JUST WAR AND THE WAR IN IRAQ

Lesson 2: The Christian Tradition (October 14, 1990)

Background Materials: Christian View of War

St. Augustine (354 - 430): Although Augustine originated most of the early Christian thinking on just war, his thoughts on the issues are scattered throughout many of his writings and are hard to follow. Below are some excerpts:

• "For it is the wrongdoing of the opposing party which compels the wise man to wage just wars; and this wrongdoing, even though it gave rise to no war, would still be a matter of grief to man because it is man's wrongdoing." (City of God, bk. XIX)
• "What is the evil in war? Is it the death of some who will soon die in any case, that others may live in subjugation? This is mere cowardly dislike, not any religious feeling. The real evils in war are love of violence, revengeful cruelty, fierce and implacable enmity, wild resistance, and the lust of power, and such like; and it is generally to punish these things, when force is required to inflict the punishment, that, in obedience to God or some lawful authority, good men undertake wars ... ." (Contra Faustus Manichaeum)
• [Reflecting on "recompense no man evil for evil" and "Whosoever shall smite thee on one cheek, turn to him the other also..."] "For these things are done only that a wicked man may be overcome with kindness, or rather that the evil which is in the wicked man may be overcome by good, ... being overcome not by the strength of one passionately resenting, but by the good nature of one patiently bearing wrong. ... [On the other hand], let those who say that the doctrine of Christ is incompatible with the State's well-being, give us an army of soldiers such as the doctrine of Christ requires them to be; let them give us such subjects, such husbands and wives, such parents and children, such kings and judges--in fine, such taxpayers and tax-gatherers, as the Christian religion has taught that men should be, and then let them dare say that it is adverse to the State's well-being; yea, rather, let them no longer hesitate to confess that this doctrine, if it were obeyed, would be the salvation of the commonwealth." (To Marcellus)

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225 - 1274): Aquinas did not contribute much original thinking to Augustine's analysis of the just war. What he accomplished, though, was a systematic organization of the principles ofjust war, and reasoned arguments against both absolute pacifism and wanton bloodshed. Summa Theologica is still considered by Catholics as the normative text for the just war.

• "For a war to be just, three things are necessary. First the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged. ... Hence it is said of those who are in authority (Ps.81 :4): Rescue the poor and deliver the needy out of the hand of the sinner. ... Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault. ... Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil." (Summa Theologica, pt. II)

Francisco de Vitoria (1485 - 1546): A devoted follower of St. Thomas, Vitoria was particularly concerned with the conquest of the New World and the Christian implications of the subjugation of the Indians. In the excerpts that follow, only Vitoria's conclusions are stated -- for the sake of brevity, his arguments and reasoning, although well considered and persuasive, have been omitted.

• "What may be a reason and cause of just war? ... Difference of religion is not a cause of just war. ... Extension of empire is not a just cause of war. ... Neither the personal glory of the prince nor any advantage to him is a just cause of war. ... There is a single and only just cause for commencing war, namely a wrong received. ... Not every kind and degree of wrong can suffice for commencing a just war. . . . [N]ot even upon one's own fellow countrymen is it lawful for every offense to exact atrocious punishment, such as death or banishment or confiscation of property. As, then, the evils inflicted in war are all of a severe and atrocious character, such as fire and slaughter and devastation, it is not lawful for slight wrongs to pursue the authors of the wrongs with war, seeing that the degree of punishment ought to correspond with the offense. ..." (Reflectio)
• The [next] question is about the law of war, namely, what kind and degree of stress is lawful in a just war. ... In war everything is lawful which the defense of the common weal requires. ... It is permissible to recapture everything has been lost and any part of the same. ... It is lawful to make good out of enemy property the expenses of the war and all damages wrongfully caused by the enemy. ... Not only are the things just named allowable, but a prince may go even further in a just war and do whatever is necessary in order to obtain peace and security from the enemy; for example, destroy the enemy's fortress and even build one on enemy soil, if this be necessary in order to avert a dangerous attack of the enemy. ... Not only is all this permissible, but even after victory has been won and redress obtained and peace and security been secured, it is lawful to avenge a wrong received from the enemy and to take measures against him and exact punishment from him for the wrongs he has done. ..." (Ibid.)
• "Many doubts are suggested by what has just been said. In the first place, there is a doubtful connection with the justice of a war, whether it be enough for a just war that the prince believes himself to have a just cause. On this point, let my first proposition be: This belief is not always enough. ... Second proposition: It is essential for a just war that an exceedingly careful examination be made of the justice and causes of the war and that the reasons given on grounds of equity be listed to ... . For truth and justice in moral questions are hard of attainment and so any careless treatment of them easily leads to error ... ." (Ibid.)
• "Now, much attention must be paid to the admitted fact that a war may be just and lawful in itself and yet owing to some collateral circumstance may be unlawful. For inasmuch as wars ought to be waged for the common good, if some one city cannot be recaptured without greater evils befalling the State, ... it is indubitable that the prince is bound rather to give up his own rights and abstain from war." (Ibid.)
• "With regard to another question, namely, what degree of stress is lawful in a just war, there are also many doubts. ... The deliberate slaughter of the innocent is never lawful in itself. Sometimes it is right, in virtue of collateral circumstances, to slay the innocent even knowingly, as when a fortress or city is stormed in a just war, although it is known that there are a number of innocent people in it and although cannon and other engines of war can not be discharged or fire applied to buildings without destroying innocent together with guilty. ... Great attention, however, must be paid to the point akeady taken, namely, the obligation to see that greater evils do not arise out of the war than the war would avert." (Ibid.)

Reinhold Niebuhr (1892 - 1971): Originally a pacifist, Niebuhr moved further and further away from this doctrine, culminating the progression shortly after the Nazi invasion of Poland. He came to see the effect of pacifism as a preference for slavery and despotism. He moderated his view somewhat, however, in response to the Viet Nam war and the threat of nuclear annihilation.

• "The thesis is, that the failure of the Church to espouse pacifism is not apostasy, but is derived from an understanding of the Christian Gospel which refuses simply to equate the Gospel with the 'law of love.' ... [M]ost modern forms of Christian pacifism are heretical. Presumably inspired by the Christian gospel, they have really absorbed the Renaissance faith in the goodness of man, have rejected the Christian doctrine of original sin as an outmoded bit of pessimism, have re-interpreted the Cross so that it is made to stand for the absurd idea that perfect love is guaranteed a simple victory over the world, and have rejected all other profound elements of the Christian gospel as 'Pauline' accretions which must be stripped from 'the simple Gospel of Jesus.' This form of pacifism is not only heretical when judged by the standards of the total gospel. It is equally heretical when judged by the facts of human existence. There are no historical realities which remotely conform to it." (Christianity and Power Politics)

Karl Barth (1886 - 1968): After being deeply shaken by World War I, Barth became a spokesman for the prophetic teaching of the Bible, the omnipotence of God, and a Calvinistic picture of human depravity. He reaffirmed the principles of the just war, bringing it into line with modern circumstances and technology. Although he believed in the principles of the just war, he believed that nearly all wars were in fact unjust. Most of all, he argued that the Church must be the moral conscience of the state.

• "Perhaps a state desires to expand politically, geographically or economically, and therefore to extend its frontiers and dominion. Perhaps it thinks it necessary to rectify its internal conditions, e.g., to bring about political unity, by external adventure. Perhaps it considers that its honour and prestige are violated by the attitude of another state. Perhaps it feels that it is threatened by a shift in the balance of power among other states. Perhaps it thinks it sees in the internal conditions of another state, whether revolutionary or reactionary, a reason for displeasure or anxiety. Perhaps it believes it can and should ascribe to itself a historical mission, e.g., to call to lead and rule other nations. All this may well be so. Yet it certainly does not constitute a valid reason for setting one's own great or little war machine in motion. The Christian Church has to testify unambiguously that wars waged for such reasons are not just, and therefore ought not to be undertaken." (Church Dogmatics)
• [What is the reason for justly undertaking war?] "The obvious answer is that there may well be bound up with the independent life of a nation responsibility for the whole physical, intellectual and spiritual life of the people comprising it, and therefore their relationship to God. It may well be that in and with the independence of a nation there is entrusted to its people something which, without any claim or pretension, they are commissioned to attest to others, and which they may not therefore surrender. It may well be that with the independence of the state, and perhaps in the form of the legally constituted society guaranteed by it, they would also have to yield something which must not be betrayed, which is necessarily more important to them than the preservation of life itself, and which is thus more important than the preservation of the lives of those who unfortunately are trying to take it from them. ... [A] similar situation may arise in a different form, e.g., when a state which is not itself directly threatened or attacked considers itself summoned by the obligation of a treaty or in some other way to come to the aid of a weaker neighbour which does actually find itself in this situation." (Ibid)

[OR: Use the "Back" button of your browser to return to your document.]

11/11/2001