Catholicism, War, America, and Christ: The Conditions of Just War

Last updated on: January 15, 2020 at 8:27 pm by Gabriel Blanchard

Catholicism, War, America, and Christ: The Conditions of Just War 2020-01-15T20:27:44-04:00 Gabriel Blanchard

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Intro; Part One

Every life is sacred. The only reason the Church can even consider violence done in self-defense is that your own life is sacred, too; because of this, the amount of violence it takes to defend yourself can be permitted, (1) when only violence will stop an attacker from killing or injuring you. The same principle is applied to countries by extension, and this is essentially what Just War Theory consists in. The conditions laid down by JWT are, in substance, a more detailed articulation of these principles. I’d like to go over the conventional conditions laid down by JWT proponents and see how each one relates to this central thesis.

1. The damage the aggressor would inflict has to be lasting, serious, and certain. (2) Small injuries, or damages that will quickly pass, don’t qualify as grounds for war. In those cases, the injury is being used as a pretext, or the injured party is seeking revenge rather than just redress by resorting to violence.

Note also the condition that the damage must be certain. Obviously there is only so much certainty we can have about the future, and the theory is not calling for a mathematically certain proof; rather, the idea here is one of moral certainty—the same kind you would need to convict someone of murder. This, too, is designed to prevent wars being waged on the pretext “Well they’re probably gonna attack us!”; I would argue that it rules out all so-called preëmptive attacks, since they are by definition not dealing with a certain threat.

2. All other means of resolving the conflict between the aggressor and the defender must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective. Sometimes conflicts cannot be resolved through talking it out, but most of the time they can. An aggressor might, of course, take advantage of this—as Hitler did with Chamberlain—to obtain concessions or time, and then promptly break his word. This would, in a particularly unpleasant way, show that diplomacy is not effective in this case; but that can’t simply be assumed. It has to be shown. Otherwise, once again, you’re resorting to violence before you know it’s required, to satisfy anger or greed or pride rather than to protect yourself.

3. There must be a serious prospect of success. Embarking on a war you know you can’t win is, essentially, suicide on a national scale. Laying down your life is one thing; throwing it away is quite another. And throwing your countrymen’s lives away is, as has been said, Not It, Chief.

4. Resorting to violence must not produce evils that are worse than the evil the defender is trying to avoid. This is an application of what’s called the principle of proportionality: you can only use the amount of force it takes to defend yourself. For example, if someone tries to punch you, swiping his hand off with a machete is going too far, and the fact that he tried to hit you first doesn’t excuse it. Likewise, if your military campaign is going to be more devastating to any people—not just your own people, any people, because remember, we are all made in the image of God, and protecting that is the only possible Christian ground for JWT—anyway, if your campaign is going to be more devastating than that “lasting, serious, and certain” evil we discussed above, you can’t wage that campaign.

This is particularly relevant to the use of nuclear weapons. Nukes, because of how they work, produce uncontrollable and even unpredictable results, and their effects last for decades if not longer. For instance, nuclear fallout contaminates any local water supply very quickly, starting from radioactive ash and dust that pollute surface water, and from there slowly affecting groundwater as well: once reached, an underground aquifer would remain contaminated by radiation for hundreds of thousands of years. That kind of devastation is disproportionate and uncontrollable—and therefore can’t seriously be classified as self-defense.

And note, these are only the conditions required for going to war to be potentially licit. Conduct within a war, including the terms on which a peace is settled, are something else again, which I’ll address in my next. But even applying these terms alone, every war the United States has been involved in, except World War II and maybe the War of 1812, has been unjustified. (3) The philosophical stringency that that represents should make an impression on us, and we should always presume that waging a given war is probably wrong, if we’re working from historical precedent on sincerely held Catholic principles.

(1) As a reminder, this violence is permitted, not obligatory. The example of Christ and all the martyrs shows quite plainly that you can lay down your life rather than resort to violence to defend it.

(2) I’ve rephrased these a little from the way they’re expressed in the Catechism, mostly by trading quasi-technical terms for terms that are a little clearer in English (e.g., using “serious” instead of “grave”).

(3) Yes, I’m including the Revolutionary War here. I am not saying that the behavior of the British government in the late eighteenth century was beyond reproach; it most certainly wasn’t. But as modern libertarians and internet trolls have pointed out, nearly everything the Declaration of Independence paints as shocking corruptions of power on the part of the British are standard practices not only of governments in general—taxes, for example—but of the U.S. government today; and injustices on the part of the government are not necessarily grounds for revolution. It’s very questionable whether the Revolutionary War met conditions 1 and 2.

theology

violence

Previous Post

January 8, 2020

Catholicism, War, America, and Christ: Violence and Warfare

Next Post

January 23, 2020 Five Quick Takes

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category abuse antifascism art bad Catholic celibacy chastity Church crucifixion culture war eros forgiveness gay gender homophobia ikons language liturgy peace poems politics Pope Francis prayer pro-life race recommendations reform repentance review sacraments saints satire scandal schism scripture sex suffering theology Uncategorized violence

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

In Colossians, Paul says that Christ is the head of what?

Select your answer to see how you score.

The body, the church The apostles The believers All creation