II. War and Peace:    

             A.     Conscientious Objection:

             The Church has a long, highly developed tradition of teaching about war, but in the last several decades major tenets have been severely tested by: (1) questions concerning the conscience of the individual Christian who is faced with politically and morally complex decisions about modern war, (2) the threat of massive destruction posed by nuclear weapons at one end of a scale of violence, and (3) "revolutionary" acts of terrorism at the other end of the scale. There has always existed within  the Church a tradition of pacifism that has nourished and been nourished by Catholic pacifists. But compared to the robust tradition of just war teaching it has seemed thin and insubstantial. It is not surprising, then, that with less than complete accuracy pacifism has been commonly associated with the "peace churches" and the just war tradition with Catholicism.

            The difficulties encountered over the years by Catholics whose conscience led them to pacifism were considerable. For example, Pius  XII was known as the Pope of peace and his motto was Opus Justitiae Pax ( Peace, the Work of Justice). But in his Christmas Message of 1956 he stated that when under prescribed conditions a government engages in war, "a Catholic citizen cannot invoke his own conscience in order to refuse to serve and fulfill those duties the law imposes." In this country, the highly respected theologian John Courtney Murray understood this to mean that "the Pope of peace has disallowed the validity of conscientious objection." In other countries, authoritative spokesmen within the Church read the text in the same way this dampened but it did not suppress the work of Catholic pacifists, and when John XXIII issued Pacem in Terris in 1963, they were quick to detect the new tone struck in that encyclical. That document, which aroused world-wide attention, did not specially allow conscientious objection, but the way in which it criticized the arms race and directed attention to structural defects in international relations led many people to believe that in lent support to the pacifism position. Within the context of their gospel belief, Catholic pacifism in many countries were further encouraged to develop the theological and moral bases of their position.

             Explicit recognition and a degree of support for conscientious objection was to come just a few years later in one of the major documents of Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes (1965), which stated:

            "It seems right that laws make provisions for the case of those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms, provided however, that they accept some other forms of service to human community."

              Since 1965 the implications of that sentence have been explored in a number of statements by Paul VI, by the various Commissions of Justice and Peace established after Vatican II in conformity with the expressed desire of the Council Fathers, by epicopal conferences in many countries, by theologians, by those concerned with public policies and, of course, by many Catholic pacifists. In the course of that exploration, support for conscientious objection strengthened. The Synod of Bishop meeting in 1971 said: "Let a strategy of non-violence be fostered also, and let conscientious objection be organized and regulate by law in each nation." And a few years later Cardinal Maurice Roy reported in his reflections on Pacem in Terris that military conscientious objection is a new right which now has legal status in many countries. As a consequence of this history, the Church's teaching on matters of war is more explicitly pluralist, richer and more complex than it was when Pope John XXIII assumed the papacy in 1958.

             In this process of extending its teaching on war, the Church acted a transnational actor in several respects. It drew upon the wisdom of individuals and organizations of many countries and it formulated a statement applicable to individuals and policies of many countries. The process was one that drew upon the reflections and judgment of people at different levels of authority within the Church, many of whom grounded their positions in the Gospel message.

             Conscientious objection to all wars is a natural corollary to pacifism and is so recognized in the policies of a number of countries. Selective conscientious objection might be regarded as the natural corollary of a tradition that distinguishes between war that are justifiable and those that are not. It is historically true that it was not so regarded either in the teaching of the Church or the laws of this country. The ferment within the Church and the war in Vietnam combined to force a reexamination of just war principles as they applied the matters of the individual conscience and of public policy. These exigencies led the Catholic bishops of the United States to issue in 1968 a pastoral letter on "Human Life in Our Day" in which they reflected on the threat that present military arsenals level at the family of nations. In the course of their reflections, they said:

              "If war is ever to be outlawed, and replaced by more humane and enlightened institutes to regulate conflicts among nations, institutions rooted in the notion of universal common good, it will because the citizens of this and other nations have rejected the tenets of exaggerated nationalism and insisted on principles of non-violent political and civic in both the domestic and international spheres."

               Proceeding to specifics, the bishops then praised those who for reasons of conscience followed the path of non-violence and expressed support for laws that provide for those who totally reject the use of military force. The bishops then went further; they recommended legal provisions "making it possible, though not easy, for so called selective conscientious objector to refuse - without fear of imprisonment or loss of citizenship - to serve in wars which they consider unjust or in branches of service (e.g., the strategic nuclear forces) which would subject them to the performance of actions contrary to deeply held moral convictions about indiscriminate killing. The bishops thus brought to bear on the existing public policies of this country - and extension on other countries - the weight of principles elaborated over many countries. In term of conscientious objection to war made applicable to national policies.

         B.    Nuclear Weapons Systems

         There can be no doubt that the urgency and even passion that invests papal, conciliar and other eccelesiastical statements on modern war stem from the realization of the enormous threat nuclear weapons pose to every one on earth. In their eventual disposition, we are all involved. It is also true that these weapons pose moral and political problems that have so far seemed intractable.

