nikoala Berdyaev, “Philosophic Truth and the Moral Truth of the Intelligentsia” pages 3 – 22 in Landmarks.trans. Marian Schwartz (New York: Karz Howard, 1977), 22.

Utopia can never be made by political institutions. When some political formulation is used by a group to create a better world, while there might be some temporary victory for freedom, in the end, because of the corrupted nature of humanity, not only will utopia not be made, the new political institution or government will create new injustices of its own, and if left to its own accord, these injustices will eventually overcome whatever good the political institution accomplished. This is not to say we should not act. We must understand that what we do can only be a limited good, and can never be seen as an end in itself. “It is therefore perfectly legitimate that those who super oppression on the part of the wealthy or the politically powerful should take action, through morally licit means, in order to secure structures and institutions in which their rights will be truly respected. It remains true however that structures established for people’s good are of themselves incapable of securing and guaranteeing that good” Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on Christian Freedom and Liberation, (Vatican, 1988), para. 75.

Our hope should not be placed upon any human political structure, especially those founded upon the ideologies of the Enlightenment. They are based upon a profound belief of the inherent goodness of humanity without any proper understanding of human sin. They believe freedom can be obtained through societal progress alone. The utopian vision of communists and modern followers of democracy share this one fundamental flaw in common. They believe freedom is possible through politics. However, if the voice of the oppressed is not enough to call a nation to reform, then they find reasons to justify the use of violence as a remedy. While sin is denied, social evil is affirmed. Because evil is seen in a social light, utopian visionaries believe it is necessary for the common good to root out this blight upon the people by whatever means it has to do so. While this methodology might create a temporary peace, in the end, we see it only justifies the creation of more evil. “To put one’s trust in violent means in the hope of restoring more justice is to become the victim of a fatal illusion: violence begets violence and degrades man. It mocks the dignity of man in the person of the victims and it debases that same dignity among those who practice it” Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on Certain Aspects of the “Theology of Liberation” (Vatican, 1984), para. XI.7.

The desire for freedom is good, because it is a sign of the human spirit and its desire to be liberated from the bondage of sin. Most confuse the bondage within our society and its imperfect structures as the fullness of our imprisonment. This is the reason why it is so easy for us to mistake political visions as offering us the full, lasting means for obtaining liberation. However, history makes it clear that any implementation of a given political vision, as long as it views itself as the sole means for human liberation, will never be successful. It will enslave people with its own ideologies and the structures it creates to create the world in its image.

A fundamental problem with any political theories of liberation, whether they are Marxist or democratic in principle, is that they do not know the fullness of freedom and the reason why we thirst so much for it. “The first and fundamental meaning of liberation which thus manifests itself is the salvific one: man is freed from the radical bondage of evil and sin. In this experience of salvation, man discovers the true meaning of his freedom, since liberation is the restoration of freedom” (CDF, Instruction on Christian Freedom, para. 23).

Truth is what sets us free. Through the work of Christ we are given access to the freedom we seek. “Through his Cross and Resurrection, Christ has brought about our Redemption, which is liberation in the strongest sense of the word, since it has freed us from the most radical evil, namely sin and the power of death” (ibid, para.3). But if we want it, we must work to get it. We must avoid the two great pitfalls upon the path of salvation. The first is to believe that we have no role in our liberation; it is to believe that our freedom is entirely done by God alone: those follow this path remain enslaved to sin and continue to follow its self-destructive ways. The second, perhaps the far greater error, is the one we see prevalent in the world today: it believes we have been given all that we need to obtain this liberation in ourselves, and there is no longer any need to work with or cooperate with God.

Our role in the generation of freedom does not justify any action we can take to generate it, but only those which follow through with the Gospel message, which is a message of hope, of love, and of justice. “By discarding this foundation and taking himself for God, man falls into deception, and instead of realizing himself he destroys himself. Far from being achieved in total self-sufficiency and an absence of relationships, freedom only truly exists where reciprocal bonds, governed by truth and justice, link people to one another” (ibid, para.26). Christians are called to be good citizens in the nations they find themselves in, but they are called to something higher, something which transcends the political visions of the nations. “The salvific dimension of liberation cannot be reduced to the socio-ethical dimension, which is a consequence of it. By restoring man’s true freedom, the radical liberation brought about by Christ assigns to him a task: Christian practice, which is the putting into practice of the great commandment of love” (ibid, para. 71). When our relationship with God has been restored by Christ, we are able to proclaim the true peace we have obtained from the truth to the world, showing the world the true power of freedom and its true foundation. “The experience of our reconciliation with the Father is the fruit of the Holy Spirit. God reveals himself to us as the Father of mercy, before whom we can come with total confidence. Having been reconciled with him, and receiving this peace of Christ which the world cannot give, we are called to be peacemakers among all men” (ibid, para. 52).

