St. Joseph Church
Bristol, Connecticut
Deacon Robert M. Pallotti, D. Min.
Pastoral Minister
Roman Catholic
Teaching On War and Peace
"From the resources of our faith
we wish to provide hope and strength to all who seek a world free of the nuclear threat.
Hope sustains one's capacity to live with danger without being overwhelmed with it; hope
is the will to struggle against obstacles even when they appear insuperable. Ultimately
our hope rests in the God who gave us life, sustains the world by his power, and has
called us to revere the lives of every person and all peoples."
U.S. Catholic Bishops, The Challenge of Peace:
God's Promise and Our Response, 1983.
In 1983, the U.S. Catholic Bishops published a pastoral
letter entitled, The Challenge of Peace: God's Promise and Our Response. The intent
of the letter was to rejoin the discussion in the Catholic Church on the moral dimension
of modern war begun at the Second Vatican Council, 1962-1965. This letter was directed
toward addressing the renewed tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union and
the new and dangerous developments in the nuclear arms race. (cf. The
Effects of Nuclear Weapons ; and 75 U.S. Catholic
Bishops Condemn Nuclear Deterrence.)
The twentieth century has witnessed the most profound and
far-reaching devastation of war. More than 120,000,000 people have lost their lives in war
in this century and whole societies have been decimated by modern war. The Second World
War was the most destructive war the human race has ever seen, and at the end of it, came
nuclear weapons and the capacity to destroy the entire planet. Soon after the bombings of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, the Cold War began between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. that
witnessed the development of thousands of nuclear weapons by both sides. This situation
was addressed by Pope John XXIII in his encyclical, Pacem in Terris, in 1963--soon
after the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962.
The present Pontiff, Pope John Paul II, has also spoken to
this issue in his encyclicals entitled, On Social Concern, 1987 and Centesimus Annus,
1991. He has also addresses this issue in numerous statements, among them, The
Ecological Crisis, 1990.
Catholic teaching regarding war and peace is directed
toward the proper formation of Catholic conscience. Since the beginning of the Church, and
throughout its journey through history, the Church has responded to the complexities of
the times as concerns war and peace.
There are three distinct historical periods that reveal the
central focus of Church teaching concerning Catholic participation in war.
Concise Historical Survey of Catholic Teaching on War
For the first three hundred years Christians were
not allowed to join the Roman army. Christians were not allowed to participate in war, nor
to take human life. This Church teaching was based on the following: All people were
brothers and sisters under the one Father; Christians obeyed the Fifth Commandment; there
was a fundamental abhorrence to bloodshed and all people were created in God's image and
therefore were not to be harmed.
This position held sway for the first three hundred years
of the Church's history. With the Edict of Milan in 313 A.D. by the Emperor Constantine,
the Church which was once outlawed, was now tolerated. In 381 A.D. Christianity became the
official religion of the Roman Empire. With these developments the future of the empire
and the Church became closely aligned. With the onslaught of the barbarian invasions in
the Western Empire churchmen like St. Augustine began to formulate a Christian doctrine of
the "just war." This was followed up in later years by the works of such people
as deVittorio, Aquinas, Suarez and others.
The pacifist option and the just war option for Christians
remain as the only legitimate options for Roman Catholics regarding participation in war.
But that was not always the case. During the Crusades of the later Middle Ages atrocities
were committed by marauding crusaders in the Holy Land. Such examples of warfare have been
rejected by the Church of today as being inconsistent with the Gospel.
The issue of modern war was an important issue for the
Second Vatican Council. In the light of the recent Cuban Missile Crisis, the arms race and
proliferation of nuclear and conventional weapons the bishops of the Council attempted to
draw out the implications of these developments for Catholic moral living. Nuclear weapons
as a critical part of international relations and tensions and the bishops sought to
address the issue of war and peace in the light of these signs of the times. The
result was that the bishops of the Council taught that only the pacifist and
the just war options were those that could be considered morally acceptable
for Catholics. (1)
These two options presume against violence, that is,
killing is evil in itself. However, under the conditions of the just war option
participation in war is morally acceptable provided all the conditions of the just war
teaching are met.