          Pius XII, who gave sustained attention to modern warfare, limited the legitimate causes of war to the single one of defending one's own nation or that of others unjustly attacked. But even he did not place an absolute proscription on the use of nuclear weapons. And in 1959, John Country Murry stated as a moral imperative that "since nuclear war may be a necessity, it must be a possibility." Vatican II substantially modified the terms of the discussion. In the only condemnation it issued, the Council asserted:

         "Any act of war aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of entire cities of the extensive areas along with their population is a crime against God and man himself. It merits unequivocal and unhesitating condemnation."

        "The unique hazard of modern warfare consists in this: it provides those posses modern scientific weapons with a kind of occasion for perpetuating just abominations."

        "The condemnation directed at the use of nuclear weapons was not extended to their possession. The Council explicitly recognized that many people regard nuclear deterrence "as the most effective way by which peace of a sort can be maintained between nations at the present time." Refraining from judgment on this issue, the Council continued: "Whatever be the case with this method of deterrence, men should be convinced that the arms race in which so many countries are engaged is not a save way to preserve a steady peace." And again: "The arms race is an utterly treacherous trap for humanity, and one which injured the poor to an intolerable degree."

         The policy of deterrence presents a limiting case to the traditional teaching of the Church and to all who would attempt to resolve it in coherent moral terms. Those who would do so must respond to the crucial question of whether it is morally acceptable to threaten an evil that it would be immoral to accomplish. And they must consider that question within a situation in which the removal of the threat could itself lead to a great evil. These are questions to be answered not only in abstract moral terms but in terms of public policy and practical decision.

         The principal papal and episcopal comments on this question, while strongly critical of deterrence, have been properly cautious and tentative in suggesting alternatives. As late as May 1978, Pope Paul VI in his message to the UN special session on disarmament stated that the present balance of terror must be replaced by a balance of trust. But he added that solid international trust "presupposes structures that are objectively suitable for guaranteeing, by peaceful means, security and respect or recognition of everyone's right against always possible bad will".

         There is one major exception to it, one notable departure from, the mainstream of such authoritative reflections. In 1976, the Catholic bishops of the United States warned that "With respect to nuclear weapons, at least those with massive, destructive capability, the first imperative is to prevent their use." They ten proceeded to make an extraordinary judgment: "As possessors of a vast nuclear arsenal, we must also be aware that only is it wrong to attack civilian populations, but it is also wrong to threaten to attack them as part of strategy of deterrence." The deep explication this statements demands for it to be fully intelligible is yet to be made. In the mean time, the super powers depend upon mutual deterrence system to sustain the present equilibrium.

         C.    Revolution and Terrorism

        If nuclear weapons pose seemingly intractable moral problems at one end of the scale, acts of terrorism do so at the other. The world has grown familiar in recent decades and recent years with revolutionaries, guerrillas, terrorists who have killed and injured innocent people, noncombatants in the traditional sense of that term. Each of these acts and each set of circumstances surrounding them must be examined before any moral judgment is possible. That we will be called upon to make such judgments frequently in coming years is almost inevitable. The Middle East, Africa, Asia and Latin America all have active liberation movements whose aims are presently unfulfilled. Pope Paul VI provided justification for some revolutionary acts when, in 1967, he spoke of the need for development in poor countries and warned of the terrible alternatives if it did not take place. In Populorum Progressio, he stated:

         "There are certainly situation whose injustice cries to heaven. When whole populations destitute of necessities live in a state of dependence barring them from all initiative and responsibility, and all opportunity to advance culturally and share in social and political life, recourse to violence as a means to right those wrongs to human dignity, is a grave temptation.

        "We know, however, that a revolutionary uprising - save where there is manifest long-standing tyranny which would do great damage to the common good of the country - produces new injustices, throws more elements out of balance and brings on new disasters. A real evil should not be fought against at the cost of greater misery."

         This is clearly a caution against rash acts of violence conceived of as revolutionary. However, the interpolated clause concerning "long standing tyranny" states the conditions under which revolutionary uprising can justifiably occur. Whether those conditions exist  must be determined on empirical grounds, and that determination can probably best be made by the people who are caught up in, who are suffering under, those conditions.

         While the statement of Paul VI is general and universalizable, it probably received its warmest reception, at least initially, in Latin America Bishops held in Medellin, Colombia, made repeated references to Populorum Progressio and elaborated many of its themes. The Medellin documents, as the papers of that conference came to be known, provided both base and sustenance to a "theology of liberation." In the decades since Medellin, that theology has attracted the energies and substantial talents of many people and has burst out of the Latin American continent. In some of its manifestations, it justifies guerrilla warfare in terms that strain if they do not actually discard traditional teaching of what is justifiable in war. One Brazilian priest noted the "hunger, misery, unemployment, unjust wages, and lack of respect for human life" that where the daily burden of his people. Then, referring both to Populorum Progressio and Medellin documents, he arrested: "Against this state of violence acts of violence are necessary to save humanity from slavery."

         Attitudes such as these inspire liberation movements, guerrilla warfare and, at extreme, acts of terrorism in countries around the globe. These manifestations of violence challenge the Christian community to appreciate the depth and intensity of concern that prompts these acts even as the community itself criticizes and opposes acts which escape the limits of justifiable war.