When any political ideology promises us freedom, we must examine what it is they mean by freedom and the means by which they claim we should get it. We must answer them according to the dictates of true freedom, the freedom of Christ, which comes about through love. When a political ideology takes itself too seriously, it becomes a rival for the Gospel message, because it sets itself, and not Christ, as the one who offers the people of the world freedom. But the freedom it offers is not the freedom of Christ, but a human, earthly freedom which continues to be bound by sin. Democracy, for example, promises us freedoms, but what freedoms are those? It says people should be free to follow the dictates of their desires, to follow their passions to wherever they will take us. It should not be difficult for anyone to see the error in this. What about the dark passions such as jealousy, envy, and anger? Should they too be embraced? If not, why not, and how does a political ideology offer a way to transcend them? “Having become his own centre, sinful man tends to assert himself and to satisfy his desire for the infinite by the use of things: wealth, power and pleasure, despising other people and robbing them unjustly and treating them as objects or instruments. Thus he makes his own contribution to the creation of those very structures of exploitation and slavery which he claims to condemn” (ibid, para. 42). The Christian, too, is faced with this question, but we understand that it is by embracing the passions that liberty is rejected. Only by overcoming them, only by dying to the self, do we find true liberty. “The mission of Christian asceticism is to transform one’s life into self-renunciation unseen by others and penance, to execute one’s labor with all possible effort, self-discipline, and self-possession, but to see both in that labor and in oneself an instrument of Providence alone. The Christian saint is he who has transformed his personal will and his entire empirical personality, through unflagging effort ands the fullest possible conviction, into the will of God” (Sergius Bulgakov, “Heroism and Asceticism,” 51). It is by transforming oneself, by overcoming selfish and the so-called “self-love,” which engenders the passions, that the Christian finds unity with God, a God who, as love, is the true ground of freedom. No political vision, no human-made utopia, can bring this.

What, then, does this mean for the Christian? Should they be a-political? It is the answer to this question we shall now turn.

Militant in Training

Last updated on: April 19, 2017 at 10:32 pm By voxnovablog

In writing a three part defense of Catholic nonviolence and pacifism, I’ve been reading and reflecting heavily upon the Church’s teachings, especially papal encyclicals and messages. And within this process, I have found my heart moved. The wisdom and love of Christ has unearthed deep questions, and within those questions, I find an opportunity of conversion. Am I no longer an absolute pacifist, no longer an anarchist? Something different? Something deeper? At this point, all I know is that I am Catholic, radical, militant. Part three of Militant – the War of Mercy – is forthcoming. Again, I am amazed by God’s grace and power – the power to propel me down the path of faith, to true conversion, to true militancy.

Where do we turn to for conversion?

Resources for conversion:

Next in line – the great councils of the Church:

Here are something interesting to think about, and a prelude to Militant, Part 3:

We prohibit under anathema that murderous art of crossbowmen and archers, which is hateful to God
– Second Lateran Council

The more I learn from the Church, the more I love the Church. The more I love the Church, the more I learn from the Church. And all the while, I grow closer and closer to being the person Christ has destined me to be. St. Augustine, pray for us!

Militant, Part 2

Last updated on: June 6, 2007 at 4:40 am By voxnovablog

Part 1: Nonviolence vs. The Just-War

Recap of Militant, Part 1:
Nonviolence vs. Just-War

(God) does not oppose violence with a stronger violence. He opposes violence precisely with the contrary: with love to the end, his cross . . . With his love — and only thus is it possible — he puts a limit to violence . . . it is the true way of overcoming evil.
– Pope Benedict XVI (26July2006 Zenit)

Christian nonviolence – loving our enemy by dying for him, is the true way to conquer evil.

“Christians, even as they strive to resist and prevent every form of warfare, have no hesitation in recalling that, in the name of an elementary requirement of justice, peoples have a right and even a duty to protect their existence and freedom by proportionate means against an unjust aggressor”
– Pope JPII (1982 Peace Message)

While only love truly defeats evil, justice demands that we defend the innocent. Without justice, can there be love? Without justice, can there be peace?

