Some decades ago war may have been an instrument which, although it was brutal, could be used to resolve intolerable international tension; but today, owing to the fact that it cannot be controlled, it has lost even this shred of utility....It has become so colossal that it can no longer exercise any sensible function.
-Emil Brunner, The Divine Imperative
There is a form of pacifism known as "just-war pacifism." It is an anomalous position for a pacifist to hold, because it is dedicated to the belief that all moral propositions must be decided in the concrete, rather than the abstract. So a just-war pacifist wouldn't be willing to categorically stat
e that killing is wrong, but only that killing is wrong in this or that concrete situation.
So what a just-war pacifist does is to look at each potential conflict in specific, and then determine whether it would be right for the nation to wage that war, or for the Christian to participate if it did (depending on the question being asked; they are always two different questions). What makes this person a 'pacifist' is that they universally, or nearly so, decide in the negative. (Many take the position that where local tribal skirmishes could once have been, hypothetically, permissible, that the global nature of tribal interrelationships as well as the global repercussion of possible weapons--atomic, biological, chemical--are enough to make modern wars always concretely objectionable.)
Without realizing it, I unconsciously held to the just-war pacifism mindset during my sophomore year of college, when for my final project for Dr. Sutton's Philosophy and Ethics course I wrote a research paper from the
just-war position arguing that for various reasons, no war America had be been involved in qualified as a "just war."
In a world where war in the last hundred years has come to mean either large-scale city bombings, as throughout WWII, the threat of nuclear annihilation, guerrilla movements, insurgencies and counterinsurgencies that cannot specify between combatant and civilian and drag on for years, it is increasingly difficult to argue that any possible conflict is a just one.
I believe that if just-war thinkers are honest and thorough, they will come to agree with idealist pacifists in far more cases than they disagree. In other words, pacifists and just-war thinkers are much more closely aligned than either are with the nation-states, or with those Christians who believe it's their patriotic duty to support "their" nation, right or wrong. What pacifists and just-war thinkers have most in common, of course, is that they agree that Christ, not the state, has the ultimate authority over the believer's actions, and that our priority is to the church over the nation-state. That's no small agreement.
There are problems, however, in just-war thinking. For one, the very fact that is exists and is selectively and inconsistently applied by the major church bodies gives individual Christians the feeling that any particular war
is justified. For some strange reason, people think that the fact that just-war doctrine exists means that war in general is justified unless explicitly shown not to be. In fact, just-war thinking states the opposite, claiming that war in general is unacceptable, unless it meets these very specific criteria (which just-war pacifists say it never does).
It is also worth mentioning that the U.S. government will not grant conscientious-objector status to a CO claiming that a particular war is unjust by just-war standards. They will only grant it to those who claim that all wars are wrong (and they will ask that lovely question, "What would you do if someone broke in your home and raped your wife," and you'd better have a good answer for it).
I do think, in the end, that just-war language is probably more useful for those Christians committed to nonviolence than we tend to realize. It is the historical position of most of the major church bodies (at least in theory), so by asking our question in terms of just-war doctrine, we can effectively point the way to peace without betraying our commitment to nonviolence as central to the gospel.
-NDSR
Comments (12)
This is hard because most people, including me, look back on history and say that WW2 was probably the only just war that America has ever fought in, though I guess a case can be made for the Revolutionary war too. But with WW2, I have questions about the second and fourth requirements of the doctrine. We discussed this in my Law and Society class last year and a lot of the girls were saying that with the atomic bombs on Japan, there is no way it could have met the fourth requirement. But a lot of us said if we had not fought that war, Hitler would probably have taken over all of Europe, then Russia, then he would have most likely attacked the US. The difference with WW2 seemed to be the Germany was the only nation, with Italy and Japan with them, with the desire and ability to take over the world since the US has existed. Also, Hitler was supposed to be trying to get an atomic bomb too so there is an argument to be made about the fourth requirement being met.
I think you make the point that non violence is right but only up to a point with the example of what they will ask a conscientious objector. The CCC states, in paragraph number 2263, that violence is allowed, even killing, in defense of the life of yourself or others. It is similar to the just war doctrine in that you can't kill someone who doesn't have a weapon for example and you can't kill just to protect property, only to protect life.
As far as the just war doctrine goes, from a Cathoic perspective, it is even harder because paragraph number 2309 not only states the four requirements but it goes on to state who is responsible for making the determination on if war meets the requirements. And it states:
"The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the
prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good."
