<<<home page index to Virtues>>>

 

Conferences on the Virtues

By Fr. Bruno Cocuzzi, ocd

 

Number 37

 

The Defense of the Common Good, or War

 

I admit the subject of WAR doesn’t seem appropriate at this time of year, [when we celebrate the birth of Him who is Our Prince of Peace.]  Nevertheless, as we proceed, you will be amazed to see how extensively, before knowledge of the devastation caused by the use of nuclear weapons rendered most of the doctrine concerning a “Just War” obsolete, Christian principles were used to try to “humanize” war, and diminish the sufferings always associated with it. 

 

WAR is one way of defending the Common Good of the nation against outside, or foreign, enemies.  It is described as the “public” taking up of arms for the purpose of protecting or vindicating the rights of the republic.  One “definition” would be:  The armed struggle of an entire national society against a foreign national society, entered upon by the decision of the highest public authority for the sake of the good of the entire nation.  The war is said to be “defensive” when it is undertaken in response to unjust aggression on the part of another nation, and it is “offensive” as opposed to defensive] when, after serious deliberation, it is deemed to be the only possible means of redressing or compensating for an injury done by another sovereign nation.  What that all means should become clearer as we consider the PRINCIPLES governing the doctrine of a “Just War”.

 

Principle I.  In order that a war be “justly” waged, THREE conditions must be met:  (a) there must be a “just” reason (b) it must be waged with “good intentions” and (c) must be authorized by the highest public authority.

 

(a)    Reasons traditionally considered just and sufficient are 1. To preserve the very existence of the nation, 2. to avenge the violation of very serious and fundamental sovereign rights of the nation.  3. War remains the ONLY available means to accomplish 1 and 2 above, and 4. The gravity of harm to the nation in terms of loss of life and limb and in the suffering necessarily inflicted upon the citizens of a nation by war must exceed by the gravity of the harm inflicted by allowing the violation of national rights to stand.  According to my textbook, occasions can arise wherein it is a lesser evil for a nation to go out of existence, i.e., surrender its sovereign rights and identity as a nation, than it would be to endure the sufferings war would inflict upon the citizens in trying to preserve its existence.  The author of my textbook goes into this in detail:

 

“To wage a just ‘defensive’ war, the fact that a nation is unjustly attacked suffices, although caution must be used to avoid ‘blameworthy’ tactics in defending against the attacking nation.  To wage an ‘offensive’ war, however, the ONLY just reason would be its having suffered a very grievous injury at the hands of another nation, and there is NO OTHER way to repair the injury.

 

“Specific grave injuries might be:  an unjust invasion or the taking over of a city or province by enemy forces; grave injustices done to the nation or its ambassadors or to its citizens, which the offending nation is unwilling to undo; the recovery of a very large debt; the protection of a very fundamental right, such as to the necessities of life; an unjust violation of a nation’s neutrality, or of a treaty; aid given to an unjustly attacking nation; the necessity of going to the aid of an allied nation that is being unjustly oppressed; to protect the rights of peoples to practice their religion.

 

“Certain reasons or objectives WOULD NOT justify waging war, such as:  difference of Religion, or to convert a nation of non-believers to the true Faith; extension of the national boundaries or to create an ‘empire’; the desire to ‘take over’ a nation whose technology or economy is much more advanced; to diminish the power and influence of a neighboring nation; to seek national glory or to gain a “reputation” with other nations; to seek benefits solely for the ruling class or some other privileged class in the nation; to impose a ‘superior’ culture or civilization upon an ‘inferior’ or even ‘barbaric’ one.”

 

“If however, a nation really does need more territory for the purpose of housing and feeding a numerous and growing citizenry, and there exist lands that are uncultivated and very sparsely inhabited, and it appears that there is no likelihood that the nation to which such lands belong will ever want to cultivate or inhabit those lands, it does not seem unjust to occupy those almost vacant lands by peaceful means and to pay a just price to the indigenous people as compensation.  That is because the earth is destined to provide sustenance and subsistence for everybody by a primary law of nature.  It is altogether lawful to protect that natural right to subsistence, even by the use of moderate force, should that become necessary.

