have a grave responsibility to consider the facts carefully, and
with respect for the Church's teaching. But the Church ISN'T unilaterally opposed to
war. If it were, we wouldn't have a Just War theory at all. And here's the rub:
Because there are so many different factors operating here, legitimate disagreement
can arise between thoughtful Catholics as to how the theory should be applied.
In the affairs of public policy, the bishops are operating with no more authority than the average lay Catholic, and oftentimes with less understanding of the situation. Twenty years ago, when CRISIS was just getting started, the magazine objected to a different letter of the bishops -- this time, one that called for full nuclear disarmament as a response to the Cold War. But it was through the wise leadership of President Reagan, NOT the opinion of the bishops, that the Cold War was won in 1989. Where would we be had we followed the advice of the bishops on a political issue that they barely understood?
In the end, we all have a responsibility to proceed with caution using the Church's teachings as our guide. Of course, this isn't always easy. In the case of the current war debate, the bishops have said that an attack on Iraq doesn't meet "the traditional just war criteria of just cause, right authority, probability of success, proportionality and noncombatant immunity."
But Catholic scholar George Weigel says that this is a backwards approach to Just War. There are actually two separate sets of moral criteria that must be met if a war is just. First, the "ius ad bellum," or "war decision law," must be addressed. The criteria, as Weigel outlines them, are as follows: "Is the cause a just one? Will the war be conducted by a responsible public authority? Is there a 'right intention' (which, among other things, precludes acts of vengeance or reprisal)? Is the contemplated action 'proportionate:' is it appropriate to the goal (or just cause); is the good to be accomplished likely to be greater than the evil that would be suffered if nothing were done, or if the use of armed force were avoided for the sake of other types of measures? Have other remedies been tried and found wanting or are other remedies prima facie unlikely to be effective? Is there a reasonable chance of success?"
Only AFTER these questions are answered positively can one address the "ius in bello," or "war-conduct" issues. Weigel lists these as including "'proportionality,' which requires the use of no more force than necessary to vindicate the just cause; and 'discrimination,' or what we today call 'non-combatant immunity.'"
Weigel explains that, oftentimes, Catholic thinkers have inverted the war-decision and the war-conduct questions, placing all the emphasis on the latter. However, the war-conduct questions deal only with our "conduct" in war, as the title implies. It assumes that we've already "decided" that the war is just, using the war-decision questions.
Reversing the process -- as some of the bishops have done -- turns the whole thing on its head.
Another common concern is that a preemptive strike against Iraq goes against the very foundation of Just War theory, because it would make us the aggressors, and a Just War is always defensive.
Weigel answers this concern as well by pointing out that "when a vicious regime that has not hesitated to use chemical weapons against its own people and against a neighboring country, a regime that has no concept of the rule of law and that flagrantly violates its international obligations, works feverishly to obtain and deploy further weapons of mass destruction, I think a compelling moral case can be made that this is a matter of an 'aggression under way.' ...It surely makes no moral sense to say that the US or the international community can only respond with armed force when an Iraqi missile carrying a weapon of mass destruction has been launched, or is being readied for launch."
In the end, there's still much room for debate. Some scholars think that the Just War theory must be expanded to meet the needs of the modern world where terrorism plays an increasingly large role. Others see little need for strict adherence to Just War principles to begin with. After all, it isn't Church dogma, and therefore leaves room for interpretation.
But whatever decision you ultimately come to, you can rest assured that faithful Catholics can hold different opinions on the matter and still remain in line with Church teaching.
Next week, I meet with top White House officials to discuss the Catholic perspective on the possibility of war with Iraq. I encourage you to consider the facts carefully and thoughtfully, and let me know your opinion on the matter so that I can give the President and his advisers a balanced reflection of Catholic opinion.
I pray that, in the end, our country will come to a just conclusion on the problem of war in our day.
Talk to you next week,
http://www.crisismagazine.com DC, US
Deal Hudson - Editor, 202 861-7790
Rate This Article
Leave a Comment
More Featured Today
- Monaco & The Vatican: Monaco's Grace Kelly Exhibit to Rome--A Review of Monegasque-Holy See Diplomatic History
- My Dad
- A Royal Betrayal: Catholic Monaco Liberalizes Abortion
- John Paul II as an Apostle of Mercy
- Embrace every moment as sacred time
- A Recession Antidote
- The Why of Jesus' Death: A Pauline Perspective
- Father Lombardi's Address on Catholic Media
- Pope's Words to Pontifical Latin American College
- Prelate: Genetics Needs a Conscience