Some Thoughts on War

Irish Jesuit Province

Some Thoughts on WarAuthor(s): M. J. AhernSource: The Irish Monthly, Vol. 67, No. 791 (May, 1939), pp. 305-315Published by: Irish Jesuit ProvinceStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20514532 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 02:17

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Irish Jesuit Province is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Irish Monthly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.109 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 02:17:48 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ijp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20514532?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


305

Some Thoughts on War

[A Radio Broadcast by the REV. M. J. AHERN, S.J., as reported in The Pilot (U.S.A.)].

T HERE is nothing in the world to-day, in the field of international relationship, that is giving graver concern to Governments and to peoples than the possibility, some

would say the imminence, of another world war. It is not too much to assert that every sane person news such a contingency with horror, for it would doubtless bring upon mankind sufferings more dreadful than the last international conflict; its aftermath would result in a world depression, and in a moral relapse among nations the like of which has never occurred in the history of this planet.

One can readily understand that these thoughts stir the emotions of men and women to a pitch, sometimes, of hysterical intensity, and that they move the consciences of those who love their fellow-men to a height of crusading zeal, that evokes utterances of great and persuasive eloquence. Not merely can we understand these outbursts, but we can readily and whole heartedly agree that war, which is nothing else but the organised

mutual slaughter of millions of rational beings, because they can not find in reason the means and motives of mutual agreement, is a scandalous blot on the civilisation of the world.

It is much more than that-it is a direct repudiation of the commandment: " Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself "; hence all true followers of Christ have not merely a motive of

expediency for condemning and avoiding war; they have the com pelling motive of universal human brotherhood; they have the



300T6 I E IRISH MONiTHL Y

sense of unity in the Mystical Body of Christ that should compel them to discount and ignore any sundering influence; they have the example and the teaching of the Prince of Peace, Who prayed that all men should be one " as Thou, Father, in Me and I in

Thee ".

But while we agree on these general principles regarding the evil of war, we cannot agree on the one hand with the extreme pacifists wvho would hold all wars to be unjust; or, on the other hand, with the extreme pagan view of some moderns that aggres sive wars are a nation's right and dtutv, that " it is only in war that a people becomes in very deed a people ", that without war

' there would be no States ", that " to expel war from the universe would be to mutilate human nature ".

WNTe say emphatically that war, far from being a perfection of human nature, is full of terrible evils. Without war the world would be a better world. War is not a good in itself; neither is it to be regarded as intrinsically evil. It is like a surgical opera tion, which is tolerable only because it may be the only remedy for a distressful physical condition that cannot be cured, or ameliorated, or prevented in any other way.

Just as a surgical operation is not onlv morally right in certain conditions of the body, but may be morally good and praise worthy in certain circumstances; just as killing in self-defence may be similarly justified; just as it is not evil to inflict capital punishment as a means of prevention or cure of the intolerable murder of other human beings; so with war. War may be undertaken bv a nation in self-defence, or in support of another nation wvhich is being oppressed unjustly. In such cases it may not only be allowable; it may be even necessary.

Let us examine these propositions more closely in the light of reason and revelation. In view of many recent declarations on

this subject, such an examination will be both timely and inform



SOME THOUGHTS ON WVAR 307

ing; it may even be the means of easing the consciences of many people, who have been confused by the utterances of agitators, or by the emphatic declarations of some so-called leaders of thought in many walks of life and spheres of influence.

For the sake of brevity and clearness let us ask, and suggest the answers to, the following questions:

1.-Does not the Bible of both the Old and the New Testa nment condemn all wars as immoral?

2.-How can a war ever be right? Or to put this question another wvay: How can you show that a war can ever be moral? or just ?

3.-XVhat is the Christian attitude to take regarding the pre vention of war?

4.-How can we work for the cause of international peace?

5.- XVhat is the attitude of the Catholic Church on this question ?

There is no need to emphasise that we speak here only of war as a last resort by a nation in the enforcement of just claims.

