Can war ever be truly "Just"?

[Martinius]

I believe that a true pro-life ethic encompasses more than just being against abortion. But few Christians want to apply the clear commandment of Jesus on killing to something like war, especially a just war. Here is a quote from the late Catholic theologian Walter Wink. What are your thoughts and feelings about what he says?

Declaring a "just" war is simply a ruse to rid ourselves of guilt. But we can no more free ourselves of guilt by decree than we can declare ourselves forgiven by fiat. If we have killed, it is a sin, and only God can forgive us.

Wink notes, in his book The Powers That Be, that the 20th century had the highest total of casualties from war of any of the last five. The number for the 1900's is estimated to be three times the combined casualties from those other four centuries, over 100 million. A great proportion of those were civilian non-combatants, or as we often call it, "collateral damage". How "just" is that?

 

[RDKirk]

There will be a lot of disagreement with that, but I agree--and I wore a military uniform for 26 years...still do on Veterans Day.

When you examine every war at its roots, there is no just war. There are wars of greed, wars of fear, wars of stupidity. There is no Just War. It's just war.

Jesus said, "All who live by the sword will die by the sword." He did not lie.

Oh, the kings of this earth will use the sword to maintain the power and wealth of their kingdoms. But Jesus did not lie: All nations fall. But within the time each king can keep order before his kingdom falls, the Body of Christ will do its work to reach as many of the Lord's sheep as we can within the time we have.

 

[mark46]

I agree with the Catholic doctrine of a just war. Of course, the issue is application.

For example, I believe that the US intervention in Bosnia was an example that meets Augustine's requirements.

WWII was a necessary war, but did not meet Augustine's requirements. We didn't have the overwhelming force that would guarantee victory with little damage. Should the US really just allowed the invasion of the US by Japan who had tortured tens of millions in China?

When you say that when we look at a war from its roots, there is no just war. This is true. The Bosnian war as a whole was not a just war. However, the US/NATO intervention in the war was just, at least IMHO. Clinton had two others that might have qualified: Somalia and Rwanda. He started and then withdrew from Somalia when it was clear that the requirements couldn't be met without occupation. Not intervening in Rwanda was Clinton's greatest failure (according to him).

In our lifetime, we have seen many, many wars that the US was involved in. No others come to mind that come close to being a just war.

 

[Martinius]

I agree with the Catholic doctrine of a just war. Of course, the issue is application.

The Catechism says we, individually, and collectively, should do all we can to avoid war. But we don't. The conditions that are placed on defining a just war are rarely met. The "evils and disorders" that result from war too often exceed those that led to the war, such as the multitude of people killed, uprooted and made homeless by war, just because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

One can visit various Civil War battle sites and visit homes and farms where the residents were killed, taken prisoner or had to flee, and their homes, livestock and fields appropriated by an army, whether friend or foe, and often decimated. Even if the overall war was just, were individual actions of that war just?

Most of all, is the Catholic teaching about war and violence really in line with the teaching of Jesus?

 

[RDKirk]

The Catechism says we, individually, and collectively, should do all we can to avoid war. But we don't. The conditions that are placed on defining a just war are rarely met. The "evils and disorders" that result from war too often exceed those that led to the war, such as the multitude of people killed, uprooted and made homeless by war, just because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

One can visit various Civil War battle sites and visit homes and farms where the residents were killed, taken prisoner or had to flee, and their homes, livestock and fields appropriated by an army, whether friend or foe, and often decimated. Even if the overall war was just, were individual actions of that war just?

Most of all, is the Catholic teaching about war and violence really in line with the teaching of Jesus?

Has anyone noted the sequence of Augustine's teaching on Just War with his teaching on the sin of lying? In another recent thread, this morally conflicting juxtaposition occurred to me:

1. According to Augustine, lying is always sinful in every conceivable situation. There is never any such thing as a "just lie."
2. However, by another teaching of Augustine, there are situations in which war is just. Not just a "necessary evil," but that there are situations in which war is actually just and the righteous thing to do.

However, what if a national leader found himself at a critical junction in which he could either declare war--with the accompanying slaughter of hundreds of thousands...or had a moment in which a well-crafted lie would meet the same goal without war? According to Augustine, the leader would sin by lying, but would be righteous in declaring war.

But which teaching came first? Did Augustine ever contemplate both in comparison?

 

[RDKirk]

Most of all, is the Catholic teaching about war and violence really in line with the teaching of Jesus?

The concept of Just War carries the presumption that a Christian is the consul to the King, or that the King himself is a Christian. That was not a condition for Jesus or the apostles, nor do I think they ever intended that to be the situation.

The limitation is that Jesus had asserted, "All who live by the sword will die by the sword." Yes, in this fallen world, lions eat lambs, men divorce their wives, and kings control their empires by the use of the sword, but Moses permitted divorce and kings have the authority to use the sword to control their kingdoms. But still, all who live by the sword will die by the sword, and thus every nation eventually falls.