 

“The reason or motive for waging a war must be:

     

(i)                  ‘Deliberated’; that is, subjected to mature and prudent examination, and after seeking the counsel of upright individuals and experts in international law.

 

(ii)                ‘Morally certain’; that is, that the injury or injustice done really exists, and that it is grave enough to justify waging war.  Otherwise, i.e., to act where there is doubt or only a suspicion creates the danger of doing unjustified harm and damage to innocent people.  [Cf. the conferences on CONSCIENCE of many, many months go].

 

(iii)               “Necessary’; that is, other means of obtaining reparation for the injury or settling a dispute must be exhausted, such as good faith negotiations, submitting the matter to impartial arbitrators, provided this can be done without dishonor to either of the parties.  If it turns out that the offending nation offers full satisfaction, the offended nation is bound to accept, for then the reason for waging a just war would cease to exist.

 

(b)    The good intentions have already been suggested, namely, a sincere devotion to, and a laudable desire to avert harm from, the common good.  Intentions or motives which would not suffice would be:  hatred, vainglory, private vindictiveness on the part of those in authority, a desire to punish or to harm or to merely “get revenge”, a lust to dominate.  Indeed, the [proper] objective of war is peace, that is, the tranquility of order.  Thus. St. Augustine teaches:  “Peace is not sought for the purpose of waging war; rather, war is waged so that peace may be restored.  Therefore, be a peacemaker (pacificus) while waging war, so that you might lead back into the ways of peace those you overcome by your victory”.  (Letter 205, to Boniface).

 

(c)    Those who are subject to the same higher authority are obliged to have recourse to that authority for the purpose of seeking redress for wrongs done by another.  Because nations are looked upon as “equals” in so far as they “sovereign” nations, there is no higher civil authority that all are subject to.  [If all nations were thoroughly Christian, they would be aware they are subject to God, the origin of civil as well as religious authority, and so could appeal to Christ’s Vicar on earth, the Holy Father, to settle their differences and seek vindication of injured rights].  Therefore, only those who exercise supreme authority in a particular national society may licitly commit the citizens of the nation to the waging of a just war, since it is to them that falls the duty and obligation to promote and protect the common good of all the citizens.  St. Thomas Aquinas says it like this:

 

“The care of the republic is entrusted to its rulers [princes]. And it is their obligation to protect those subject to their authority.  Just as it is lawful for them to defend them with the sword against internal disturbances by punishing malefactors, so also is it lawful for them to wield the sword of war to protect the citizenry against foreign enemies.”

 

My author also approvingly quotes the moral theologian Billuart:  “Because supreme heads of nations do not have a civil superior, by the very fact that one offends another, the offending head of state becomes the ‘subject’ of the one offended, in this sense:  that the offended head of state is allowed to punish the offender in the measure required by the gravity of the injury.”

 

Principle II.  In order that a war may be justly and licitly waged, Natural Law, Current International Law, and International Agreements must be observed.

 

On the grounds that good ends do not justify the use of evil means, any necessary and effective means to obtain victory that are not in violation of the Laws just mentioned are permitted, because the “right to a good” includes the “right to use appropriate measures” to obtain it.  Whatever means are forbidden by the said Laws or which are ill suited to obtain the victory are not allowed.  Any damage caused by the use of ineffective or illicit means must be repaired.

 

According to the rules in force at the time my textbook was published (1949):

 

    (a) War IS NOT waged upon private citizens, but against the nation as a “Public Person”.

 

(i)                  Nevertheless, it is lawful:  to lay siege to fortified cities and to cut off supplies of water and food for the purpose of obtaining a speedy surrender; to shell whatever buildings the defending soldiers are occupying and from which they are returning fire against the besiegers, even when those buildings are private homes, or monasteries or churches, and even though it is impossible to prevent accidental killing of some innocent citizens.  However, cruel and unnecessary tactics cannot be used, such as poisoning the city’s water supply, using chemical weapons, and anything else that smacks of “savagery”.