What has the Old Testament to teach regarding the lawfulness of such a war? I make bold to quote the following brief and suggestive answer from an eminent fellow-Jesuit, the Rev. J.

Keating, the late editor of the Month. He says (Primer of Peace and VWar-pages 71-72): -

" In the Old Testament records war is a very familiar feature. This alone would not show that it was justifiable, for the Bible narrates the crimes of men as well as their virtues. But many of the wars which the Jews waged from the time of Abraham to the age of the

Maccabees were directly enjoined by Almighty God. This would show that war cannot be intrinsically evil."

However, it may be urged that in certain cases God used the

Israelites as an instrument to punish races guilty of abominable



308 TIHE IRISH MONTHLY

idolatry, and, indeed, the utter extermination of adult males which He sometimes commanded is a proof of this.

On the other hand, not all the Jewish wars were of this charaeter. In Deuteronomy (chap. 20) we find general direc tions given for the prosecution of war, which show that the possibility, at least, of justifiable fighting was contemplated. However, as the Chosen People were, in origin and spirit, a Theocracy, even the wars they undertook in self-defence might fairly be considered as directly authorised by God, Who is Lord of life and death, and can justly sanction the use of such a method for the furtherance of His ends, just as He sanctioned the spoil ing of the Egyptians. Thus from the Old Testament we gather little more than the fact that warfare, commanded directly or indirectly by God for His own divine purpose is lawful.

Various arguments both for and against war have been drawn from various texts and teachings of the New Testament, which in orthodox Christian belief narrates the reign of the Messias, the

Prince of Peace; and hence at first glance would seem to give no justification for war of any kind, since the whole spirit of this new revelation was one of meekness, forgiveness and charity, virtues which Our Divine Lord constantly and vigorously extolled. And in fact nothing can be quoted from Him which might indicate an approval of armed conflict between nations.

To quote Father Keating again:

" The fact of War He recognizes, and it forms a prominent feature of the troubles preceding the end of the world as He describes them; but He says nothing explicitly about the justice of war. On the other hand, it may be urged that He praises the Roman Centurion, that He enjoins obedience to the Roman authorities who maintained their hold on Judea by force, and that he does not condemn war as an abuse, as He does social evils like Divorce, tolerated under the old dispensa tion. We must, in fact, recognize that in no case does He legislate for the conduct of States, but only for that of the individual."



SOME THO UGHTS ON WAR 309

There is no doubt that the spirit of the Gospel is a spirit of peace and brotherly love, a spirit which is summed up in the Beatitude: " Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God ". War is certainly not according to that spirit. But the question here is not whether the spirit of the revelation of Our Lord is a spirit of peace, which it is perfectly evident it is; the question is whether we can argue from that spirit of peace to a wholesale condemnation of all war, even that

which is a war of self defence or protection.

There have been those who have held this position, who have even gone so far as to assert that war has been explicitly con demned in the New Testament. But that is evidently not true, for if it were, how could Our Lord have shown the esteem which

He did to the centurion, as St. Peter did on another occasion? How could John the Baptist have counselled the soldiers who came to him to be content with their pay, if their profession was

,wrong? How could Our Lord have praised the servant of the centurion? A Roman officer, a soldier by profession and a friend of the Jews receives but praise from Him; not a word in condemnation of his calling of arms. And in the instance of the centurion of Cesarea, who became a convert to Christianity under the guidance and instruction of St. Peter, there is nothing to suggest that he abandoned his profession.

All these instances would seem to warrant the conclusion that the profession of arms was not considered incompatible with the sentiments of the Gospel.

There is, it is true, a line of thought running through the Gospel that appears opposed to the conclusion just enunciated; this is the doctrine of non-resistance. When Peter, in defence of Our Lord, cut off the ear of the servant of the High Priest, Christ bade him to put up his sword " for all that take the sword shall perish by the sword ". We have the same words in Apoca



310 T'HE IRISH MONTHLY

lypse 13, 10. And in Matthew 5, 38-48, we have still stronger expressions of non-resistance, such as, " But I say to you not to resist evil: but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him

also the other ". And also: " Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: pray for them that persecute and calumniate

You

St. Paul says in his epistle to the Romans: "Avenge not

yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath ". (12, 19).