 

[mark46]

The Catechism says we, individually, and collectively, should do all we can to avoid war. But we don't. The conditions that are placed on defining a just war are rarely met. The "evils and disorders" that result from war too often exceed those that led to the war, such as the multitude of people killed, uprooted and made homeless by war, just because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

One can visit various Civil War battle sites and visit homes and farms where the residents were killed, taken prisoner or had to flee, and their homes, livestock and fields appropriated by an army, whether friend or foe, and often decimated. Even if the overall war was just, were individual actions of that war just?

Most of all, is the Catholic teaching about war and violence really in line with the teaching of Jesus?

I agree that the conditions are rarely met. That is why I discussed examples pro and con. I believe that UN action in Bosnia was a just war. We used overwhelming force to save the lives of many who were being exterminated.

 

[ALoveDivine]

The way I see it, waging war and using violence is always sinful. However, none of these issues are really black and white. There are occassions when not intervening with violence would be a greater sin than to intervene. Allowing Hitler to exterminate the Jews would be one example of a morally unacceptable non-intervention.

Yet even so, World War 2 (for example), though it was necessary, was nonetheless a sinful enterprise from start to finish. It is never morally righteous to destroy human life.

 

[RainFallsOnEveryone]

I believe the answer depends on each persons morals. My morals would say that no war is just. Other people have different morals that would allow for just wars.

 

[RDKirk]

I believe the answer depends on each persons morals. My morals would say that no war is just. Other people have different morals that would allow for just wars.

But what is the morality that Jesus enunciated for those who obey Him? That would be the Sermon on the Mount.

 

[Martinius]

The way I see it, waging war and using violence is always sinful. However, none of these issues are really black and white. There are occassions when not intervening with violence would be a greater sin than to intervene. Allowing Hitler to exterminate the Jews would be one example of a morally unacceptable non-intervention.

Yet even so, World War 2 (for example), though it was necessary, was nonetheless a sinful enterprise from start to finish. It is never morally righteous to destroy human life.

Some Catholic Theologians see the command of Jesus to turn the other cheek as telling us not to respond in kind but also not to just let an oppressor walk over us. One can stand up to evil, aggression and threats without the use of violence. The theology is somewhat complex, and I may not be explaining it well, but it is a matter of retaining one's dignity and showing up the aggressor for what they are. This idea of non-violent resistance has been used to great effect in modern history, and has resulted in tremendous change for the better. In the story of the Passion of Christ, Jesus provides a stark example of not kowtowing to evil and aggression. He did not physically fight back, but was never defeated, and provided the foundation for his disciples to build the Church, without the use of weapons and without engaging in war.

In the case of Hitler it is well known that if the French (and even more so with the backing of Britain, Poland and others) had stood up to German aggression in the mid to late 1930's, even as late as 1939, Hitler would have to back down or face certain defeat. His forces were not strong enough to prevail over a united front. Even when war was declared in September, 1939, nothing much happened for many months until the German forces were prepared to invade the low countries, France, Denmark, Norway, etc. and overwhelm the opposition. The Allies simply wasted the opportunity to avoid a prolonged and costly war and prevent the death of millions of innocent people, Jews and others.

 

[RainFallsOnEveryone]

But what is the morality that Jesus enunciated for those who obey Him? That would be the Sermon on the Mount.

Absolutely, which is why I am opposed to war, yet some Christians seem to gather their morals from the old testament even though they contradict those of Jesus. I am a veteran as well. I suffer everyday with the things I did in Iraq and wish I could have a re-do.

 

[ALoveDivine]

The Allies simply wasted the opportunity to avoid a prolonged and costly war and prevent the death of millions of innocent people, Jews and others.

Perhaps you are right. However, political leaders screw up all the time. Hypothetical improvements of the performance of historical figures doesn't really further this discussion. Assuming the same historical facts, we must ultimately admit that defeating Hitler was more morally acceptable than letting him exterminate millions upon millions of innocent people.

Let me be clear and reiterate that ALL war is always sinful, however, there are certain circumstances where the waging of war is the lesser sin than not doing so. Much in the same way as there are circumstances where lying may be necessary (no SS officer I'm not hiding any Jews...) there are sadly circumstances in which violence may be necessary.

 

[RDKirk]

Perhaps you are right. However, political leaders screw up all the time. Hypothetical improvements of the performance of historical figures doesn't really further this discussion. Assuming the same historical facts, we must ultimately admit that defeating Hitler was more morally acceptable than letting him exterminate millions upon millions of innocent people.

Let me be clear and reiterate that ALL war is always sinful, however, there are certain circumstances where the waging of war is the lesser sin than not doing so. Much in the same way as there are circumstances where lying may be necessary (no SS officer I'm not hiding any Jews...) there are sadly circumstances in which violence may be necessary.

The problem with the Just War doctrine, though, is that it theorizes that war can actually be a just act--a good act--in certain circumstances. And although it's officially a Catholic doctrine, Western governments in general have been happy to snap it up and use their own agendas to define it as necessary to declare war as they want, and even rationalize it as the "Christian" thing to do.

