“I think that Catholics have to choose between just war and pacifism.”

Do you think the war that the Catholics waged against the Jews in the 1940′s
was a just war? Do you think that a pope who was a member of the HitlerJugend
is able to be an impartial moral judge of that issue? Do you think that
Jewish self-defense in Judea/Samaria/Gaza District/Green-line Israel is
Just? Do you think that ANY Jewish self-defense against Catholic/Muslim
murderers is just?

Just asking …

Or…
the “pacifist” non-involved party is leaving it to nature, fate, the natural evolution of consequence without interfering.

I. Dilan. point partially taken. I would not call that “emphatic,” but it aint nothin’. As Weigel notes, the popes lean more heavily toward the European model of “international agreement” (likely because they are Europeans). They have indeed moved away from Just War thinking, not only Weigel’s version. As such, I think it is they who have the contradiction to balance: they are not going to repudiate the concept, but they clearly don’t like it.

II. The line between military and police when discussing pacifism is quite blurry. Even in America, which makes the distinction more firmly than most cultures, there is the National Guard, for example. It is not a useless distinction, but neither is it clean, and I have little patience with pacifists who speak as if it is.

III. I was I-O myself during the Vietnam era (stupid hippie), and now have some idea of the pitfalls of that framing. In particular, pacifism is advocated as a strategy that works, a sentiment I do not find in the NT. I have enormous respect for those who choose that route with eyes open, believing that they are called to non-resistance whatever the consequences. We will likely die. But God calls us to this. More recently, however, the idea has crept in that Jesus advocated non-violence in a Gandhian way, as a victory strategy. This is quite evident in European thought, and in the formulations of recent popes. This I believe to be quite wrong, neither theologically nor practically wise. In the longest of long runs, perhaps a case could be made that it is the only strategy with any hope of success. I waive the point, and if that is what the Vatican is referring to I have no objection. But their phrasing does not seem firmly focused on that far distance; it seems focused on the medium term peace of the current generation. If we behave with gentleness and humility, we will conquer. History suggests not.

I still have to think this over, though.

Assistant Village Idiot: I agree that Just War theory was more inchoate prior to the Augustine-Aquinas chain, but that does not mean there was a default pacifism in Christian teaching.

I think we basically agree on the larger issues, but to my knowledge there is simply no pre-Constantine Christian document saying that a Christian may fight in a war. Now you might say that the real problem was that the emperors were pagan and that army service would require sacrifice to the imperial image. Fighting wars is okay if you don’t have to become an idolator to do it. But Christian writers–who were capable of making such distinctions–simply did not say this. It’s possible it simply did not occur to them that Christians could be running the show someday and deciding whether or not to fight wars, but I think it’s more likely they thought that if Christians were running the show there would actually be no wars.

So I really do think it starts with Augustine. Remember that another of Augustine’s great contributions was to explain why public force could be used against Christian heretics.

So there has to be some large mention of whether you can win in determining a just war.

Now I assume that violence in immediate self-defense are always more likely than not “just.” But once again — your method of self-defense — from, say, Al Quaeda by sending 200,000 troops to Afghanistan — has to meet the effectiveness test for your war to be ‘just.’

Of course no proponent will admit this particular Afghanistan war won’t work (or even likely not to work) so we are back at square one right now.

But the discussion of ‘just war’ must take into account whether you can win or if you will just make matters worse.

Assistant Village Idiot: Bama 1L, Whoa, I say whoa, there. Pacifism was not the tradition of the Christian church(es) before 1000, or before the 4th C, or whatever date you pick. I agree that Just War theory was more inchoate prior to the Augustine-Aquinas chain, but that does not mean there was a default pacifism in Christian teaching.

I’m not an expert in this area, but what I’ve read does seem to suggest that at least a lot of scholars of the early church hold that view.

For example, Tim Dowley’s Introduction to the History of Christianity says (p. 52):

The Christian church of the first three centuries was pacifist. [...] In practice the early Christians were not quite as strictly pacifist as the theologians’ writings would seem to indicate. By the third century some Christians were in the legions. However, it is probable that the majority of these Christian soldiers confined themselves to police duties. Some Christian converts left the forces upon their conversion. Martin of Tours, following his conversion in 339, exclaimed, “I am Christ’s soldier; I am not allowed to fight”. After the triumph of Constantine in the early fourth century, this early Christian pacifism withered rapidly.

Certainly the apologists of the 1st-3rd c. who wrote on the subject were uniformly against Christians serving in the military, although they weren’t all motivated by purely pacifist grounds (some writers were particularly concerned about the danger of idolatry).

wolfefan: The earliest Christians seem to have interpreted things that way; one of the complaints against early Christians was that they refused to serve in the army.

On the other hand, when talking about the “earliest Christians,” you can’t get much earlier than the centurions in Matthew 8 and Acts 10. They are spoken of approvingly, with no suggestion that they ought to look for a new line of work.

This is not spin– we’ve had actual wars, and the last 2 popes have had the opportunity to speak about those wars. And they have spoken in a manner which has been, in several instances, quite emphatic in opposition to the wars. And these were wars that Weigel’s gloss on just war theory could have called justified (and which Weigel himself supported).

Now, if your definition of emphatic rejection is the Pope excommunicating Weigel or something, than no, the Pope hasn’t emphatically rejected it. (By that same standard, the Pope hasn’t emphatically rejected pro-choice politicians either.) But both the current Pope and the last one have taken strong stands against supposedly “just” wars, when they could have (for instance) acknowledged disagreement among Catholic scholars as to the proper application of just war theory. I’d say that’s pretty emphatic.