Does it not seem that, if resistance is forbidden, so also must offensive attack in war seem to fall under the same ban? How then can war ever be said to be lawvful?

The difficultv seems to increase if we remember that in the

Gospel war is represenited as a dreadful scourge; read what is said of war in the description of the destruction of Jerusalem, or of the symbolic beings who execute God's judgments in the Apoca lypse. When we contemplate all these expressions of the New

Testament we have the following elements bequeathed by the

Gospel to Christian thought: (1) Renunciation of self-defence, with command not to draw the sword. (2) Esteem for the military profession. (3) War as a scourge of God.

At first blush there would seem to be incompatibility here, for, if there were a command to practise renunciation of self-defence, and if war were always to be considered a scourge of God in the sense that it was always unlawful, how could Christ or the

Apostles ever show any esteem for the military profession?

The difficulty disappears when we inquire more closely into the circumstances under which these utterances of Christ and of the

Apostle of the Gentiles were made, and when we understand the interpretation of them which was accepted by Apostolic

Christianity and by the Tradition of the Catholic Church. From these sources it is abundantly clear that the renunciation of self



SOME THOUGHTS ON WAR 311

defence was understood by the Apostles as applying to persecution and martyrdom.

That this is true is evident that the Apostles inculcated respect and obedience for the law even though the law under which the Christians were then living was the Roman law, a law which attacked them for their Faith, which proscribed their "name under penalty of death and even attached to that name criminal imrsputations.

At the very moment when the Christians were thus attacked we hear St. Peter inculcating the following observances on the early Christians: " Be ye subject therefore to every human creature for God's sake, whether it be to the king as excelling: or to governors as sent by Him for the punishment of evil doers, or for the praise of the good; for so is the xvill of God, that by doing well you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish mnen l' (I Peter 2, 13-1.5). And again: " Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king ". (lb. 17).

And of the persecution which was then raging, St. Peter savs -(the same epistle 4, 13-16+'" But if you partake of the suffer ing of Christ, rejoice, that when His glory shall be revealed you

may also be glad with exceeding joy. If you be reproached for the name of Christ, you shall be blessed: for that which is of the honour, glory and power of God, and that which is His Spirit resteth upon you. But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or a thief, or a railer, or a coveter of other men's things. But if as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in this name

"

These words are not a prohibition of self-defence under any or

all circumstances; they merely lay down the duty of Christians in the face of persecution, which is to suffer this persecution

without revolt, in the name of Christ. And it was universally understood in this sense by the Christians of the first four cen



312 THE IRISH MONTHLY

turies; it was not understood as a prohibition of war of self-defence.

Another reflection may be added here from the Epistles of St. Paul. It is well known that this great Apostle was fond of using

as examples of spiritual achievement the profession of the athlete and of the soldier. The most strikingly worked out passage of this character is to be found in II Timothy 2, 3-6, where St. Paul says: " Labour as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No man, being a soldier, entangleth himnself with secular businesses; that he may please him to whom he hath engaged himself. For he also that striveth for the mastery, is not crowned, except he

strive lawfully. The husbandman that laboureth must first partake of the fruits ".

This association in the minds of his flock of military valour and Christian virtue would have been impossible of presentation by the Apostle if the profession of the soldier was by its very nature immoral. It is true that Paul declares in I Timothy 2, 1-2: " I desire, therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, inter cessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men: for kings, and for all that are in high station: That we may lead a quiet and peaceful life in all piety and chastity ".

