A Leaven In The World . . . Don’t Get Distracted From The Real War
The Catholic commentariat, in the wake of the opening salvos of the war in Iran, has, if you’ll forgive the pun, exploded.
Many voices are untethered from Catholic just-war and social teaching. Some are rendering final judgment without a knowledge of all the facts, some of which may not be revealed until the conflict is over.
I am sure my prayers for its quick and benign conclusion are not the only ones in God’s hearing at the moment. Tragically, we now count four American service members among the thousands who have already died as a result. A girls’ school was struck on the first day of the conflict and over 150 students were killed.
Some of those offering their take on the war in light of Catholic just-war teaching are offering sage and measured counsel for the benefit of the many who might not be sure at the moment just what to think. Among these are Phil Lawler and Robert Royal.
Lawler, in “Exploring Just-War Principles,” presents 26 “short essays on just-war thinking (also offered in audio recordings), intended both to inform readers and to stimulate discussion on a topic that lends itself to lively debates.”
In his most recent installment, “Just-War thinking today: Learning and applying the principles of a rich Catholic tradition” (https://pflawler.substack.com/p/just-war-thinking-today), dated three days before the attack on Iran, he writes in general terms about the guiding principles which are drawn from the Church’s long tradition on the necessary criteria for just war.
“The series begins with a summary of the basic principles of the just-war tradition, tracing its development from St. Augustine through St. Thomas Aquinas and the Jesuit scholastics to some neglected 20th-century moralists and strategists. The last several offerings cover issues of nuclear strategy and the new moral issues surrounding the use of artificial intelligence and unmanned warfare.
“Although we often hear talk about ‘just-war theory,’ the tradition is not merely an abstract theory; the just-war tradition has developed and refined a set of principles by which we can appraise the morality of a conflict.
“Moreover, these principles do not simply test whether a war is justified — whether there is a just cause for the conflict — but also whether the war is conducted justly. A just cause does not excuse military actions that are themselves unjust.
“The application of these moral principles, however, involves prudential decisions, on which reasonable people may, and frequently do, disagree. Thus the topic is ripe for debate. My hope is that this series will help to stimulate and guide such debates.”
Royal, in “War, Just and Unjust,” released via his journal The Catholic Thing just two days after the opening of the conflict, begins:
“Nuclear weapons, like other modern technological developments, have placed great strains on traditional moral principles. Just as modern medicine has changed our appreciation of the beginning and end of human life, the tremendous destructive power of modern weapons, nuclear and not, has made careful thought about war not only urgent, but — to use the fashionable term — existential.
“That’s probably the main reason why the Vatican has seemed quasi-pacifist in recent decades. But the Church has a well-developed set of criteria about just and unjust uses of force.
“Indeed, in the past, it even — rightly — called for crusades. (I’ll explain another time.) But those criteria — still valid in themselves — need further elaboration to confront the conditions in which we find ourselves.”
Iran’s continuing threat to develop nuclear weapons, and the frustrated diplomacy to quell such, spurred, in part, the urgency behind the bombing by Israel and the U.S. The stated purpose for which was decapitation of Iranian leadership and destroying military weapons, supplies, and, by implication, personnel.
Royal expresses doubts about the justice of the actions taken by the U.S., Israel, and their allies.
“I’m not sure whether the U.S. attack on Iran these past few days is justified. A lot of people already claim to know, one way or the other. But I’ve seen enough similar situations to be willing to suspend judgment until we know more. (I’ve misjudged in the past.)
“Still, I am sure that the way to decide should be on Catholic just-war grounds, not just the wearying and utterly predictable pro- and anti-Trump tug-of-war.
“The first criterion is last resort. Resort to arms is a life-and-death matter. It should only be done when other means of addressing a threat have failed. But who decides when all reasonable alternatives have been exhausted? You can always claim that something else might be pursued. . . .
“The answer is that a legitimate authority has the responsibility to decide. But also must explain how everything reasonable has been tried, what the threat is, and why it’s necessary, right now, to meet it. . . .
“Hamas, Hezbollah, or the Houthis (and maybe a few campus fellow-travelers) may lose sleep over the fall of the Islamic Republic. No one else will. Everybody has agreed that ‘Iran must not develop a nuclear weapon’ (existential threat), but done little beyond talk — for half a century. So it’s good that the president has put the attack in terms of defense, both immediate and long-term. But we still need to know much more.
“A second criterion is just cause: Wars of conquest, in our tradition, are never just. Our intention must be to achieve some good by righting a wrong, actual or imminent. We can’t plead the possibility of a threat in the distant future or all nations then become possible targets.
“Another criterion is reasonable chance of success. War is by nature uncertain, but unless there is a reasonable possibility of achieving the goal, military force — which means killing people and breaking things — will have had no justification.
“There’s no doubt that our forces can degrade Iran’s military and nuclear programs. But is that, sufficiently, a success? Right now, there’s hope — rather vague, truth be told — that the Iranian people will rise up. But can they? And what will follow?
“These are, broadly, what theorists call ius ad bellum principles, the criteria for going to war. And they apply to every armed conflict, even fraught contemporary cases.
“But the next steps are more complicated in our time. Ius in bellum criteria address how the war is conducted. A bedrock principle is discrimination between combatants and noncombatants. Attacking civilians — which Russia does routinely in Ukraine — is simply a war crime.
“But the sheer destructiveness of modern weapons makes discrimination dicey. There has always been recognition of the need to accept some collateral damage. No war can be as precise as surgery. To require it to be so means making almost any just use force nearly impossible. That’s not a responsible position in a world of multiple malefactors.
“Collateral damage, as well as the war itself, has to be proportionate to the cause. As we’ve seen in Gaza, rooting out a murderous threat can lead to massive civilian destruction, even when the target is, quite properly, a clear evil like Hamas.
“The world tried decades of ‘dialogue’ with Iran. The U.S. attack has just cause, is focused on combatants, and remains relatively proportionate — given that Iran has stubbornly been developing long-range missiles, enriching uranium, and sponsoring terrorism — for half a century.
“And it’s a good sign that other countries — the UK and regional states — are helping.
“Debates about all that will go on for years. What comes next, though, will show less whether U.S. action was just than whether it was wise.”
We pray for peace. Both at home and abroad.
But let us never forget there is another ongoing war, always just, against evil and fought with the weapon of righteousness: the sword of truth. Let us never become so distracted by the bullets that threaten only the flesh that we forget the far greater potential for loss of even one soul.
Let us take up daily the weapons always within our reach as faithful and, without failing to pray for an end to worldly conflicts, place always first that spiritual victory always within our grasp to effect by means of supernatural grace.
“Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.
“Therefore take the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
“Stand therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and having shod your feet with the equipment of the gospel of peace; besides all these, taking the shield of faith, with which you can quench all the flaming darts of the evil one. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.
“Pray at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints . . .” (Eph. 6:10–18).
Thank you for reading. Praised be Jesus Christ our King, now and forever.