Three Kinds of Modern Response to War and
Catholic Teaching
Total War
This kind of response to participation in war is
characteristic of (ancient) modern forms of war that place emphasis on the absolute
annihilation of the enemy. Participation in war may be seen as glorious. (2) War is often
viewed in a Clauswitzian manner as, "politics by other means."
This type of war often holds that:
1. Human society and nations exist in a permanent state
of war (potential that war can] happen at any time). Such is characteristic of the political
realist school of international relations (cf. Charted
Political Approaches to War and Peace: Realism, Liberalism and Socialism.).
Political Realism believes that each nation is caught up in
an anarchic international system which is characterized by the security dilemma. The
security dilemma is the condition by which nations are not accountable or protected by a
supranational authority and so must provide for its own defense. However, in
providing to its own defense in arming other nations may perceive the activity as
provocative, and in turn, they themselves begin to arm. Hence the dilemma, to arm or not
to arm. Such thinking maintains that all nations are in the self-help business and
must provide for its own defense--hence, no nation escapes the security dilemma.
2. War may be natural and praiseworthy human activity for
some people and nations.
3. War may be used as a first resort. This is especially so
for preventive war that seeks to disarm or cripple a nation before it can become
strong enough to threaten or challenge the status quo power distribution among nations.
4. Total war and victory uses every means if necessary be
they nuclear, chemical, biological or conventional means of weaponry.
5. The killing of civilians is not considered important;
under the circumstances of global thermonuclear war it is desirable and intended.
6. Soldiers are obedient to all orders, legal and illegal.
7. Unconditional surrender of a adversary is required.
8. National Security States must be formed which have a
mandatory draft and a permanent military/industrial/university complex for the research
and development of new weapons systems.
9. The nation state must be sovereign with no international
authority to limit its scope of the use of force when its interests are at stake.
Such a position is not considered to be a Catholic moral
option. Those options that are appropriate and legitimate Catholic options consist of the just
war and pacifist options.
Just War
"Mr. President, I
appeal to you to weigh well what the aggressive, piratical actions, which you have
declared the USA intends to carry out in international waters, would lead to. You yourself
know that nay sensible man simply cannot agree with this, cannot recognize your right to
such actions.
If you did this as the first step towards the unleashing of
war, well then, it is evident that nothing else is left to us but to accept this challenge
of yours. If , however, you have not lost your self-control and sensibly conceive what
this might lead to, then, Mr. President, we and you ought not now to pull on the ends of
the rope in which you have tied the knots of war, because the more the two of us pull, the
tighter this knot will be tied. And a moment may come when that knot will be tied so tight
that even he who ties it will not have the strength to untie it, and then it will be
necessary to cut that knot. And what that would mean is not for me to explain to you,
because you yourself understand perfectly of what terrible forces our countries dispose.
Consequently, if there is no intention to tighten that knot
and thereby to doom the world to the catastrophe of thermonuclear war, then let us not
only relax the forces pulling on the ends of the rope, let us take measures to untie that
knot. We are ready for this.
N. Khrushchev, The Kennedy Tapes: Inside the White House
During the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Throughout history many people
have recognized the need to have the right to use force to fend off unjust aggression, and
to protect innocent lives from unjust suffering. The just war option presumes
against war and sees it as morally acceptable only if the following conditions are
met: (3)
1. Just Cause: Citizens may engage in
a war only to defend the innocent. Offensive wars are not permitted.
2. Legitimate Authority: Only those duly
constitutionally authorized may declare a war if it is to be legitimate. In the United
States this power is exclusively reserved to the Congress.
3. Right Intention: Total victory must not be
the goal of the war but rather the restoration of injured rights.
4. Last Resort: All nonviolent methods must
be exhausted before a war can begin.