 

[ALoveDivine]

The problem with the Just War doctrine, though, is that it theorizes that war can actually be a just act--a good act--in certain circumstances.

And therein lies the problem. When the church declares condoms as "intrinsically evil", but doesn't place war in the same category, we have a serious problem. Here I disagree with the official position of my church.

War is intrinsically evil, period. That being said, there are certain circumstances in which one may in fact be morally obliged to wage war. This is true because morality is not black and white, even though many RCC theologians like to pretend it is. It seems evident that there are times when an intrinsically evil act may be necessary to prevent or overcome a far greater evil. In all such circumstances we must seek the grace of Almighty God and pray for his guidance and mercy.

Now if war was viewed in these terms, we probably could have avoided many of the grotesque abuses of the middle ages, from the excesses of the crusades to the barbarity of the inquisitions; while at the same time being willing to stand up to monsters like Hitler in the past and ISIS today.

 

[Rhamiel]

....

yeah, all Christians were pacifists, we would all be speaking German right now.....
oh and all the Jews would be dead....



sometimes war is needed
it is horrible
but not everyone can be a pacifist

I mean, God had the Israelites take the Holy Land through war in the Old Testament

 

[Zaidagal]

This is a topic I spend a LOT of time thinking about and debating. I belong to a Catholic Worker group and Dorothy Day, the founder of the movement, was a staunch pacifist. I am close friends with a few staunch pacifists and I truly believe that they have very compelling arguments about the need to never answer evil with evil - even if it means death. That as Christians we are to choose death over violence. I really respect that view. Yet, I'm not sure if I am "there" in terms what "I" would do if confronted with evil that could only be stopped through violence. I call myself a 9- percent pacifist. I suspect, however, those who would not pick up arms for any reason - that they are truly living as Christ lived. He picked up no arms and he went His death.

 

[RDKirk]

This is a topic I spend a LOT of time thinking about and debating. I belong to a Catholic Worker group and Dorothy Day, the founder of the movement, was a staunch pacifist. I am close friends with a few staunch pacifists and I truly believe that they have very compelling arguments about the need to never answer evil with evil - even if it means death. That as Christians we are to choose death over violence. I really respect that view. Yet, I'm not sure if I am "there" in terms what "I" would do if confronted with evil that could only be stopped through violence. I call myself a 9- percent pacifist. I suspect, however, those who would not pick up arms for any reason - that they are truly living as Christ lived. He picked up no arms and he went His death.

This is something I have dealt with as a career military man from a family with a staunch military tradition going back more than a century. But I've been in a position to see and know a lot of things that the public doesn't and most soldiers don't.

I have also carried a gun and considered the implications of that action from the standpoint of what it actually takes to be truly effective with a weapon--the personal devotion to the gun that is necessary to be doing any more than fooling myself.

And then, whether I can truly have the mind of Christ seeing every person as someone to speak the words of Jesus to...while at the same time evaluating every person as a possible threat. Even then, there is the fact that I am found and they are still lost. The words of Nate Saint come to mind: "I'm ready to die; they are not."

I've had a gun pulled on me more than once, been captured by Communist rebels in a jungle, got mugged at gunpoint twice in 72 hours in Washington, DC. Can I kill in self defense? I'm pretty sure I can, especially if my wife or daughter is in danger.

But do I consider that "just?" Do I consider it good? A good thing done by a Christian would bring pleasure to the Lord, wouldn't it?

The Lord has said this:

"I don't take delight in the death of the wicked, do I?" asks the Lord GOD. "Shouldn't I rather delight when he turns from his wicked ways and lives?" -- Ezekiel 18

Say to them, "As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live." -- Ezekiel 33

God says this twice to emphasize that He means it (Genesis 41:32).

I may kill a wicked man in self defense, but I realize that I would not have done a thing that brings pleasure to the Lord. I'm sure He'll forgive me--I'll ask for forgiveness--but I know that Jesus would have found a better way, and that I would have failed to find His way because of my own fear and lack of faith. To kill in self defense is not a good thing, it's a sad, sorry, sinful situation brought on by being in a fallen world.

 

[Martinius]

The last two posts are simply excellent! Thanks to you both for your heartfelt contributions. I have often wondered, like Zaidagal, how I would react in the types of situations RDKirk describes, and I like his approach and philosophy. Basically, even if we harm or kill someone in defense of ourself or others, it is not good in the eyes of God. A killer is a victim of a culture of hate and violence as much as is the person killed.

 

[mark46]

1) One question is whether the right action or a just act can also be intrinsically evil.

2) I believe pacifism is more inclusive than the discussion of war and peace. I find this issue complicated. As has been suggested, should France and Great Britain done more in the 30's to prevent WWII? Of course, there might have been violent actions without war.
========
Have we moved to discussing whether all violence by governments and individuals is intrinsically evil?

As a side legalistic (appropriate on a Catholic board I think) note, what is war? Is it every act of violence by government against an outside force?