“There is no peace without justice.
There is no justice without forgiveness.”
– Pope JPII (2005 Peace Message)

I decided to leave the military because I could not reconcile love with justice, I could not reconcile mercy with justice. I still can’t. But I must.

Militant, Part 2:
Justice vs. Mercy

In order to understand the relationship between nonviolence and the just-war theory, I need to understand the relationship between mercy and justice. What does the Church teach? What is justice? What is mercy? How are they related?

“Justice makes whole, it does not destroy; it leads to reconciliation, not to revenge. Upon examination, at its deepest level it is rooted in love, which finds its most significant expression in mercy. Therefore justice, if separated from merciful love, becomes cold and cutting.”
– Pope JPII (1998 Peace Message)”justice is based on love, flows from it and tends towards it”
– Pope JPII (1980 Encyclical Dives in misericordia)

Justice is based on love, ‘merciful love’. This clarifies the relationship, but then again – I still feel as if mercy and justice are opposing forces. How does one reconcile the call of mercy with the demands of justice? How can I be merciful to my enemy while sticking a bayonet into his throat? There is a true contrast between my understanding of mercy and justice. How do I resolve that?

“In this way, mercy is in a certain sense contrasted with God’s justice, and in many cases is shown to be not only more powerful than that justice but also more profound. Even the Old Testament teaches that, although justice is an authentic virtue in man, and in God signifies transcendent perfection nevertheless love is “greater” than justice: greater in the sense that it is primary and fundamental. Love, so to speak, conditions justice and, in the final analysis, justice serves love. The primacy and superiority of love vis-a-vis justice – this is a mark of the whole of revelation – are revealed precisely through mercy.”
– Pope JPII (1980 Encyclical Dives in misericordia)

If merciful love is fundamental and superior to justice, then what does this tell us about the relationship between mercy and justice?

“The experience of the past and of our own time demonstrates that justice alone is not enough, that it can even lead to the negation and destruction of itself, if that deeper power, which is love, is not allowed to shape human life in its various dimensions.”
– Pope JPII (1980 Encyclical Dives in misericordia)

The quest for justice, if unshaped by merciful love, will only produce injustice.

“Mercy constitutes the fundamental content of the messianic message of Christ and the constitutive power of His mission. His disciples and followers understood and practiced mercy in the same way. Mercy never ceased to reveal itself, in their hearts and in their actions, as an especially creative proof of the love which does not allow itself to be “conquered by evil,” but overcomes “evil with good.”
– Pope JPII (1980 Encyclical Dives in misericordia)

Mercy is the foundation of Christian justice. And within this truth, we begin to see the true nature of justice itself. Justice is about persons, not about laws. Justice is the rightly-ordered harmony that exists between persons. Often, these relationships are broken and injustice reigns. But the Church teaches that justice can only be restored through mercy. Only in merciful love can relationships be truly healed. Only a justice founded upon love can lead to peace.

“Thus there is no contradiction between forgiveness and justice. Forgiveness neither eliminates nor lessens the need for the reparation which justice requires, but seeks to reintegrate individuals and groups into society, and States into the community of Nations.”
– Pope JPII (1997 Peace Message)

Forgiveness is the prerequisite for justice. Mercy takes primacy over justice, for without mercy and forgiveness, there can be no justice.

“There is no peace without justice.
There is no justice without forgiveness.”
– Pope JPII (2005 Peace Message)

If mercy is required for justice, then the just-war theory must be founded upon merciful love of enemies. Otherwise, its goal of restoring justice is destined to failure. But there is another side to this relationship: the goal of mercy must be justice.

“Properly understood, justice constitutes, so to speak, the goal of forgiveness. In no passage of the Gospel message does forgiveness, or mercy as its source, mean indulgence towards evil, towards scandals, towards injury or insult.
– Pope JPII (1980 Encyclical Dives in misericordia)

Mercy cannot indulge evil – it must combat evil. Mercy cannot ignore injury or insult, it cannot ignore injustice. Rather, mercy must be aimed at the restoration of justice, at the restoration of the relationships between persons.

What is the relationship between nonviolence and the just-war, between mercy and justice?

Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may vanquish those whom you war against, and bring them to the prosperity of peace.
– St. Augustine (Ep. ad Bonif. clxxxix)

The only war capable of restoring justice is a war founded upon mercy and aimed at justice: a just-war of nonviolence. Part III explores the paradox of the cross, where war meets nonviolence: The War of Mercy.