5. Probability of Success: There must be a
reasonable and measured hope that injured rights will be restored without disproportionate
damage to any resulting peace. A war may not be fought if it probable that the evil
results will outweigh the desired good.
6. Just Conduct: Innocent civilians may not
be objects of military action (discrimination). The war is to be strictly limited to
combat between opposing soldiers, and even then not all weapons are permitted such as
atomic, biological, and chemical weapons (cf. The Effects of
Nuclear Explosions ; Teachings, Thoughts and Prayer for
Justice-seekers and Peacemakers; Statement on Nuclear Weapons
by International Generals and Admirals, 1997; The Canberra
Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, 1995).
7. Proportionality: A war ceases to be just
when it becomes evident that the evil actually committed outweighs the expected good.
Proportionality always demands that any surrender will recognize legitimate conditions for
surrender proposed by the losing nation (cf. The State of
Nuclear Proliferation).
If all of these requirements are not met a war cannot be
considered just. This is especially so in a nuclear war, and a world experiencing the
spread of weapons of mass destruction. This brings us to the option of pacifism,
the only other option open to Catholics concerning participation in war.
Pacifism
Pacifism, the refusal to participate in violence and war,
is found in all human cultures to some degree. The word has its origins in Latin,
referring to a peacemaker. It has the following characteristics:
1. War is unnatural and immoral, it is not a necessary part
of human history. It does not have to be!
2. There are ample methods of non-violence (cf. Principled Nonviolence and Nonviolent Action for Justice and Peace)
3. Evil must be resisted by nonviolent means.
4. Nonviolent resistance and sanctions are based on the
power of love to convert to resolve conflict. It is focused on a win-win,
consensus-building and principled negotiating approach to build an enduring peace.
5. Calls for a world juridical community to outlaw war and
to enforce nonviolent sanctions to prevent war.
Since the Second Vatican Council 1962-1965, the Catholic
Church has asserted the right of Catholics to be conscientious objectors to war.
Such a status may be required of those who cannot morally justify their own participation
in war. In the 1983 pastoral letter of the U.S. Catholic Bishops a case was made for selective
conscientious objector status for those who could not, in good conscience, participate
in certain types of war, such as, nuclear, chemical or biological warfare.
Footnotes
(1) Roland H. Bainton, Christian Attitudes Toward War
and Peace: A Historical and Critical Re-evaluation (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1960);
Judith A. Dwyer, ed., The New Dictionary of Catholic Social Thought (Collegeville:
The Liturgical Press, 1994) pp. 977-982; Joseph J. Fahey and Richard Armstrong, eds., A
Peace Reader: Essential Readings on War, Justice, Nonviolence and World Order,Revised (New
York: Paulist Press, 1992) pp. 83-85; David Hollenbach, S.J. Nuclear Ethics: A
Christian Moral Argument (New York: Paulist Press, 1983).; Terry Nardin, ed., The
Ethics of War and Peace: Religious and Secular Perspectives (Princeton, New Jersey:
Princeton University Press, 1996) pp. 1-39.; Gerard F. Powers, Drew Christiansen, S.J. and
Robert T. Heenemeyer, eds., Peacemaking: Moral and Policy Choices for a New World, (Washington,
D.C.: USCC/NCCB, 1994).
(2) Michael W. Doyle, The Ways of War and Peace (
New York: W.W. Norton and Co, 1997)
pp. 1-205. This is an excellent source for understanding
the dynamics of the international system, political understandings of the systems, and the
causes of war and peace in the international system. It also provides insight into how to
avoid war in the future.
(3) Philip J. Murnion, ed., Catholics and Nuclear War: A
Commentary on the Challenge of Peace, The U.S. Catholic Bishop's Pastoral Letter on War
and Peace (New York: Paulist Press, 1983) pp. 71-83.
Compiled by Deacon Robert M. Pallotti, D. Min.
Created 10/16/1998
|