Pacifism | Two Wings to God

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.

This Friday will mark the 75^th Anniversary of the formal acceptance by the Allies of World War II of Nazi Germany’s surrender. Certainly, it was a day of great celebration as it put an end, at least on one front, massive carnage that saw nearly 3% of the total population of the Earth slaughtered in 6 short years. What made it particularly destructive is that nearly twice as many civilians as soldiers died thanks to the “total war” tactics of things like genocide, fire bombing and atomic weapons. Despite these great losses, many defend these actions even today under the ruse that “all is fair in love and war.” This attitude was what allowed the great evils to occur and, if we are not careful, they will happen again. Doomed to be repeated, that is, unless we are well schooled in Just War Doctrine.

Putting war within its proper context goes a long way in protecting us from committing evil. To think that we can eliminate all war is nothing short of a utopic delusion. The peace that the patron of Arcadia is seeking can only be brought about when there is justice. As Augustine says, civil peace is the “tranquility of order.” Order cannot be brought about without justice. And justice requires at certain times the use of force. In short, war can be a means of bringing about peace.

This connection between justice and peace is the foundation of the Just War Doctrine. War can only be an instrument of peace when it is entered into for just reasons and when it is carried out in a just manner. Based upon the need for and maintenance of justice, the Church has adopted the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas, who himself borrowed heavily from Ss Ambrose and Augustine. In essence, the doctrine consists of two groups of criteria to assess whether a country may go to war (jus ad bellum) and then how to act justly within war (jus in bello).

Jus ad Bellum

In his defense of Just War Doctrine, Aquinas first asks whether it is always a sin to go to war. He answers in the negative but says it is only licit when the war itself is just based upon three core criteria, “First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged…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” (ST II-II q.40 art.1).

Because the civil authority has the obligation of securing peace any war must be called by the proper authority. This seems rather common-sensical especially when we frame things in the context of peace. Peace can only be brought about by the proper ordering of society, which includes the respect for the custodian of the Common Good. When a nation as a whole is harmed, those tasked with its defense must seek recompense by going to those who have wronged them and demanding that justice be restored. We shall return shortly to exactly how this recompense may be sought, but for the time being we must allow that war is a moral option.

Secondly, there must be a just cause. There must be some gross violation of the law of nations on the part of the aggressor that merits a response using force. As Augustine says, “ A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly.”

Finally, in order to be a just war, the country must engage in the war with the right intention. The only right intention is peace, that is, the restoration of a just ordering of relations between nations. There must be a desire merely to stop the aggressor and not necessarily to kill them, even though it may be necessary to do the latter in order to achieve the former. This is why terms that require unconditional surrender are almost always unjust. It goes beyond the desire for justice and vengeance creeps in. In addition to vengeance, territorial expansion, the lust for power, etc. are all bad intentions.

Jus in Bello

It is not enough to merely enter into a war for just reasons, but it is also necessary to conduct the military campaign in a just manner. With this in mind, the Tradition adds two criteria—proportionality and noncombatant immunity. For any punishment to be just, there must always be a proportionality between the punishment and the offense. This moral principle carries over into the Just War Doctrine and demands that any response that uses force must always be proportional to the wrong that has been done. Likewise, there must always be a sharp line of distinction between combatants and non-combatants. It is always unjust to target civilians as well as wounded soldiers and prisoners. The moral prohibition against taking innocent life remains binding even in war.

Prudential Criterion

In addition to the two groups of criteria, the Church also has proposed what might be considered as “prudential criteria.” Summarizing the principles, the Catechism says:

“The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
– the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
– all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
-there must be serious prospects of success;
-the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
CCC 2309

For the sake of clarity, each of these criteria bears a further comment.

War must be Last Resort. What this means is that all reasonable efforts to avoid the use of force have been exhausted. This does not mean that each of the nonmilitary alternatives have been tried (diplomatic, economic, political), but that the military option is the last one considered. It is obviously unreasonable to continually apply different economic sanctions when there is no reasonable expectation of success. It might also be that some grave humanitarian crisis emerges that requires an immediate response.

Military intervention must also have a reasonable chance of success. To enter into a military conflict or to continue in one when it is hopeless would only serve to multiply the evils already present. Many Just War theorists also add the need to formally declar war because it opens the way for the opponent’s surrender and keeps war from being a private affair. In this way it may actually keep war from happening.

While the jus ad bellum criterion only apply to offensive wars, that is, they represent the questions that must be answered before a country chooses to go to war. This step obviously is skipped when they are fighting a defensive war. What often happens though is that when a war is defensive, the jus in bello are ignored because there is a perceived justification (rationalization) to respond with vengeance. That the Allies were justified in declaring war on the Axis powers during World War II is quite clear, but this does not mean that everything the Allies did was just. In particular, the practice of “fire bombing” entire German cities lacked both proportionality and discrimination. We will visit this question another time, but likewise the use of the Atomic Bomb was a gross violation of Just War behavior.

Two Wings to God

"Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth"Pope St. John Paul II

Tag Archives: Pacifism