[lit-ideas] Re: Just War
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 20:38:34 -0700
Well, Phil, I don't see in what you quote where the US Catholic Bishops say
that Just wars are evil. Elshtain writes along similar lines to your
Bishops; although she doesn't invoke St. Francis if I recall correctly.
That is, she places restrictions on how wars should be fought that are more
elaborate than what you've quoted but not inconsistent with them, except for
the portions about St. Francis, but that isn't the issue here. The issue is
whether a just war is evil. Francis Cardinal George, O.M.L., Archbishop of
Chicago wrote, "Jean Bethke Elshtain shows clearly and persuasively how
'just war' teaching meets both the imperative of peace and the
responsibility a government has to defend its people . . . . Just War
Against Terror challenges Christian theologians and preachers to apply
theological discernment more rigorously and realistically when they reflect
on terrorism, and at the same time faults the academy's reaction to
counter-terrorism as evasive and simplistic. Speaking vividly and directly
to the moral decisions America is making, Elshtain provides a service to us
all."
On page 189 Elshtain writes, "The primary moral justification for war is to
protect the innocent from certain harm. Augustine, whose early 5th century
book, The City of God, is a seminal contribution to just war thinking,
argues (echoing Socrates) that it is better for the Christian as an
individual to suffer harm rather than to commit it. But is the morally
responsible person also required, or even permitted, to make for other
innocent persons a commitment to non-self-defense? For Augustine, and for
the broader just war tradition, the answer is no. If one has compelling
evidence that innocent people who are in no position to protect themselves
will be grievously harmed unless coercive force I used to stop an aggressor,
then the moral principle of love of neighbor calls us to use of force."
Elshtain here refers to a "broader just war tradition" so she obviously
feels she isn't flouting it, and yet she presents arguments I find
compelling and I suppose you do as well but I suspect you would refrain from
using the words "moral principle" in her last clause. Because if there is
such a moral principle; then it wouldn't be evil to function in accordance
with it.
Lawrence
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Phil Enns
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 5:58 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Just War
Lawrence Helm wrote:
"Phil doesn't say where this "well-established tradition of just war"
exists ..."
It has a long and well-documented history within the Christian
tradition, beginning with Augustine.
Lawrence continues:
"but I did read Jean Bethke Elshtain's Just War Against Terror. On page
189 she writes, ". . . reason and careful reflection . . . teach us that
there are times when the first and most important reply to evil is to
stop it. There are times when waging war is not only morally permitted,
but morally necessary, as a response to calamitous acts of violence,
hatred, and injustice."
This isn't the tradition. Here is a more accurate account issued by the
US Catholic Bishops:
------------------
When Is War Justified?
The moral theory of the "just-war" or "limited-war" doctrine begins with
the presumption which binds all Christians: We should do no harm to our
neighbors. Just-war teaching has evolved as an effort to prevent war.
Only if war cannot be rationally avoided does the teaching then seek to
restrict and reduce its horrors. It does this by establishing a set of
rigorous conditions which must be met if the decision to go to war is to
be morally permissible. Such a decision, especially today, requires
extraordinarily strong reasons for overriding the presumption in favor
of peace and against war. ...
Just response to aggression must also be discriminate; it must be
directed against unjust aggressors, not against innocent people caught
up in a war not of their making. The Council therefore issued its
memorable declaration: "Any act of war aimed indiscriminately at the
destruction of entire cities or of extensive areas along with their
population is a crime against God and man himself. It merits unequivocal
and unhesitating condemnation."
Side by side with the just-war theory throughout Christian history has
been the tradition of nonviolence. One of the great nonviolent figures
was St. Francis of Assisi.
While the just-war teaching has clearly been in possession for the past
1,500 years of Catholic thought, the "new moment" in which we find
ourselves sees the just-war teaching and nonviolence as distinct but
interdependent methods of evaluating warfare. They diverge on some
specific conclusions, but they share a common presumption against the
use of force as a means of settling disputes. Both find their roots in
the Christian theological tradition; each contributes to the full moral
vision we need in pursuit of a human peace. We believe the two
perspectives support and complement one another, each preserving the
other from distortion.
-------------------
In my opinion, this accurately reflects the Christian tradition of Just
War, and my own beliefs. In no way can one claim that under Just War
theory, war is ever 'morally necessary'. It may be permitted, but it is
never moral and never necessary.
Sincerely,
Phil Enns
Toronto, ON
Other related posts:
