Unit VIII: Choices Concerning War and Peace

Overview 

The readings for this week converge on the questions: Does Catholic Social Teaching support the decision by the United States to invade Iraq?  Does Catholic Social Teaching support decisions to remain in Iraq? The problem of whether Christians may intend to kill under any circumstances is not a new problem.  We see the question debated by the first-century church in the New Testament.  Over the centuries, there have been Christian pacifists and Christian soldiers, and Scripture supports both. 

Just War and "The Challenge of Peace"

Today, we bring to this question a framework developed within the Catholic tradition called the “just war” principles. Those principles are laid out and explained in The US Bishops’ Pastoral Letter, The Challenge of Peace, # 80-110.   The readings also include two analyses from outside of CST. They are useful both as “conversation partners,” i.e. they lay out arguments for us to consider, and as examples of the use of principles developed within CST in debates beyond the boundaries of the Catholic community.

Some things to keep in mind as you reflect on the question above in light of those principles:

1. The relation of justice to peace.  The Catholic tradition is insistent that the achievement of peace depends upon work for justice. When the US Bishops responded to the attacks of September 11,  they were careful to argue that conditions of injustice do not justify acts of terrorism. At the same time, they urged the people of United States to acknowledge and address the roots and wellsprings of terrorism: "A successful campaign against terrorism will require a combination of resolve to do what is necessary to see it through, restraint to ensure that we act justly, and a long term focus on broader issues of justice and peace." (USCCB,  Living with Faith and Hope After September 11)
2. Presumption against harm.  For CST, war is sometimes an obligation (in defense of human dignity or the common good) but it is always entered into regretfully, as a last resort, and only as a means to achieve the possibility of doing the work of justice.  At the heart of the just war doctrine is the Augustinian view: “Faced with the fact of attack on the innocent, the presumption that we do no harm, even to our enemy, yields to the command of love understood as the need to restrain an enemy who would injure the innocent.” (Challenge of Peace, # 80)
3. The burden of proof is on the use of force.   The principles of the just war (just cause, last resort, right intention, etc.) place the obligation of justification on the choice for lethal force rather than on the choice for restraint; in other words, the decision to go to war must always be defended. Many people argued that a preemptive invasion (as the US invasion of Iraq was characterized) cannot be justified under Catholic just war principles.

Many Christians also argue that core principles of CST, e.g., just cause and right intention, are seldom, if ever, met in the modern period.  (Wars are waged over economic interests in the name of human rights and are seldom really last resorts.) The Bishops themselves raise doubts that the principle of proportionality can be met in the nuclear age.

The presumption against the use of force raises very difficult questions:  Are the available sources of information adequate and reliable? Can any war today be just? What is the proof that this action is a “last resort”? Can a preemptive attack be justified?  Under what circumstances?  In a time when many nations possess or aim to possess weapons of mass destruction, can the principle of proportionality ever be met?