Militant, Part 1

Last updated on: April 19, 2017 at 10:40 pm By voxnovablog

Part 1: Nonviolence vs. The Just-War

Militant, Part 1:
Nonviolence vs. The Just War

I expect that so long as we live in a world fraught with sin and man’s capacity to commit evil and grave injustice, war will “always be with us.” So too, I imagine, the necessity of responding in grave situations with the use of force.
– Christopher Blosser (Ratz Fan Club)

My experiences as a PFC in the 3rd Ranger Battalion and as a Cadet at the United States Military academy (from 2000-2004), changed me forever. In the military, I discovered Jesus Christ, his Church, and the nucleus of the Christian revolution: loving my enemy.

“Loving the enemy is the nucleus of the “Christian revolution,” . . . The revolution of love . . . Here is the newness of the Gospel which silently changes the world! Here is the heroism of the “lowly” who believe in God’s love and spread it, even at the cost of their lives.
– Pope Benedict XVI (Angelus 18FEB2007)

Within the Gospel, I saw a new form of sacrifice, a new form of heroism, a new way of changing the world – dying to save my enemies rather than dying to kill them. I could not love my enemies by killing them. And so my life changed forever.

Ever since seeking and receiving discharge from the military as a conscientious objector, I have had to defend my decision – from family, from friends, from strangers I’ve never met, but more importantly – from myself. How do I deal with the fact that I can open up a Catechism and right there, staring me in the face, is the just-war theory, is the double-effect rule of self-defense, is all that violence which my heart had renounced for Christ?

“Moreover, “legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the State”. Unfortunately it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life.
– Pope JPII (1985 Encyclical Evangelium Vitae)

Over the past four years, I’ve wrestled with Catholic teachings on war and peace.

“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.”
– Cardinal Ratzinger (2001 Interview, Zenit)

“One is obliged to take into consideration the massive presence of violence in human history. It is the sense of reality in the service of the fundamental concern for justice which forces one to maintain the principle of legitimate defense in this history.”
– Pope JPII (1984 Peace Message)

If defending oneself and others is a duty, if justice demands that we maintain the principle of legitimate defense, then how can I rationally call myself Catholic while renouncing all violence? This helps:

“The most faithful disciples of Christ have been builders of peace, to the point of forgiving their enemies, sometimes even to the point of giving their lives for them. Their example marks the path for a new humanity no longer content with provisional compromises but instead achieving the deepest sort of brotherhood.”
– Pope JPII (1979 Peace Message)

The most faithful disciples of Christ . . . have laid down their lives for their enemies? Are Catholic pacifists part of a new humanity that is no longer content with provisional compromises, provisional compromises like war?

“Those who renounce violence and bloodshed . . .bear witness to evangelical charity
– Catholic Catechism 2306

“One’s neighbor is . . . the living image of God the Father, redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ and placed under the permanent action of the Holy Spirit. One’s neighbor must therefore be loved, even if an enemy, with the same love with which the Lord loves him or her; and for that person’s sake one must be ready for sacrifice, even the ultimate one: to lay down one’s life for the brethren.”
– Pope JPII (1987 Encyclical Sollicitudo rei socialis)

Is loving our enemies only something that individuals are called to, or is it a force that must be embraced by all humanity?

“No man or woman of good will can renounce the struggle to overcome evil with good. This fight can be fought effectively only with the weapons of love. When good overcomes evil, love prevails and where love prevails, there peace prevails. . . . love is the only force capable of bringing fulfillment to persons and societies, the only force capable of directing the course of history in the way of goodness and peace.”
– Pope JPII (2005 Peace Message)

On one hand, the Church teaches that only the “weapons of love” (nonviolent sacrifice) can bring the world peace. But on the other hand, as we’ve seen, the Church teaches that justice requires the defense of innocents (the just-war theory). How do I resolve the apparent contradiction between sacrificial love of enemy and the just-war theory?

Michael Denton at For the Greater Glory relates war to the Lord of the Rings to suggest:

It is however necessary to fight Sauron & Saruman; that is never questioned. However, that fighting does not grant peace. It is the destruction of the Ring, which is the destruction of sin, which grants peace . . .