So, that presents a problem, in that the CCC doesn't seem to allow for people to, on their own, decide if a war is just or not under the just war doctrine. That decision seems to belong to the President and our other leaders. But then of course it doesn't take into account if they are a Catholic and give and authority to the CCC, so that is a whole different problem. Also, paragraph 2311 says:
"Public authorities should make equitable provision for those who for
reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms; these are nonetheless
obliged to serve the human community in some other way."
It is all hard. I hate war but I know that we also have an obligation to defend ourselves and others from people who want to kill us and others. If we could get more people to start out in truly believing in the 5th Commandment when it comes to all life, then it wouldn't have to be a problem. But most people want to selectively believe in it; abortion is killing but the death penalty is OK. It isn't ever going to work if we keep parsing God's words.
@scramBledmegZntoasT@xanga - I think that is the longest comment I have ever received. I am delighted by the depth of your response and the fact that you are wrestling with all of this to begin with.
Problems I've seen with WWII qualifying as a just war include, obviously the two atomic bombs, which are made infinitely more problematic in light of the fact that Japan was already attempting conditional surrender, but that America demanded unconditional surrender. Since the only condition Japan was insisting on was to retain honor the Japanese emperor, and had no practical effect on the terms of surrender, it's very difficult to justify the two uses of the a-bomb.
But it's also worth noting that high-flying bombings of European cities and the fire-bombing of Dresden killed more civilians than either atomic bomb did. Across the board, the means used to fight WWII were unjustifiably destructive to non-combatants and to the infrastructure necessary for living.
It's also staggering to realize the degree to which nonviolent resistance of Nazi occupations saved Jewish lives and hampered the German army's advancement.
---
One of the first arguments anyone uses against pacifists is "What if you were walking home and saw a woman being raped? Would you do nothing?" The question is flawed in a few different ways. First, it's not logically self-contradicting for someone to say they believe in self-defense and defense of those around them while condemning national war and preparation for war. One can easily imagine a world where everyone defended themselves if necessary but no nation stockpiled weapons, even if such is not likely.
But beyond that, the question shows the degree to which people put faith in violence, the same way we put faith in Christ. I think watching too many action movies will do that. But if you look at their expectations, you can see how they are putting faith in the power of violence. The question assumes that if I attack the attacker, I will save the victim and justice will be served. When in reality, if I see a man in the bushes on top of a struggling woman, then my mere presence makes the situation vastly more complicated. Just by making my presence known, he could just run, or he could slit her throat and run, or he could slit her throat and turn on me, and then not only is she dead and the rapist free, but my wife is a widow. The fact that the advocate of violence never thinks of those as likely outcomes shows how he has deified violence as a solution.
---
In the end, I believe that Christians have an obligation to nonviolence in their personal lives as well as in the national scale, and that this position is one of faithfulness to the Lordship of Christ, rather than the efficacy of such a position. One of the bases of Christian ethics always has to be, "What do my actions say about the gospel?" It's a matter of faithfulness rather than effectiveness.
---
I am curious, though, what a Catholic is expected to do in the case of a war that the Church has publicly condemned, but that the Catholic's nation has waged nonetheless. Are you supposed to apply for CO status, or what? (Granted, America doesn't have a draft at present, but it's a hypothetical question.)
-ND
We're finally getting to an age where we can catch people, not imaginary ideas. Unfortunately for this quote, people control groups and groups become people.
War is not going anywhere. It's just going to become more complicated and change forms a billion times. We might twirl around zero again if we aren't careful...
While we're on this side subject:
A normal person when asked, "what would you do when someone came into your house and raped your wife," would state, "it is my home and he is an invading it."
A police man would state, "He should not have come into your home, but you should not have taken it upon yourself to kill him. The situation is complex. Now you have to go to court. You are too normal to defend yourself. You keep saying the same things. You lack discernment. It's okay, so do I."
The lawyer knows the right answer but states, "Let me try to help you to right this situation."
The lawyer looks at the person then to the lawyer then to the photograph of the dead rapist who is being held by his only child. This is not a good day. He sentences the man to time that he declares fit.
