Approximately two weeks after the tragic events of September 11th, 2001, as the United States was about to begin what has come to be known as its War on Terrorism, the Vatican’s chief spokesman, Joaquin Navarro-Walls, said this to the press:
“There are some people in Europe who would portray the Pope as a pacifist, and some people in the United States who see him as a man who wants justice, regardless of what means are used. Both these positions are false.”
Less than two weeks ago, Mr Navarro-Walls reiterated this statement by saying, “It is wrong to think that the Holy Father is a pacifist.” Why does Navarro-Walls keep making this point, and what does he mean by it?
Well, when he says that the Holy Father is not a pacifist, he means that the Holy Father does not believe that war is an evil that can never be tolerated. There are things in the world far worse than war, things that are far more destructive and a greater threat to world peace than war; and sometimes it takes a war to prevent or stop that something worse. Of course, this also does not mean, as Navarro-Walls pointed out, that the Holy Father is “a man who wants justice, regardless of what means are used.” The balanced position that he is alluding to here is the just war doctrine. This doctrine of our Faith teaches us that there are times when war can not only be just, but necessary, that is, morally obligatory for nations to protect the peace.
However, the only way for us to understand how war can ever be just and how it can be compatible with peace is to understand what peace is. The new Catechism describes it thus: “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 tranquility of order.' Peace is the work of justice and the effect of charity” (CCC 2304).
This tranquility of order is what we mean when we pray for peace in the world. It is not simply the absence of war; but this tranquility of order is only realized when the goods of persons, when the respect for the dignity of persons and peoples is protected. When unjust political regimes attack the goods of persons or do not respect their dignity as persons, then it is certainly just that other nations come to their aid; and it is most certainly just and even obligatory for governments to protect their own people, as the new Catechism notes: “Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility” (CCC 2265).
However, for governments to use military force legitimately, they must follow very strict conditions for entering into the war and for fighting the war. In the just war tradition, these are called the ius ad bellum and the ius in bello.
The ius ad bellum, or the criteria that must be met for one to enter into a war justly, are summarized in the Catechism thus:
• 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; [and]
• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated (CCC 2309).
If all these criteria are simultaneously met and a nation does go to war, then the war must also be fought justly. These are the ius in bello conditions. They state that every precaution must be taken to protect the innocent, not to harm non-combatants, and that only proportional force is used, that is, one is not to exceed the force necessary to vindicate the just cause.
(Fr Augustine H.T. Tran attended seminary at the North American College in Rome, Italy and was ordained to the holy priesthood in 1998. He serves in the Archdiocese of Atlanta, and is currently in residence at St. John Catholic Church in McLean, Virginia, while he completes a Canon Law Degree at Catholic University of America in Washington, DC. He may be contacted via e-mail at atran@alumni.nd.edu)
This is the essence of the just war doctrine. If we wish to apply it to our current condition with Iraq, which I believe is what is on the minds of most Americans right now, then we must ask ourselves whether the damage that Saddam Hussein has inflicted upon his people, and upon the nations of the world, has been lasting, grave, and certain.
We must ask whether all other means of putting an end to those evils has been shown to be impractical or ineffective. It is important to note here that this criterion does not mean that every non-military action that can be thought of has been tried and failed. Last resort, as this criterion is often called, does not mean the final resort in a mathematical order, but rather the only resort. In other words, can it be reasonably demonstrated that this regime does not respect international diplomacy or law, that military force is the only language that it respects or understands? In determining whether this criterion is satisfied, one must also address the issue of time, of imminent dangers and continuing evils as non-military options are being tried.
We must then ask whether it is reasonable to believe that we can win the war. And, finally, we must ask whether the evils and disorders that the war will cause will be greater than the evils and disorders that will be eliminated. This criterion, in my humble opinion, is always one of the most difficult to determine, for there is always a level of speculation as to what would have happened had we not gone to war. As Father James Schall recently put it, “If it takes a war to prevent this something worse, and we do prevent it, it will always seem, to the anti-war faction, that no real problem existed, because they could not see the evidence for it” (“The Pious & the War”, National Review Online, 13 February 2003).
Nevertheless, if these ius ad bellum criteria are met, then the U.S. government would be justified in going to war with Iraq at this time. However, there are also other questions that need to be asked about his particular war. The first is, was the post 9/11 war against Al Qaeda a just war? If it was, then is this an extension of that same war? Are there ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein?
And, second, was the Gulf War a just war? If it was, then is this really a pre-emptive strike by the U.S.? Or, is this war a continuation of that same war, since the U.N. resolutions are essentially a peace treaty? Are the U.N. resolutions not simply the conditions that the world put upon Saddam Hussein to stop the Gulf War? And if those conditions have not been met twelve years later, then is this not merely a continuation of that same war?
These are unanswered questions; but I think we can understand why men of good will stand on both sides of this issue. However, it is important to keep in mind that while the just war doctrine gives us the moral criteria by which war is to be judged, and, hence, we should continue to advocate its principles, it ultimately comes down to the prudential judgment of government leaders to decide if the criteria have been met. Once again, the Catechism states, “The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good” (CCC 2309). In other words, it belongs to legitimate government officials, for they are the only ones privy to the intelligence that is necessary to determine if all of the criteria have been met. Once again, Father James Schall puts it this way, “The 'I-am-still-not-convinced' position [—he is alluding here to what appears to be the dominant position of the clerical world—] has the advantage of not actually having to do anything to protect anyone from danger. But the responsible politician has no such luxury” (ibid.). His point is that the ones who need to be convinced are our government officials, “those who have the responsibility for the common good,” as our Catechism calls them. We must continue to call them to abide by these principles, but they are the ones responsible for making the prudential judgments in these matters.
This is why character is important in our government officials. This is why godliness is important in our government officials. If they are not virtuous, if they are not people that we can trust, then they are not equipped to make the decisions that we elect them to make; and one of the most important decisions that we elect them to make is when and whether and how we shall fight a war.
Let us continue to pray for our government officials who carry this heavy burden, but let us not forget the commandment to love our enemies. Not only do we need to pray for our own country and for those whom we seek to liberate, but also for those against whom we may fight. Let us pray for their conversion, that God have mercy on their souls and that we may still see them one day in the heavenly kingdom where there is no hatred, but only love. This is the great paradox of the Christian teaching to love our enemies. It is an admission that we have enemies, which we often do not want to admit today, but it is also an admonition to pray for and love them as Christ did upon the Cross.
© Copyright 2003 Catholic Exchange
