The Just War Theory
Synopsis
Throughout its history the Church has struggled to apply Christian ideals to the reality of war and politics. In this essay I will trace the development of the major elements of what has come to be known as the 'just war theory'.
Commencing with the person of Jesus as presented in the gospels, the contributions of significant figures such as Ambrose and Augustine through to the popes of the 20th century will be discussed in their historical context, and all of the essential elements of the church's current teaching on war will be presented.
Challenges presented by changes in the modern world that some commentators argue require further development of the just war theory will also be highlighted.
Essay
Historically there are two strands of thought that have characterised the response of the Catholic Church to questions on the use of force - a 'pacifist' or non-violent tradition, and the 'just war' tradition.
In general, the pacifist tradition totally rejects the use of force and seeks the maintenance of peace using non-violent means. It puts emphasis on values such as mercy, forgiveness, compassion, inclusiveness, loving ones enemy etc, and is exemplified especially in the lifestyle of religious orders and the long standing tradition of clergy exemption from military combatant roles. Whilst pacifism has endured throughout the centuries in the church it has not been the dominant tradition. [1]
The just war tradition opposes the use of force for similar reasons, but concedes that engagement in war may be justified in certain circumstances, under strict moral conditions and only as a last resort, in order to protect the innocent or to restore justice.
Despite the fundamental difference at the heart of these two traditions, which has often meant they have taken an opposing stance in particular situations, there are also instances where they are as one. Increasingly too in the light of the destructive and often indiscriminate nature of modern warfare, the pacifist and just war traditions find themselves united in calling for dialogue and diplomacy as a means of avoiding the use of force.
Nevertheless it is important to recognize that the Church's teachings on war and peace have changed greatly over time, particularly in response to new situations.
As with all of its teachings the Church's stance on this issue can be traced back to the person of Jesus. Whilst it is recorded that Jesus drove the money changers from the temple (Jn 2:15) and also stated that he had not come to bring peace 'but a sword'(Mt 10:34) it has to be said that from any reading of the gospels the overwhelming impression of Jesus that emerges is of a person opposed to violence and in favour of peacemaking. He condemned, not just killing, but anger (Mt 5:21-22); He stressed non-violence in his teaching 'turn the other cheek..'; (Mt 5:39) 'love your enemies',(Lk 6:27) 'blessed are the peacemakers' (Mt5:10) He rebuked Peter for drawing his sword in Gethsemane (Jn18:11) and certainly did not identify with the notion of a messiah who was any kind of military or political leader - an idea that was to be found in the Judaism of his day.
Evidence of the stance of the first Christians towards warfare and military service is inconclusive.[2] However as time went on Christians were increasingly represented in the Roman army and Clement of Alexandria (150-215) argued in favour of acting in the defence of the empire on the authorisation of the emperor. Thus two key elements of what later formed the just war theory - just cause and appropriate authority - first made their appearance. [3]
Ambrose (339-387) writing after the conversion of Emperor Constantine (310) repeated Clement's criteria of just cause and appropriate authority, but added that a just war should be one of defence. He also insisted that agreements should be honoured and mercy shown to those defeated. He also rejected the use of violence to defend oneself but argued that charity obliged one to come to the defence of one's neighbour. More dubiously Ambrose also argued that as Christianity was the religion of the empire, heretics could be put to death on the grounds of treason against the state. As the barbarian tribes that had begun to attack the empire were non-Christians their killing was also justified as self-defence.[4]
The person who is generally identified as the author of
the just war theory however is Augustine (354-430). Whilst his thought
underwent development in his lifetime, the essential elements that were
either stated or implied in his writings were that for war to be
justified it had to :-
- be for a just cause (which Augustine defined as repelling aggression,
punishing wrongdoing or retaking something wrongly taken)
- be undertaken only as a last resort
- maintain a proportion between the goals of the war and the cost/suffering caused
- be embarked upon with a right intention, which was to bring about peace.