And in regards to you son people who don't eat each other or plant each other:
"My well loved and tender son ... know and understand that thy house is not here ... This house wherein thou art born [i.e. the physical body] is but a nest, an inn at which thou has arrived, thy entry into this world; here dost thou bud and flower ... thy true house is another" Encapsulated fragment of the Nahuatl language preserved by Sahagun. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDA4E3DvFmg&feature=related
I think a Catholic is expected to object and not serve, but there really is no position, by the Church, that I know of. Pope John Paul II actually declared that the Iraq War did not meet the requirements of the just war doctrine and Pope Benedict XVI has said the same thing, so it seems to follow that a Catholic would not be allowed to participate for the same reason we couldn't participate in an abortion, it would be material cooperation with evil.
@scramBledmegZntoasT@xanga - Okay, a followup question then: what would be the response to a Catholic who at this point voluntarily signed up to serve?
Mainly I'm asking because my own church tradition doesn't have any strong heritage to draw on. It is historically a peace church, in line with the Quaker and Mennonite churches on war and other social issues, but in the last generation or so has sort of migrated to this position of supporting individuals whose consciences won't permit them to serve, while at the same time supporting those who choose to serve in the military. It's all very individualistic, which is poor territory for the church to be in.
I have not studied the arguments for or against the concept of a "just war" nor do I have any problem with those whose conscience leads them to oppose war. Also, no Christian should promote "situation ethics," but I really really have a problem with the idea that we should just ignore injustice when we see it - such as a man being beaten by hoodlums in the street.
I once heard (from my wife) of a professor who was posed with the question "What would you do if someone broke into your house and raped your wife right in front of you?" His answer was " I'd go downstairs and put on a pot of coffee and invite the rapist to sit down and tell me what caused him to lead that kind of life" !!!!
I am not trying to justify war (or wars), but I am scratching my head over this whole question. I may be philosophically wrong or morally wrong to want to champion the cause of the innocent victim ( or nation ). What to do........??
Alright, you folks are waaaay above my level. Well, I have been reading all manner of drivel on xanga tonight, so I am fried. Let me state this: Here in the 3rd Infantry division, they don't fool around: Three guys from my Battalion have been chaptered (kicked out) of the Army for this CO stuff. They don't really argue anymore. The logic is that it's just cheaper to cut you a 30,000 check and kick you to the curb than to put you in a combat situation where you won't defend yourself or your fellow soldiers. I'm not sure how I feel about war in general, but I am pretty sure I've been privy to more classified information than most and understand that it is necessary evil. That's all I can say there. Opsec. Perkins Over.
@croftperkins@xanga - People get paid to be COs? That doesn't seem like it should be right.
@sirnickdon - It's not that easy. Consider it a severance package with a less than honorable , or a general discharge, from the military. One cannot find gainful employment because all that information is made public through a form called a DD214. Contains number codes that detail one's military career, rank, administrative actions, and discharge info. You can supress that information, but the years one spends in the military are a blank slate with no job history. If that information is discovered then it looks worse. Why would you hide it? Not everyone gets the nice payout.
All this started in WWII. There was one, ONE, CO who was a medic. They let him serve and not carry a weapon. I've heard people today attempt the same thing to avoid combat patrols, etc. It doesn't work like it used to. All military service today is voluntary, as opposed to WWII when there was draft involved. Today is an entirely different world. The values and sense of honor and duty that men carried through a forced tour of duty doesn't exist. The tragedy is that, again, all military today is a voluntary service. It seems that many of us have lost our backbone.@sirnickdon - "what would be the response to a Catholic who at this point voluntarily signed up to serve?"
I am not sure. It is really hard and one of those areas where I sometimes have a problem with the way some Bishops interpret the teachings of the CC. You may have seen that there were Bishops and a few priests who said if you voted for President Elect Obama you should refrain from communion until you have completed the Sacrament of Reconciliation. So the implication was that you had committed a grave sin. But the CCC calls unjust war a grave sin, too. So if you voluntarily participate in what the Church has said is an unjust war, you would be equally guilty of the same "material cooperation with evil" as they call it as you were supposedly by voting for Mr. Obama. But the Church, as far as I know, doesn't say anything about this and you don't see any Bishops coming out and saying that Catholics who voluntarily serve in this Iraq War should refrain from communion until they do penance. And in this case the act of penance would have to involve leaving the army because part of penance is committing to not repeating the sin. So as far as I know there is no response at all, which bothers me and makes me feel more and more that the Bishops statements on abortion is sometimes more politics than actual desire to adhere to Church teaching.
By the way, same thing applies to the death penalty. You never hear them say to Catholic politicians if you vote for it you are going against the teachings of the Church. It is frustrating to me.