 

(ii)                 Armed fighting-men may licitly attempt to “disable” armed soldiers of the opposing forces, and to this end they must strive to “wound” rather than to kill enemy soldiers.  Only in clear cases of “self preservation” would they be allowed to kill enemy soldiers outright.  All the more serious, therefore is the obligation to refrain from any direct elderly, clerics, religious, working people, foreigners or pilgrims, or anyone who is not directly engaged in the waging of the war.

 

(iii)               Once a city or a region has been captured in a just war, it is lawful for the captors to recoup the cost of the victory from the resources of the conquered city or region, even to impose proportionate “taxes” on the citizenry, and to require of them whatever is necessary to house and feed the occupying forces.  It is utterly unlawful and unjust to deliver the city over to looting on the part of the victorious soldiers, or to permit them in any way to prey upon the defenseless populace.  Anything that they take over and above what is strictly necessary to cover expenses of war and sustenance must be paid for in strict justice.

 

(iv)              It is licit for a nation waging a just war to use ambush and trickery in order to hasten victory, such as simulated retreats, deceptive maneuvers, spying, issuing false communiqués, etc.  However, betrayals, violations of truces, violation of sincere promises, and fraudulent conduct that escapes the prudent anticipation of the enemy party (such as, to hire assassins to kill and unsuspecting General) are all illicit.

 

(v)                Reprisals, in so far as they are dangerous and easily lead to far greater evils, are also forbidden.  On occasion it is believed that a reprisal is justified, but only when it is directed to those few guilty individuals whose gravely injurious conduct precipitated the jut war.

 

(b)Acts of War are not to be initiated prior to a formal declaration of war upon the other nation, which must be preceded by some kind of “ultimatum”.  An ultimatum consists in the intimation of the heads of the other nation that, unless certain conditions are fulfilled by such and such a time, the warning nation will resort to war.  The purpose of the ultimatum is to give the nation warned an opportunity to avoid armed hostilities, and also to give them time to provide for their citizens living in the warning nation.

 

 

(c) Once the enemy has been conquered and sues for peace; equitable and moderate terms of peace must be proposed, free of all vindictiveness and desire to harm.  Ideally, the prevailing nation must pronounce the terms of peace NOT as Conqueror or Accuser or Enemy, but as a judge who is fair and respectful of Law and the merits of the case.  The terms are to be such as to help restore order and justice and cooperation among all nations, such that good and friendly relations become possible between the conquered and the conquering nation.  Once signed, the treaty of peace is to be honored as something sacred.

 

*To all of the above doctrine, a few corollaries are appended:

 

1. The heads of state that declare an unjust war sin gravely against both Charity    and    Justice.

 

 

2. By the very nature of things, it is impossible that BOTH of the nations are war can claim to be waging a JUST WAR, objectively speaking.  This should be obvious, since each of the two parties to the dispute subscribes to a “claim” that is in conflict with the “claim” of the other party, such that neither claim can be “correct” at the same time.  But subjectively, perhaps due to the different ways that the matter is perceived on the part of the warring nations, each of the participants CAN in good faith believe that its claim is just, and that it is engaged in a “just” war. 

 

3. When nation X has a doubt about the “justice” of its cause against nation Y, it must seek arbitration before a panel of international judges or the Holy See.  If Nation Y adamantly refuses to have recourse to arbitration, that fact alone could remove the doubt about the justice of nation X’s cause.

 

4.       When a just war is declared, professional soldiers are bound in conscience to participate, even at the risk of their lives, because that is what the Common Good of the nation requires of them.

 

5.       When a war is patently unjust, the professional soldiers are bound in conscience NOT TO FIGHT.  If this becomes clear to them when already on the battlefield, they should surrender.  But if the opposing soldiers show no inclination to take captives, and initiate life threatening measures against them, they would have the right to use lawful means to defend themselves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

                       

 

 

 

<<<home page index to Virtues>>>

 

* * * * * * * * * * *

MISSION STATEMENT: This web site was created for the purpose of completing the work of Fr. Bruno Cocuzzi, O.C.D These conferences may be reproduced for private use only. Publication of this material is forbidden without permission of the Father Provincial for the Discalced Carmelites, Holy Hill, 1525 Carmel Rd., Hubertus, WI 53033-9770.