This right intention also included the interior disposition of the
participants, so that acting out of vengeance, cruelty or blood lust
was unacceptable, even if fighting in a just cause.[5]
Augustine's teaching was not influential immediately, as at the time of his writing the collapse of the Roman Empire was imminent. For next 700 years Europe was dominated by a warrior code that emphasised tribal solidarity, valour and honour earned in battle. During this period the church attempted to moderate the worst excesses of this code by restricting days on which fighting could occur, by identifying who could or could not be harmed and by encouraging the development of the code of chivalry for knights, but there was no development of any teaching in regard to a just war.[6]
It was not until 1148 when Gratian compiled a comprehensive compendium of church law that the issue of a just war was again formally addressed. In his work Gratian drew heavily upon the writings of Augustine. By then the Church was very much involved in the Crusades. Along with the criteria proposed by Augustine (already noted) Gratian approved of the killing of heretics and argued that bishops could command wars for church purposes. In practice however the Crusades were often far from noble, with atrocities committed and plundering rife. Certainly many of those who participated hardly demonstrated the right intention as set out by Augustine.[7]
Thomas Aquinas largely repeated the arguments that had been spelled out by Gratian. His contribution to the development of the just war theory was more to integrate the teaching into a total systematic and coherent body of thought rather than to add anything new. He did however sanction the use of violence against a tyrannical ruler under certain circumstances whilst continuing to hold that "in instances of civil strife it is imperative to tolerate some measure of injustice for the sake of preserving order" [8]
It was not until the 15th and 16th centuries and the writings of the Spanish clerics de Vitoria and Suarez and the Dutch Protestant Grotius that there was a significant development in the just war theory. Their thoughts were developed in the context of the Spanish conquest of the new World (America) and the religious wars that were devastating much of Europe. Their significant contributions were firstly that difference in religion could never constitute a just cause for war, and secondly in focussing on the way that wars were to be conducted. They stressed moderation and proportionality, and explicitly defined the rights of non-combatants. [9]
The Peace of Westphalia (1648), in which the church was a participant, concluded the Thirty Years War and established some underlying, enduring principles that have further helped shaped the Church's current teaching on a just war. These are the principles of state sovereignity and non-intervention in the affairs of another sovereign state.
In the light of the scale of death and destruction in the two World Wars fought in the 20th century and in the development and use of weapons of mass destruction there has been a gradual shift in official Church teaching towards a more pacifist tradition in regard to war - whilst still allowing for the possibility of engaging in warfare under certain circumstances.
Pope Pius XII argued that war could only be justified by defence against unjust aggression. However he also argued against the right of conscientious objection on grounds of one's duty to obey lawful authority.[10] In his encyclical 'Pacem et Terris' John XXIII argued that in the nuclear age war was no longer appropriate as a means of redressing injustice. His encyclical fell short of advocating pacifism however. [11]
In the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World 'Gaudium et Spes' the Bishops of the Second Vatican Council issued a clear statement advocating disarmament, condemning the arms race and the indiscriminate nature of modern war. It praised non-violence and upheld the right to conscientious objection (thus reversing the teaching of Pius XII), but still recognized "the right to legitimate defence once every means of peaceful settlement has been exhausted" [12]
The present pope John Paul II has been very outspoken in his condemnation of war and violence.
"I proclaim�that violence is evil, that violence is unacceptable as a
solution to problems, that violence is unworthy of man - violence
destroys what it claims to defend : the dignity, life and freedom of
human beings" [13]
He unequivocally condemned the first Gulf War on the grounds of
proportionality whilst acknowledging the justice of the cause and has
been vocal in his condemnation of the invasion of Iraq. At the same
time he has supported military intervention in Bosnia and East Timor.
In the light of the experience of the two World Wars, the development of nuclear weapons and the tendency of wars to escalate out of control once they have commenced, some modern commentators and theologians have questioned whether a war can ever be justified on the grounds of proportionality.