The conclusion is inescapable. The Catholic tradition at all points has held that war can be a necessary but insufficient means to peace.
– Michael Denton (For the Greater Glory)

Essentially, he’s saying that only love completely conquers evil, but that war provides the conditions necessary for us to love – a society of order and justice. In other words, we can’t love if all of us are dead. I have become convinced that Catholic pacifists must be able to answer this assertion. In the past, I’ve had similar discussions about war and peace that have led to the same place:

“military force is regrettably necessary in this case because it buys the time we need to wage successful ideological and spiritual campaigns . . .”
– Patrick O’ Hannigan (Paragraph Farmer)

““love, love, love” is certainly the perfect solution to any problem, but it is never an expedient one”
– The Anchoress (Counter Terrorism w/ Love)

As a Catholic pacifist, my constant refrain is, “peace can only be forged through the loving and nonviolent sacrifice of the cross. Only by loving our enemies, and dying for them, can we defeat evil.” And I’m not alone in this refrain.

“We have need of the God who overcomes on the cross, who does not conquer with violence, but with his love . . . through the nonviolence of his cross.

. . . He does not oppose violence with a stronger violence. He opposes violence precisely with the contrary: with love to the end, his cross. This is God’s humble way of overcoming: With his love — and only thus is it possible — he puts a limit to violence. This is a way of conquering that seems very slow to us, but it is the true way of overcoming evil, of overcoming violence, and we must trust this divine way of overcoming.”
– Pope Benedict XVI (26July2006 Zenit)

While as a Catholic pacifist I’ve drawn great hope from the Pope’s words, my angst over the just-war theory continues to grow. If only love puts a limit to violence, as the Pope says, then how can war – violence – put a limit to violence?

(“Love your enemies”) is rightly considered the “magna carta” of Christian nonviolence; it does not consist in surrendering to evil — as claims a false interpretation of “turn the other cheek” (Luke 6:29) — but in responding to evil with good. (Romans 12:17-21), and thus breaking the chain of injustice.
– Pope Benedict XVI (Angelus 18FEB2007)

If loving our enemies breaks the chain of injustice, why does the church need a theory of violence whose aim is the restoration of justice?

“Christians, even as they strive to resist and prevent every form of warfare, have no hesitation in recalling that, in the name of an elementary requirement of justice, peoples have a right and even a duty to protect their existence and freedom by proportionate means against an unjust aggressor”
– Pope JPII (1982 Peace Message)

Is war necessary for peace?

Peace is the “work of justice” indirectly,
in so far as justice removes the obstacles to peace:
– St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica)

It seems more appropriate to ask, “Is war necessary for justice?”

The just-war theory details the conditions under which warfare can be the instrument of restoring justice to a broken world. It doesn’t claim to achieve peace directly, but rather aims to secure the conditions of justice which would lead to peace. For:

“There is no peace without justice.”
– Pope JPII (Peace Message 2002)

Many pragmatic-pacifists of the Church have claimed that in light of modern warfare, war can no longer fit the conditions of the just-war theory. This claim isn’t outlandish – and exploring this claim is explicitly endorsed by the Church.

The Magisterium condemns “the savagery of war” and asks that war be considered in a new way.[ Gaudium et Spes,80] In fact, “it is hardly possible to imagine that in an atomic era, war could be used as an instrument of justice”.[ John XXIII, Encyclical Letter Pacem in Terris]
– Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (Vatican.va)

Is war sometimes regrettably necessary for the restoration of order which justice demands? Is war regrettably necessary to remove the obstacles that prevent peace? Can warfare be an instrument of justice?

“To attain the good of peace there must be a clear and conscious acknowledgment that violence is an unacceptable evil and that it never solves problems.”
– Pope JPII (2005 Peace Message)

“Wars, even when they “solve” the problems which cause them, do so only by leaving a wake of victims and destruction which weighs heavily upon ensuing peace negotiations.”
– Pope JPII (1997 Peace Message)

Is war directly necessary for justice and indirectly necessary for peace?

True and lasting peace is more a matter of love than of justice, because the function of justice is merely to do away with obstacles to peace: the injury done or the damage caused. Peace . . . results only from love”
– Pope Pius XI (Encyclical – Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio)

War is meant to restore the justice that peace requires, but only love can truly complete the requirements of peace? As a pacifist, I have stressed love as the solitary solution to evil. But non-pacifists might say, “Wait! Not so fast. You can’t show love if you never exact justice. You can’t love if you are dead! War isn’t the complete answer, but it’s an essential part of the answer. ”

“To apply “love your enemies” in a life and death situation means life for the enemy and death for you . . . if someone were about to shoot the Pope, a reasonable person . . . (would) stop him, by any means necessary. If he survives, he can get spiritual counseling in prison.”
– Gerald Augustinus (The Cafeteria is Closed)

How do I resolve the demands of justice with the call of love? For me, this is the heart of my dilemma. Justice demands that we defend the innocent. Love demands that I give up my life for the enemy. How does one unite love and justice into a coherent unity?

