There are certain oxymorons in life that are almost universally dismissed.  One such example is “war is an instrument of peace.”  Even Thomas Jefferson is quoted as saying “War is an instrument entirely inefficient toward redressing wrong; and multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses.”  He may have believed that until it came time to address the great evils being committed upon Americans by the Barbary Pirates when he declared war for the first time in United States history.  It seems that when push comes to shove, even the most ardent Pacifist must lay down his intellectual arms and pick up his physical ones and admit that the oxymoron is perhaps true.

In order to see how the oxymoron that war can be an instrument of peace could be true, we must first ask exactly what we mean by peace.  Peace, according to St. Augustine, is the “tranquility of order.”  He goes further and says that “order is the distribution which allots things equal and unequal, each to its own place” (City of God, Book XIX, Ch. 13).  In short, peace is a side effect, or a consequence of the just ordering of relations between people and nations.  It is not, as many pacifists would maintain, a lack of conflict but a byproduct of justice.  War then can only be an instrument of peace when it is entered into for just reasons and fought in a just manner.  The Church has always been so insistent upon maintaining its Just War Doctrine for this reason.

War as an Instrument of Justice

War, if it is to be an instrument of peace then, can only do so when it is an instrument of justice.  Some would argue however that the use of violence is never a just response. But, to characterize war as violence stacks the deck against it and is a subtle form of question begging. In We Hold These Truths, Fr. John Courtney Murray makes a useful distinction between force and violence that enables us to avoid being trapped by a mere turn of phrase.  “Force,” he says, “is the measure of power necessary and sufficient to uphold…law and politics…As an instrument force is morally neutral in itself.”  Force can be applied in a violent manner that is intended to hurt, maim or kill.  But force can also be justified (e.g. applied justly), mainly of four principal grounds: (1) to protect the innocent (2) to recover something unjustly taken (3) to defend against a wrongful attack and (4) to punish evil.  A moral obligation exists then to use force only to the extent necessary to accomplish these four aims.  Not to act against the will of an evildoer is to “nourish and strengthen them” according to Augustine.  History bears out far too many examples of the traps of appeasement to ignore the fact that force is sometimes necessary to avoid the multiplication of evils and injustices. 

All of what has been said seems to coincide with reality as we experience it.  Doing the good for a person or persons means that you must stop those who intend harm to those persons, even to the point of using physical force against the aggressor. There can be no doubt that in a world of fallen men and women, force is necessary to redress wrongs.  Pacifism then can only be based on some utopic vision of reality in which evils do not really happen.  This utopia usually finds it supposed justification in the teachings of Jesus so that no discussion of pacifism would be complete without examining the teachings of Our Lord.

Christian Pacifism

The Christian Pacifist usually turns to the Sermon on the Mount to justify their position.  Our Lord famously told His disciples, “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on [your] right cheek, turn the other one to him as well”  (Mt 5:38-39).  The pacifist would have us believe that this call to non-violence is absolute and applies to all men in all circumstances.  The problem with this stance however is that when Our Lord Himself was struck on the cheek, rather than turning the other cheek, questioned why He was struck (c.f. John 18:22).

Our Lord’s response does not include physical force and so we must also examine His insistence that “All that take the sword shall perish with the sword” (Matthew 26:52).  To “take the sword,” according to the Angelic Doctor is “to arm oneself in order to take the life of anyone, without the command or permission of superior or lawful authority.’ On the other hand, to have recourse to the sword (as a private person) by the authority of the sovereign or judge, or (as a public person) through zeal for justice, and by the authority, so to speak, of God, is not to ‘take the sword,’ but to use it as commissioned by another, wherefore it does not deserve punishment” (ST II-II, q.40 a.1 ad.1).

To grasp the full meaning of Our Lord’s words we can turn to St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans where he says:

“Beloved, do not look for revenge but leave room for the wrath; for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’  Rather, ‘if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head.’  Do not be conquered by evil but conquer evil with good. Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God. Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves.  For rulers are not a cause of fear to good conduct, but to evil.  Do you wish to have no fear of authority? Then do what is good and you will receive approval from it, for it is a servant of God for your good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer.”

Romans 12:19-13:3

The Apostle to the Gentiles is showing exactly how Our Lord’s words are to be applied.  Individuals have no authority to use the sword as an instrument of justice (except in self-defense).  The Civil Authority, as God’s instrument (c.f. John 19:11), however, is tasked with maintaining justice, even by the sword “for it does not bear the sword without purpose.”  The Lord then counsels us not to respond with force when the injustice is committed against ourselves (and only ourselves), but by no means lifts the obligation to forcefully oppose aggressors when the injustice involves others.

Pacifism then finds no justification either in the moral sense or the evangelical counsels.  Civil authority must act against aggressors and evildoers both at home and abroad even to the point of using force.  Pacifists rarely, if ever, oppose the application of police force.  Because of this contradiction, CS Lewis in his essay Why I am Not a Pacifist called into question whether the motivations of the Pacifist might be due “to the secret influence of any passion.” Not that he thinks Pacifists cowards but that he thinks they are blinded by fear. 

For let us make no mistake. All that we fear from all the kinds of adversity, severally, is collected together in the life of a soldier on active service. Like sickness, it threatens pain and death. Like poverty, it threatens ill lodging, cold, heat, thirst, and hunger. Like slavery, it threatens toil, humiliation, injustice, and arbitrary rule. Like exile, it separates you from all you love. Like the gallies, it imprisons you at close quarters with uncongenial companions. It threatens every temporal evil—every evil except dishonor and final perdition, and those who bear it like it no better than you would like it. On the other side, though it may not be your fault, it is certainly a fact that Pacifism threatens you with almost nothing.