Some would argue that the erosion of the Westphalia doctrine in regard to the rights of the nation state due to the more globalized world we inhabit, raises further questions about the relevance of the just war theory in its present form. Growing awareness of the universal nature of human rights, increasing economic inter-dependence, the rise of global terrorism and the proliferation of modern weapons of mass destruction that ignore national borders and make it impossible to defend territory, together with the recognition that problems of the environment and sustainability require global rather than national solutions, have all undermined the concept of the nation state. Given that there is not yet in place an accepted international authority with the necessary power, it is still legitimate to ask if the changing pattern of sovereignity gives cause to question the right of a sovereign state to resort to force. [14]
The changing face of modern warfare also has implications for the just war theory in its current form. In the light of the development of modern high-tech precision weapons, how is proportionality judged? Even if direct civilian casualties are minimized by the use of such modern weaponry, how is the effect on civilian populations of the destruction of infrastructure, water, power and communication facilities to be assessed?[15]
Given all of this, the fundamental question that remains is 'Can modern war ever be just?' The Catholic tradition would still answer that question in the affirmative but with increasing reluctance. The debate continues, and in its struggle to apply Christian ideals to the reality of war and politics the Church continues to make a significant contribution to humanity.
FOOTNOTES
[1] L S Cahill,
Theological Contexts of Just War Theory and Pacifism: A Response to J
Bryan Hehir, in Journal of Religious Studies, Fall 1992, pp 260-262
[2] B Duncan,
War on Iraq is it Just?
No 47 Catholic Social Justice Series, Australian Catholic Social Justice Council,
North Sydney, 2003 p8
[3] B Duncan,
The Struggle to develop a just war tradition in the West
Written to accompany War on Iraq � is it just? No 47 Catholic Social
Justice Series, Australian Catholic Social Justice Council, North
Sydney, 2003, p3
[4] B Duncan, The Struggle to develop a just war tradition in the West, pp 3-4
[5] B Duncan, The Struggle to develop a just war tradition in the West, pp 5-6
[6] B Duncan, The Struggle to develop a just war tradition in the West, pp 6-7
[7] B Duncan, The Struggle to develop a just war tradition in the West, pp 7-8
[8] R B Miller
Interpretations of Conflict: Ethics pacifism and the Just War Tradition
Chicago, University of Chicago, 1991, p 58
[9] B Duncan, The Struggle to develop a just war tradition in the West, p 10
[10] B Duncan, The Struggle to develop a just war tradition in the West, p 12
[11] B Duncan, The Struggle to develop a just war tradition in the West, p 13
[12] ibid
[13] J B Hehir,
"Just War Theory in a post-cold War World"
in Journal of Religious Studies, Fall 1992, p 249
[14] Hehir, "Just War Theory in a post-cold War World", p243-246
[15] Hehir, "Just War Theory in a post-cold War World", p247
Bibliography
Cahill, Lisa Sowle
"Theological Contexts of Just War Theory and Pacifism: A Response to J Bryan Hehir"
in Journal of Religious Studies, Fall 1992, 259-265
Duncan, Bruce CSsR
"War on Iraq - is it Just?"
No 47 Catholic Social Justice Series, Australian Catholic Social Justice Council,
North Sydney, 2003
Duncan, Bruce CSsR
"The Struggle to develop a just war tradition in the West"
Written to accompany "War on Iraq - is it just?" No 47 Catholic Social
Justice Series, Australian Catholic Social Justice Council, North
Sydney, 2003
Hehir, J Bryan
"Just War Theory in a post-cold War World"
in Journal of Religious Studies, Fall 1992, 237-257
Miller, Richard B
"Interpretations of Conflict: Ethics pacifism and the Just War Tradition"
Chicago, University of Chicago, 1991
Shannon, Thomas A (ed)
"War or Peace? The Search for New Answers"
Maryknoll, Orbis 1980
Catechism of the Catholic Church
Online edition at �www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm�
Return to Essays Page