But it would be a false interpretation of this text to say that Paul would have us believe that Christians should exclude from their prayers all activities of rulers that had to do with legitimate defence of their territory and of their subjects. Respect for the law of the State which Paul was never tired of preaching, could not exclude the legitimate function of the State in safeguard ing itself against attack and oppression. To argue otherwise is to accuse the Apostle of the Gentiles of ridiculous inconsis tency, and of upholding an ideal of service based upon a false and immoral human activity; in which event he could never have used the same imagery employed by Isaiah, when he said in



SOME THOUGHTS ON WAR 313

I Thessalonians 5, 8: " having on the breast-plate of faith and

charity, and for a helmet, the hope of salvation ".

All that has been said so far is, I think, enough to show that those who would exclude war under any or all circumstances cannot find a basis for their opinion in the New Testament. I hope that there is no one that will conclude from what has just been said that I am arguing in favour of war. Far from it. In common with all Catholic moralists, I hold war in the deepest detestation. It is a survival of barbarism, and the demand for war fostered by a jingo Press and based on an exaggerated nationalism, and war held up to what is effectively adoration by pagan militarists are a reversion to the morals of the jungle.

Unjust war is deliberate and systematised mass-murder-one of the chief sins" crying to Heaven for vengeance ". The guilt of that heinous crime attaches to those who bring it about and to all who encourage and excuse them. What has been said to-day is designed to show that the argument of the extreme pacifist that war in every case is against the teaching of the Bible has no validity.

This is no more to argue in favour of war than the presen tation of reasons in support of a severe surgical operation, as a last resort in attempting to save life, could be construed as an argument against bloody cruelty. That is exactly what war is -a last resort. A nation goes to war justly only in self-defence. Even in the case of self-defence, Catholic moralists teach that for a just war the following conditions must be fulfilled:

1.-There must be moral certainty that the rights of a

sovereign State are being violated, or are in certain and imminent danger of such violation.

2.-This violation must be in proportion to the terrible evils that war brings in its train.



314 TIIE IRISH MONTHLY

3.-War mav be declared only after every peaceful method of settlement of the dispute has been tried and found inadequate.

4.-There must be a well-grounded hope that conditions will

be improved by the conflict.

Frankly, these conditions have rarely been fulfilled in the history of the world.

Many of you wvill remember that in August, 1917, Pope Benedict XV wrote a letter to the warring nations in which he pleaded with them to put an end to hostilities. In accordance with the conditions just enumerated, His Holiness declared that three things wvere necessary to prevent war and to bring about a lasting peace : the substitution of moral right for material force; an international agreement for the reduction of armaments; and compulsory arbitration of all international disputes.

I do not hesitate to say that, in view of the unparalleled phvsical atrocity of modern wvarfare and of the attendant vast

moral evils inseparably accompanying it; and since all the States of the world, almost without exception have, with the approval of their peoples renounced war as an instrument of policy, and have promised to settle all their disputes of whatever kind by pacific means, I do not see how the conditions of a just war can ever be fulfilled.

I subscribe wvholeheartedly to the utterance of the great

G-rerman Cardinal von Faulhauber of Munich wvho said that

"the after-effects of modern war are so dreadful that thev are out of all proportion with the national good wnich war is meant to preserve or gain . . . the conditions which make war legitimate have become much more rare to-day than heretofore, since to-day a war grievously unsettles the economiy of the whole world."

Hence he concluded that war is an anachronism, a relic of barbarism, a reproach to any civilised nation in a world which



SOME THOUGHTS OiN WAR 315

to-day has other and better ways of securing peace. True patriotism and just nationalism call for no mitigation of Christ's clear command that His followers should love their enemies.

In these days one serves one's country best by promoting peace and brotherhood among nations and by opposing the scandal of war. The true patriot will sav with Pope Benedict

XV:

" It remains for Us . . . since in God's hands are the wills of princes and of those who are able to put an end to suffering and destruction, of which we hare spoken, to raise Our voice in supplication to God, and in the name of the whole human race, to cry out: ' Grant, 0 Lord, peace in our day. ' "



Documents

Some Thoughts on War