Just War Theory

Principles of the Just War

A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.

A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.

A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.

A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.

The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.

The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians.

The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.



(from http://www.scripturecatholic.com/just_war.html)

Fifth Commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war (CCC 2307). Thus, all citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war (CCC 2308).

The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor…The one is intended, the other is not (CCC 2263). However, the Fifth Commandment forbids doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about a person’s death without grave reason (see CCC 2269).

Unintentional killing is not morally imputable. But one is not exonerated from grave offense if, without proportionate reasons, he has acted in a way that brings about someone’s death, even without the intention to do so (CCC 2269).

Legitimate defense cannot only be a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life (CCC 2265). Preserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm (CCC. 2266). 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:

1. The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave and certain;

2. All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

3. There must be serious prospects of success; and,

4. 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.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what the Church calls the “Just War” doctrine (see CCC 2309). This doctrine was first introduced by St. Augustine in the fourth century, and later refined by St. Thomas Aquinas in the Middle Ages.

Note well: “Just War” is war undertaken only to repel an aggressor. It is not undertaken as a “pre-emptive” measure or as a means to impose a system of government upon another nation. Such reasons cannot possibly meet the rigorous criteria of the Just War doctrine. Moreover, acts of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation (CCC 2314). Since modern weapons are able to bring about such devastating effects, it is extremely difficult to justify war in the 21st century. In fact, St. Thomas More said the same thing in the early 16th century.

Many Christians refer to the following verses which show God’s opposition to war:

Matt. 5:9 – Jesus says “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.”

Matt. 5:39 – Jesus says “Do not resist one who is evil. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

Matt. 5:44 – Jesus says “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”

Matt. 26:52 – Jesus says that whoever takes the sword will perish by the sword.

Rom. 12:17,21 – Paul says “repay no one evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends upon you, live peaceably with all. Do not be overcome with by evil, but overcome evil with good.”

Job 5:20 – the Lord redeems those in war, from the power of the sword.

Isaiah 2:4 – “They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not life up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.”

Psalm 27:3 – war is unnatural, and we must put our confidence in the Lord.

Psalm 33:17 – the war horse is a vain hope for victory.

Psalm 46:9 – the Lord makes wars cease to the ends of the earth, breaking the bow, shattering the spear, and burning the chariots with fire.

Psalm 55:21 – those who have war in their hearts are deceptive and evil.

Psalm 68:30 – the Lord tramples people underfoot, those who delight in war.

Psalm 140:2: the Lord condemns those who plan evil and stir up wars.

1 Chron. 22:8; 28:1; 2 Chron. 14:6;Mic. 2:8; 4:3; Judt. 9:7; 16:3; Hos. 1:7; 2:18; Jer. 42:14 – more examples of God’s opposition to war.

While these passages emphasize God’s desire to avoid war and conquer evil with good, nothing in Scripture says that legitimately defending oneself or one’s country which results in the killing of another is an intrinsically evil act. Following are some of many Scriptures which support this view (and there are many other passages in Scripture where God sanctions, and even orders war):

Gen. 15:14-21 – God blesses Abram through the priest-king Melchizedek after Abram’s war victory over Chedorlaomer and his cohorts. Melchizedek offers a bread and wine sacrifice in thanksgiving for Abram’s victory and Abram gives Melchizedek a tenth of the spoils.

Ex. 15:3 – “The Lord is a man of war, the Lord is his name.”

Deut. 1:41; 20:1,12,19-20; 21:10; Jos. 6:3; Joel 3:9 – some examples where the Lord commands war when the reasons are justified.

Prov. 20:18 – “Plans are established by counsel; by wise guidance wage war.”

Num. 1:3-45; 21:14; 26:2; 31:3-53; 32:6-27; Jos. 4:13; 10:5,7,24; 11:7,18,23; 14:11,15; 17:1; 22:12,33; Judges 3:1-2,10; 18:11,16-17; 20:17; 1 Sam. 8:12; 16:18; 17:20; 18:5; 19:8; 23:8; 2 Sam. 11:7; 22:35; 2 Kings 18:20; 24:16; 25:4,9; 1 Chron. 7:2-40; 8:40; 12:1-38; 2 Chron. 26:13; Prov. Job 38:23; Psalm 18:34; Cant. 3:8; Jer. 39:18; 45:5; Judt. 5:1; Dan. 11:10; Wis. 8:15; Sir. 46:3; Bar. 3:26 – more Old Testament examples where God approves of war.

Matt. 8:5-13 – Jesus praises a Roman centurion warrior for his faith and cures the centurion’s servant. Jesus would not have responded to the prayer of an evil man unless it was a prayer of repentance. Obviously, although the centurion was a soldier, Jesus did not consider him an evil man, but a very faithful man, even more faithful than anyone else in Israel.

Luke 14:31 – Jesus acknowledges the legitimacy of war in this parable.

Luke 19:27 – Jesus says “But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them before me.” Jesus teaches that not all killing is intrinsically evil.

Luke 22:36 – Jesus says “let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one.” Jesus encourages the legitimate defense against an aggressor.

Acts 10:2 – God responds favorably to another centurion’s prayer (Cornelius of the Italian Cohort), even though he was a soldier. The soldier’s “prayers and alms ascended as a memorial before God.”

Heb. 11:32-34 – Paul praises Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephtha, David and Samuel who conquered kingdoms, enforced justice, became mighty in war and put foreign armies to flight. These men engaged in the legitimate defense of the people of God and were praised for their faithfulness.

Rom. 13:3-4 – Paul commends us to those in authority, and exalts a man who “does not bear the sword in vain.” Paul calls such a man “the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer.”

2 Cor. 10:3-4; 1 Tim. 1:18; Heb. 11:34; James 4:1; 1 Peter 2:11; Apoc. 2:16; 11:7; 12:7; 17:14; 19:11,19 – these New Testament passages reveal that the real war to be won is the spiritual war against the flesh and the devil.

Eccl. 3:3– the inspired writer says that there is “a time to kill.” We look to the Church, the pinnacle and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15) to understand when such a time exists. As we have seen, in the context of military action, this time exists only when it is: necessary to repel an aggressor; all other means of repelling the aggressor have been ineffective; there is serious prospects of success; the damage inflicted by the aggressor is lasting, grave and certain; and, the evils and disorders produced by the war must not be graver than the evil eliminated, that is, the act of defense must be proportionate to the aggressor’s offense.

Our country has had no such “time to kill” in recent memory, notwithstanding her actions to the contrary.





S0me good posts:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods56.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis49.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/justwar.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/gaddy/gaddy18.html


++++UPDATE 10/27/06+++++

In response to this long letter by a reader, arguing that the Vatican has not put punishments on violators of Just War so hence it is not immoral, Vree of the New Oxford Review states:

The Editor Replies

Your last paragraph says it all: "As distracting and unhelpful as I find the NOR's editorial tone, the discussion of the war over the past several months has started me thinking about the moral connection between my own actions and actions carried out by others." I don't know where you "fall in the spectrum of ‘co-operation with evil.'" Maybe you don't. You should probably take that up with an orthodox and informed priest.

As for the NOR's tax-exempt status, we pay nothing to the military to fight unjust wars. We can speak out about foreign policy issues; but we can't get involved in electoral politics, and we don't. We have no confidence in the Democratic or Republican parties.

As for the title of your article, "Should Catholics Defend America?," of course Catholics should. Just War doctrine teaches that a war must be for self-defense (see our May 2006 Editorial). But Just War doctrine also indicates when a war is not for self-defense, but is rather a war of aggression.

You say we are condescending toward the supporters of the war in Iraq. In a New Oxford Note (Jan. 2006, p. 15), we noted that when we take on liberal Catholics, no one has called us condescending, but when we take on neocon Catholics and supporters of the war on Iraq, we are (sometimes) called condescending. I guess it depends on whose ox is gored. In the same paragraph when you call us condescending, you say, "We all have to make a living." Actually, by critiquing neocon Catholics and supporters of the war, we've had many cancelations and nonrenewals, and we've lost many contributions. This is no way to make a living.

As you say: "There is a fundamental discontinuity between the Church's opposition to the war in Iraq and her position with regard to individual support for it, or participation in it. More specifically, despite her well-known opposition to the war, the Church has failed to impose moral sanctions against those who directly or indirectly support it. The incongruity between her words and her actions substantially undercuts the Church's moral position...." You are absolutely right.

There are many excuses for the failure to impose moral sanctions, and they're all bad. It has to do with lack of testosterone. And it doesn't just have to do with unjust wars:

- The Church has spoken out on the evil of contraception, but very few of her priests will teach it; the Church has spoken out on the evil of premarital sex, but very few will teach it. Where are the moral sanctions for either of these?

- As for the evil of abortion, the Church has spoken out, but Catholic women have abortions just about as much as other women. The penalty for it is automatic excommunication, but Catholic women who have abortions don't know that, because it isn't taught. Very rarely is abortion mentioned in a sermon, and you'll never hear that the penalty for abortion is automatic excommunication.

- Pro-abortion Catholic politicians should be barred from Holy Communion, but very few bishops have the guts to do that.

- You will notice that then-Bishop Wilton Gregory, in his "Statement on Iraq" of February 26, 2003, appeals to "conscience," but not a properly formed conscience. Catholic people are happy to follow their "conscience," which usually amounts to doing only what's convenient. People instinctively do what's convenient without any coaxing from the clergy. Following your "conscience" is par for the course for most of our bishops.

- Homosexual acts can send you to Hell, but you'll rarely hear that in a sermon, and Scripture readings to that effect are largely omitted from the Sunday and Weekday Lectionaries (see our Editorial and the article by F. Douglas Kneibert in our June 2006 issue).

- There are scads of dissenting theologians in the Church, but only a minuscule number are called on the carpet

.- You will rarely hear any mention of Hell in sermons. Even the Holy See largely avoids the issue of damnation and Hell, largely due to the sinister influence of Hans Urs von Balthasar.

- You are right that the Vatican is heavily dependent on the U.S. Church for its funding. If moral sanctions were imposed on those fighting in Iraq, the Vatican treasury would be depleted. There might also be a schism. But that's no reason not to do it. Unfortunately, the Vatican fears lost revenue and schism more than it fears God.

In sum, the Vatican and the U.S. bishops often like to leave Catholics in "invincible ignorance," sometimes "vincible ignorance." As for non-state actors possibly invalidating Just War doctrine, nation-states violate international law and norms as well as non-state actors. If anything, Just War doctrine is being tightened up rather than loosened.

As for the USCCB statement of November 13, 2002, you left something out: "Based on the facts that are known to us, we continue to find it difficult to justify the resort to war against Iraq, lacking clear and adequate evidence of an imminent attack of a grave nature. With the Holy See and bishops from the Middle East and around the world, we fear that resort to war, under present circumstances and in light of current public information, would not meet the strict conditions in Catholic teaching for overriding the strong presumption against the use of military force."

In that same statement you quote it as saying: "Ultimately, our elected leaders are responsible for decisions about national security...." That is a bastardized quote from the Catechism, which says: "The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good" (#2309). In a democracy, we all have responsibility for the common good. In a dictatorship, the dictator has exclusive responsibility for the common good, but even then a Catholic may resist a dictator's war -- surely a Catholic would want to resist Hitler's wars. Indeed, Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict) deserted Hitler's army. The Catechism defines the "common good" when it comes to unjust laws and wars: "Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order [which includes unjust wars], such arrangements would not be binding in conscience" (#1903; italics added).

Whether it is a dictatorship or a democracy, the nation-state is never the final authority for a Catholic. As the Code of Canon Law says: "The Church has the right always and everywhere to proclaim moral principles, even in respect of the social order, and to make judgements about any human matter in so far as this is required by fundamental human rights or the salvation of souls" (Can. 747, #2). Wars are always about "moral principles." And the taking of human life, whether in abortion or an unjust war, always violates "fundamental human rights" and could affect one's salvation.

In his 2002 Christmas message, Pope John Paul II condemned preventive war, and the war on Iraq was a preventive war (see our May 2006 Editorial). On September 21, 2002, Cardinal Ratzinger said, "the concept of preventive war does not appear in the Catechism." Therefore, Cardinal Ratzinger opposed the war on Iraq. Because preventive war is disallowed in Just War doctrine, there was no "prudential judgment" for Bush to make. Preventive wars are unjust and immoral per se.

The USCCB said, "Ultimately our elected leaders are responsible for decisions about national security...." Again the USCCB bucked the Holy See. Of course presidents and war-planners will always consider their so-called decisions about national security to be "just," and their wars to be "just" as well.

In the statement from then-Bishop Gregory of February 26, 2003, you again left something out: "With the Holy See and many religious leaders throughout the world, we believe that resort to war would not meet the strict conditions in Catholic teaching for the use of military force." But you are right that he took an "on the one hand...on the other hand" position.

As for the statement from then-Bishop Gregory of March 19, 2003, you do not leave anything out. Ultimately, he caved -- which is so typical of our bishops -- not to the Holy See but to Americanism.

The USCCB will not take a stand on pro-abortion Catholic politicians. Two-thirds of our bishops covered up the priestly sex scandals -- no moral sanctions there. In most dioceses there are no moral sanctions for liturgical abuse. Pope John Paul II pressed Ex Corde Ecclesiae on the bishops, to ensure that there would be a semblance of orthodoxy in many of our Catholic institutions of higher learning. After a decade, when the USCCB got through with it, it was basically a dead letter.

While the bishops have been forced by the media to adopt a get-tough policy regarding "sexual abuse of minors," that policy does not affect sexual activity by priests with adult men and fellow priests.


Only one bishop, John Michael Botean, issued moral sanctions against direct participation or support of the war on Iraq. Bishop Botean has guts. Likewise, Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz was the only bishop to excommunicate members of Call to Action, a major dissenting outfit. Bishop Bruskewitz also has guts.

As for "Si Roma non locuta est, causa non finita est" ("Rome has not spoken, the case is not closed"), Rome has spoken against the invasion of Iraq, but Rome has not enforced anything. This is typical. You mention "Sine poena nulla lex (without penalty, there is no law)." As we said in our November 2003 Editorial:

"John Paul...has been an enormous inspiration to orthodox Catholics worldwide, but the dissenters have dug in their heels and defied the Pope. Since the Pope has usually backed off, we wind up with a stalemate.... There is a Latin saying: Nulla lex sine poena (there is no law without a penalty). Teaching the truth is not enough. There must be a penalty for ignoring it or violating it.... If there is no penalty, the truth will be ignored or violated by many.

"This is the tragedy of the Catholic Church as we know it today.


http://www.newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=0706-muessig

Also:
http://catholicneoconobserver.blogspot.com/2006/03/war-without-end-amen-listening-to-nprs.html