The Deacon's Dialogue
JUST WAR
As the United States continues to build its case for a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, discussions have been going on in Church circles on whether or not this would constitute a "just war" according to Catholic teaching. Both the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, have said "no." Bishop Wilton Gregory, President of the USCCB writes for the Conference; "We conclude, based on the facts that are know to us, that a preemptive, unilateral use of force is difficult to justify at this time. We fear the resort to force, under these circumstances, would not meet the strict conditions in Catholic teaching for overriding the strong presumption against the use of military force." When asked by a reporter for an Italian newspaper if the U.S. military action against Iraq was morally justified, Cardinal Ratzinger replied, "Certainly not in this situation." He had just concluded a speech where he had made the same statements that he did not believe that a unilateral military attack by the United States against Iraq would be morally justifiable. The Cardinal further stated that, "The fact that the United Nations is seeking the way to avoid war, seems to me to demonstrate with enough evidence that the damage would be greater than the values one hopes to save." "The concept of a ‘preventive war’ does not appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church," he added.
But what constitutes a just war according to Catholic teaching? How is one to decide this issue based on Church teaching?
The Catechism of the Catholic Church lists four conditions which "require rigorous consideration" for a war to be justified on moral grounds. (CCC #2309) Thus these conditions must be met without doubt and unequivocally. In addition, they all must be met at the same time. These conditions are: (CCC #2309)
- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community
of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain.
This is the "just cause" criterion. It is also one of the conditions the USCCB believes is missing in any attack on Iraq at this time. The questions one must ask about any military attack are; Is there immediate danger? Are we certain that this danger is real? In other words, is Iraq about to attack us with a force that will cause grave damage that will be lasting? How do we know this danger exists? What is the evidence that we are about to be attacked? In light of this condition it is not enough to believe, without clear evidence, that a country is going to attack some time in the future with weapons they do not now possess. Both Cardinal Ratzinger and the USCCB believe this condition has not been with evidence.
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to
be impractical or ineffective.
It must be the last resort. It is not enough to be simply frustrated that progress is not being made fast enough. Even if the process takes a long time and often seems to be bogged down in arguing over conditions, the process must be allowed to take its course. If the situation is not becoming more and more dangerous, but is making slow progress away from the brink of war, this condition is not met. The USCCB has said that clearly this condition is not in evidence. The United Nations inspectors expect to be back in Iraq by month’s end. We must at least wait until they have done their job.
- there must be serous prospects of success.
This does not only mean that we will win, but that we will avoid causing more damage and accomplish what we set out to do. Removing Hussein is a means to an end. The hoped for end result is a more stable Middle East. Is there enough evidence to suggest that this will be accomplished by a US attack? Many experts in the region say, "no." A unilateral attack by the United States will create "more" instability in the region and will increase the incidents of terrorism against the US. Making the US safe from terrorists is one of President Bush’s stated goals in attacking Iraq.
- The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.
How much destruction is necessary and acceptable in removing Saddam Hussein? We should remember also that we are not just talking about the loss of American lives but also those who live in Iraq. This condition is the proportionality condition. Saddam Hussein is clearly a rogue leader and a danger. The question becomes, What will Iraq and the Middle East be like after he is taken out? Will it be better or worse?
The Catechism further states that once we have decided that it is morally justified to begin a conflict the moral law is still in force. One must wage war in a moral manner. Care must be taken to avoid civilian casualties. Wounded soldiers and prisoners must be treated with respect. And the Catechism restates the Documents of the Second Vatican Council’s Gaudium et spes: "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation."
War is a serious moral issue that cannot be taken lightly nor entered into without clear and indisputable just cause. The fact that, at present, the United States stands virtually alone (only Great Britain stands with us) in proclaiming a just cause for the unilateral use of force calls into question the evidence. The elements of just cause enumerated in the Catechism must not be in question. They must be fully and clearly supported by all the evidence. Each condition must be met without question.
A friend asked me, while we were discussing "just cause," whether we would ever be able to fight a just war today. A good question. A good reason to avoid trying.
Deacon Ed