“The pillars of true peace are justice and that form of love which is forgiveness . . .

There is no peace without justice. There is no justice without forgiveness. “
– Pope JPII (2005 Peace Message)

But what does that mean? “Militant, Part 2: Justice vs. Mercy” will explore what seems like a tension between the underlying values of the just-war theory and nonviolence – between Justice and Mercy.

Ready, aim . . .

Last updated on: April 19, 2017 at 10:40 pm By voxnovablog

I’m in the last stages of preparing what I hope will be a very thorough exploration of Catholic thought on war and peace. I’ve spent the last four days reading encyclical after encyclical, so get ready for some Papa-lovin’!

Michael Denton and Christopher Blosser assert that “war is necessary but not sufficient for peace,” and I think Catholic pacifists like myself have to step up to the plate and answer this assertion – not only for others, but for ourselves. How are we to reconcile our personal commitment to nonviolence with the Church’s stance on the just-war theory and the double-effect rule (self-defense)?

Here’s a teaser:

“No man or woman of good will can renounce the struggle to overcome evil with good. This fight can be fought effectively only with the weapons of love. When good overcomes evil, love prevails and where love prevails, there peace prevails. . . . love is the only force capable of bringing fulfillment to persons and societies, the only force capable of directing the course of history in the way of goodness and peace.”
– Pope JPII (2005 Peace Message)

Tribunal for Lebanon

Last updated on: April 19, 2017 at 10:40 pm By voxnovablog

The UN security council voted to establish an international criminal tribunal to prosecute the murderers of Rafik Hariri. This is momentous. For a start, it is a first for the Middle East. More significantly, it is well known that complicity in Hariri’s murder extends to the very top of the Syrian regime. As the murdered prime minister’s son Saad Hariri (leader of the Sunni-Christian-Druze political alliance) noted: “We’re asking for justice, not for revenge.” For all its faults, the UN has shown that it can be a force of wisdom and justice in the world. The world community is telling governments like Syria that they cannot murder political leaders who dare to cross them (anybody familiar with Lebanese history will realize that the Syrian body count is large, and includes many prominent political leaders including Kamal Jumblatt, Bashir Gemayel, Rene Mouwad, and possibly even Elie Hobieka and Dany Chamoun). Also, note that this is the smart way to confront countries like Syria, instead of using violence and leading to more bloodshed, renewing the cycle of hatred for another generation.

From Pope Benedict’s Speech on Tertullian

Last updated on: April 19, 2017 at 10:40 pm By voxnovablog

Thanks to Zenit, we can read more of the Pope’s reflections on non-violence; this time it is found in his catechetical series of lectures based upon the early Church Fathers. Hopefully these lectures will be collected and published together in a their own volume; if done right, it could bring people back to studying patristics for the sake of theology and a much needed renewal in the field of Patrology.

Benedict reminds us how the early Christians dealt with the harsh, tyrannical regime of their time. “Martyrdom and suffering for the truth are victorious in the end and more effective than the cruelty and violence of totalitarian regimes.”They didn’t come together, ask other countries to invade Rome to protect them from a cruel, murderous dictator; they gave witness to their Christian faith up to the point of their death, showing the love they had, even for their enemies. “He shows the triumph of the Spirit, who pits the violence of persecutors against the blood, suffering and patience of the martyrs. ‘As refined as it is,’ he writes, ‘your cruelty serves no purpose: On the contrary, for our community, it is an invitation. We multiply every time one of us is mowed down: The blood of Christians is a seed’ (Apologeticus 50:13).” This fact, combined with the active social work Christians engaged in, changed the hearts of the Romans and helped secure the conversion of the Empire to Christianity. Thus, perhaps as Benedict suggests, one of the greatest things we can learn from Tertullian is that which Catholic Social Teaching continues to teach us: “And his other reflection, taken from the Gospels, says ‘the Christian cannot hate, not even his own enemies’ (Apologeticus 37), where the moral implication of the choice of faith, proposes ‘nonviolence’ as the law of life: And who could not see the relevance of this teaching today in light of the fervent debate on religions.”

Isn’t it rather odd that the two greatest ways early Christians engaged their society are those issues which many (who claim to be traditional and conservative, whatever they mean by this) find most controversial with Catholic Social Teaching today?

Is War Just?

Last updated on: May 30, 2007 at 9:31 pm By voxnovablog

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…