More generally, as an outsider, I would comment that I don’t think that some of the combatants in the ideological battles within the Catholic Church always appreciate that the Church leadership is very careful when taking stands to not go too far in doing so. This is why, for instance, the leadership is unambiguously pro-life and indicates that those who take actions to promote abortion are gravely wrong, but they do not specifically order excommunications or expressly endorse the practice of denying communion. Similarly, the Church takes pretty strong stands against capital punishment (at least in practice) and war, but it doesn’t punish or condemn elements within the Church who are more supportive of these things.

The Church hierarchy doesn’t want to create splinter groups or lose parishoners and priests to other denominations. So, on an issue such as war, you aren’t going to get a specific papal statement saying “George Weigel is wrong”. Weigel represents a significant constituency of Catholics. But what you will get is specific papal denunciations of warfare that are completely inconsistent with Weigel’s version of the just war doctrine.

The earliest Christians seem to have interpreted things that way; one of the complaints against early Christians was that they refused to serve in the army. This would be an example of non-resistance on the part of the individual, not necessarily endorsing a pacifist position on the part of the state.

I come out of an Anabaptist/Pietist heritage, so my views of church and state will be different than those out of Catholic or Lutheran traditions. YMMV.

To say that Catholics must choose between pacifism and just war, uncapitalized, seems a solid starting place.

Dilan Esper, it might fairly be said that the last two popes disagree with Weigel about Just War doctrine. To say that they have emphatically rejected his hawkish construction is just your spin, in an attempt to be dismissive. They said no such thing. When I encounter such arguments, I usually wonder why the disputant has to exaggerate his claim.

Assistant Village Idiot: I would offer also the irritating statement that a presumption of pacifism was unusual in Christian thought until the first part of the 20th C — notably, when it looked like we might have to fight socialists of various types.

It depends on the timescales involved. Where was the just war tradition in the first centuries of Christianity? It was waiting for the Christianization of the Empire to demand it and Augustine to articulate it, that’s where.

Where was it when Carolingian armies demanded absolution for participation in war, because of their fear that any participation in killing might be sinful?

I don’t think you see just war really get much traction until circa 1000 or later, with the Peace of God/Truce of God movements defining where violence should exist in Christian societies. Then you get Aquinas’s authoritative statements and the general legalization of morality. But this does not displace the pacifist tradition, which everyone will agree exists at minimum in certain religious orders.

But what is the alternative? Pacifism.

I am Catholic and I agree that just war is not the Church’s only teaching on war. In fact there are two sets of moral traditions: just war and pacifism. Just war is the more permissive one; pacifism is the older and better attested one.

I think that Catholics have to choose between just war and pacifism. Probabiliorism lets you go with either one despite the weight of authority for the other one, but there isn’t some other option I can see. I would love to hear about it.

So I don’t think Weigel would agree with you. I take him to argue that just war is the only tradition, and that therefore some wars are just and you can’t be an intelligent Catholic and disagree. But if the pacifist tradition exists, then you can hold that no war is just.

the last two popes have emphatically rejected his hawkish construction of just war theory,

My recollection as well. Should he be denied communion for persistent warmongering?

Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault. Wherefore Augustine says (QQ. in Hept., qu. x, super Jos.): “A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly.”

Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil. Hence Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. [The words quoted are to be found not in St. Augustine’s works, but Can. Apud. Caus. xxiii, qu. 1): “True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandizement, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good.” For it may happen that the war is declared by the legitimate authority, and for a just cause, and yet be rendered unlawful through a wicked intention. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 74): “The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war.”
Saint thomas

The Pope John Paul II helped the USA in the Pershing and Cruise missiles deployment. He got the Vatican recognized as a State for his support beyond the Iron Wall

I would offer also the irritating statement that a presumption of pacifism was unusual in Christian thought until the first part of the 20th C – notably, when it looked like we might have to fight socialists of various types. Before that, there were traditions of individual abstaining from violence for higher calling (such as the monastic orders and peace churches), and a recurring theme that no governments were worthy of Christian allegiance (2nd-4th C’s, apocalyptic groups); but generalised pacifism was strongly influenced by intellectual currents in the larger society which affected church intellectuals as well. The transfer of allegiance from Just War thinking to UN thinking by the Catholic bishops conferences illustrate this.

I wanted to comment on your reading of the European focus on international law (including the Vatican).

Many years ago,National Lampoon had a parody article on “the law of the jungle”, complete with citations. The law’s core principle was that an animal could do whatever it could get away with; the humor came in wrapping that principle in pages of gauzy, smiley euphemisms. And that pretty well captures the American view of international law.

In Europe, the view is different. Large nations with competing needs and wants lie next to one another; for centuries that proximity led to continuous bloodshed. Things are different now, and the Europeans see the difference as a broad acceptance of the rule of law.

In short, it’s a daily reality for them, not some moralistic theory. And it seems to work for them, so they want to see it strengthened rather than eroded.

But now, with the fighters over the border in Pakistan, 8 years later? Odds are, you’re going to catch more collateral damage than you are bad guys.

Pres. Obama even laughed — that was his response, to laugh — when asked on 60 minutes how exactly we were going to turn over security and government operations to a central government, seeing that Afghanistan unlike Iraq, never really had one.

He laughed.

You’d make a much better argument for a just war, if you could define the strategy past “We’re going to hunt down the bad guys, and protect and not harm you innocents, and we’re not going to cut and run when we finally admit this job as we’ve defined it cannot be done.”

If I were a Afghani? I’d take care throwing in my lots with the Americans, because surely we’ll be out eventually and all our promises worthless as far as their protection.

Calling this a “just war” won’t blind many Catholics to the fact that it’s a verrrrry inefficient and to date, ineffectual one. And as that collateral damage continues to add up, the calculations to end results ratio surely changes?