With children and friends in the US military, we hear news of possible conflicts and deployments. These reports lead to discussions about politics and war, which can be very complicated. Thankfully, as Catholics, we can look to the Church for faithful instruction and guidance. With news of trouble in eastern Europe, what does the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1 teach us about war?
2307 The 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 and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war.
First, the Church directs our attention to the Ten Commandments. After all, the question is not what I think about war or what you think, or what anyone else things. The question is what does God think about war. He is the Creator of the world and the Lord of every human soul. He alone has the right to speak authoritatively about war among men and nations on earth. Because God forbids men to kill, no man has any right to think of war as a means of bringing about his own will, or the will of his own nation. War means killing and killing is forbidden.
2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war. However, “as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed.”
As we will see below, the question we should always ask is not “How shall we war?”, but “How shall we prevent and avoid war?” The Church here teaches that the best means of preventing wars between nations is for all nations to work together for the common good and protection of all. Organizations like the United Nations work to discourage any aggressive military action among nations. The strength of the nations united is esteemed to be greater than that of any individual nation or small group of nations. There are many ways for nations to be discouraged from war, including financial penalties that can cripple a nation’s economy.
At the same time, if a nation is under attack, no organization has the authority to deny that nation the right to take up arms and defend itself.
2309 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;
(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 is called the “just war” doctrine.
The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
This “right to self-defense” or “right to bear arms” is not left to the interpretation of any individual nation or ruler. We can think of Aesop’s fable of the Wolf and the Lamb and see how evil men can pretend to be threatened to excuse their own violent plans. Strict conditions are recognized among nations under which military defense may be considered legitimate. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church says, this is called the “just war doctrine”.
We see in the first condition that the threat cannot be rumored or imagined. It must be real and imminent, if not already underway. Second, a military response–even in self defense–must be a last resort. It can never be “plan A”. All other means of prevention must be exhausted before a nation can turn to war justly. Third, the effort cannot be a suicide mission. There must hope of success. Responding with violence against a nation that has threatened to respond with a nuclear weapon, which “self-defense” would not be reasonable cannot be just. Lastly, the act of “self-defense” cannot escalate the killing and create a situation worse than that which is to be endured to begin with. These are the conditions of “just war”.
Note that the invasion of a nation that is not gravely and certainly threatening the invader can never be a just act of war.
As these decisions depend on many factors unknown to the common people, they are to be made by those in authority, not by popular sentiment, reactionary anger, etc.
2310 Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense. Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.
As a nation bears the right to self-defense, so its citizens bear the responsibility to serve their country when the conditions for just war are present. This is a duty of citizens and the government may call men into service and threaten punishment to those who refuse to serve the common good under such conditions.
2311 Public authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms; these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way.
It must be clear, however, that the duty to serve the common good and fight in self-defense for one’s country assumes that the conditions of just war are present. If or when these conditions are doubted, a citizen has a right to object to military service as a matter of conscience. The sincerity of this “conscientious objection”, however, will be proven by the willingness of a citizen to help defend the common good in some other acceptable manner. As citizens, we must understand that there will often be disagreement on the details of any conflict and respect the judgment of others.
2312 The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. “The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties.”
We often hear quotes from famous military leaders that show no respect for human life. Careless sayings like, “Kill ’em all and let God sort ’em out.” are not sentiments of self-defense or respect for human life. The moral law is never suspended in time of war and any killing that occurs in war is only justified if it occurs under the conditions of the just war doctrine. Killing in time of war can certainly be murderous, and soldiers are often punished for such actions.
2313 Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely. Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out. Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide.
When nations enter into military conflict, it is understood that the conflict is necessary and is to be settled by governments, not individuals. A distinction exists between soldiers and civilians that must be respected. After all, a soldier is not acting in self-defense when kills a civilian who poses no threat to his life. The killing, therefore, of unarmed civilians or prisoners who have already been subdued, cannot be justified. No government authority has the power to command the unjust killing of any person. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that this must be resisted as an example of “conscientious objection”.
2314 “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.” A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons – to commit such crimes.
The annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the US military in World War II were grievous crimes against God and man. Hundreds of thousands of people died as a result of the bombings, most of whom were civilians. The capacity to cause such undiscriminating death and destruction is an evil of modern war that the world has never known before. The threat of the use of these weapons leads us to question whether war remains a reasonable means of self-defense in the modern era. The threat of mutual self-destruction is irrational and suicidal.
2315 The accumulation of arms strikes many as a paradoxically suitable way of deterring potential adversaries from war. They see it as the most effective means of ensuring peace among nations. This method of deterrence gives rise to strong moral reservations. The arms race does not ensure peace. Far from eliminating the causes of war, it risks aggravating them. Spending enormous sums to produce ever new types of weapons impedes efforts to aid needy populations; it thwarts the development of peoples. Over-armament multiplies reasons for conflict and increases the danger of escalation.
In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan promoted a concept of self-defense and peace-keeping called “Peace through Strength”. The idea was that by investing heavily in the development of military power, the likelihood of war would be minimized. It is important to note that the Church rejects this line of reasoning and says, “The arms race does not ensure peace.” The absurdity of this idea can be seen from considering that if Jesus Christ desired peace in the world, as the angels sang at his birth, He would revealed the most destructive weapons imaginable to His Church to end all threat of war. On the contrary, He sought peace through the self-sacrifice of the Cross.
2316 The production and the sale of arms affect the common good of nations and of the international community. Hence public authorities have the right and duty to regulate them. The short-term pursuit of private or collective interests cannot legitimate undertakings that promote violence and conflict among nations and compromise the international juridical order.
In America, many interpret the “right to bear arms” as a license to arm oneself as one pleases, and deny the government any right to regulate the production and sale of arms. The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly does not support this idea without qualifications. The fact that it is usually limited to handguns when military power is so much more advanced today proves this debate to be useless.
2317 Injustice, excessive economic or social inequalities, envy, distrust, and pride raging among men and nations constantly threaten peace and cause wars. Everything done to overcome these disorders contributes to building up peace and avoiding war: Insofar as men are sinners, the threat of war hangs over them and will so continue until Christ comes again; but insofar as they can vanquish sin by coming together in charity, violence itself will be vanquished and these words will be fulfilled: “they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.”
In this final paragraph, the Catechism of the Catholic Church brings us back to the real issue on which all men must remain focused. We are commanded to love one another and live according to the Golden Rule. The conflicts that arise among men in the modern world rarely (if ever) need to be settled by the use of arms, and Our Lord warned against the reckless and unjust use of the sword, saying, “He who lives by the sword shall perish by the sword.”
The solution to all human conflicts is found in the kingdom of Heaven and the eternal happiness of God’s people. The mission Christ sent us into the world to carry out was not a mission of Christian imperialism or military domination, but evangelization. St. Paul spoke of this mission and its means of execution in the New Testament: “Though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal.” 2
Mr. William C. Michael, O.P.
Headmaster
Classical Liberal Arts Academy
This free content is provided for independent study. Students who wish to pursue formal instruction, assessments, academic records, and accredited coursework may enroll in the Classical Liberal Arts Academy.