Challenging Times Require Prophetic Words
A Reply to the Bishops' Pastoral
Letter: "Living with Faith and Hope after September 11."
Many good things were said in the recent
Pastoral Message of the U.S. Bishops: "Living with Faith and Hope After September 11." But one
can't help notice an unresolved tension and even dissonance between the bishops' appeal to the Gospel
reading from the Beatitudes - "Blessed are the peacemakers" - and their promotion of just war tradition;
between their affirmation that "Jesus' life, teaching, death and resurrection shows us the meaning and
love and justice in a broken world," and "their defense of the right and duty of a nation and the international
community to use military force if necessary to defend the common good by protecting the innocent against
mass terrorism."
This tension was even more evident in an impassioned plea from the floor by Bishop Tom
Gumbleton to return "to the nonviolent teachings of Jesus and the tradition of the early Church." Responses
to Bishop Gumbleton's intervention acknowledged his prophetic voice in the Church, and gave a nod of appreciation
to pacifism as an individual option. But his pleas were dismissed in light of a "valid principle that
governments do have to protect their people and protect the innocent." To which Bishop Gumbleton replied, "Yes,
but it is a mistake to think that the only way for a government to defend its citizens is through military means.
You can defend with nonviolence; Jesus showed us that."
In his remarks to the bishops in the assembly,
Cardinal Bernard Law, chairman of the International Policy Committee that drafted the Pastoral Letter,
stated: "As a Conference, I do not believe we can say that any use of military force must be ruled out - no matter
what the attack, what the loss, what the future threat. On the other hand, we cannot ever become comfortable
with the use of military force, supporting any action, at any cost, for any purpose. Our Catholic tradition with
its presumption against the use of force, which can be overridden only as a last resort to protect the common good,
is the way we find our way through these difficult days."
But the bishops never raised the crucial questions
of whether the U.S. response to the terrorist attacks of September 11 should not more properly be pursued
through international law as a crime against humanity rather than a war against terrorism; and whether
the current U.S. military action and bombing campaign in Afghanistan qualifies as "a last resort".
Does
the Pastoral Letter actually say, as The Washington Post reported in its headline, that "Roman
Catholic Bishops Declare U.S. War is Moral"? The bishops do put forward a disclaimer: "We seek to articulate
traditional Catholic teaching as a guide for our people and nation, offering a moral framework rather than a
series of specific judgments on rapidly changing events." But precisely by failing to make these specific
judgments after five weeks of a concerted U.S. bombing campaign in Afghanistan, the bishops strongly imply
that the U.S. military response is justified.
Just War or Just Peace?
Many of us had hoped
the bishops would have said what Pax Christi International wrote in a letter to President Bush: "Pax Christi
International urgently calls upon you and your government to halt immediately the bombing of Afghanistan.
This will allow the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and other international agencies to ensure
that sufficient aid may be delivered to the Afghan people before the onset of winter in a few weeks."
This did not happen. Nor is the tension in the Pastoral Letter between the Gospel claim to nonviolence
and the just war claim to the legitimate use of force a new one in Catholic teaching on war and peace. But in
light of the immense destructive capacity of modern warfare, and the increased appeal to Gospel nonviolence in
recent teachings of the bishops and papal encyclicals since the Second Vatican Council, just war teachings have
more often served to severely limit if not disqualify altogether, both the actual reasons for going to war as
well as the actual conduct of wars in the last two decades.
A careful reading of the Pastoral Letter,
in light of the amendments that were rejected, also reveals this unresolved tension, as evidenced in several
amendments proposed by Bishop John Botean: "The teachings of Jesus foregoing the use of force apply, even in
the face of terrorism," was rejected and the original wording, "The traditional moral norms governing the use
of force still apply, even in the face of terrorism on this scale," was left.
Where the Pastoral Letter
reads, "Every military response must be in accord with sound moral principles, notably such norms of the just
war tradition as non-combatant immunity, proportionality, right intention and the probability of success," Bishop
Botean adds, "Every act not in such accord cannot be considered morally justified regardless of its military expediency.
The unjustified taking of even one human life is by definition murder." This amendment was also rejected.
Where the
Pastoral Letter reads, "Because of its terrible consequences, military force, even when justified
and carefully executed, must always be undertaken with a sense of deep regret," Bishop Botean adds, "and
never with the understanding or belief that it reflects in any way the will of God." This too was rejected.
War Is a Defeat for Humanity
Two citations from Pope John Paul II proposed by Bishop Gumbleton
that express this "deep regret" were also rejected by the bishops. John Paul II's judgment on violence could
not be clearer: "Violence is a lie for it goes against the truth of our faith, the truth of our humanity...
Do not believe in violence. Do not support violence. It is not the Christian way. It is not the way of the
Catholic Church. Believe in peace, forgiveness and love. For they are of Christ."
The second statement
was John Paul II's judgment on the Gulf War, cited in his encyclical, Centesimus Annus: "Never again war.
No, never again war, which destroys the lives of innocent people, teaches how to kill, throws into upheaval the
lives of those who do the killing and leaves behind a trail of resentment and hatred, thus making it all the more
difficult to find a just solution of the very problems which provoked the war."
Why were these citations
rejected out of hand? Do they not express most clearly the Church's authoritative condemnation of war and
violence, and in the bishop's own words, its "strong presumption against the use of force?" Do we not hear
echoes of Pope Paul VI's cry before the United Nations General Assembly in 1965?: "War no more, war never
again!"
As recently as January 1, 2000, in his message for the celebration of the World Day of Peace, John
Paul II was even stronger in his appeal for peace: "In the century we are leaving behind, humanity has been
sorely tried by an endless and horrifying sequence of wars, conflicts, genocides and "ethnic cleansings" which
have caused unspeakable suffering: millions and millions of victims, families and countries destroyed, an ocean
of refugees, misery, hunger, disease, underdevelopment and the loss of immense resources… War is a defeat
for humanity."
Gospel Nonviolence: Individual Option or Witness of the Church?
The bishops do
say early on that "the most effective counter to terrorist claims of religious justification comes from
within the world's rich religious traditions and from the witness of so many people of faith who have
been a powerful force for non-violent human liberation around the world." They also affirm a nation's "moral
right and grave obligation to defend the common good against mass terrorism," adding "How the common good is
defended and peace is restored is a critical moral issue." And they conclude that "while military action may
be necessary, it is by no means sufficient to deal with this terrorist threat," thus requiring "a wide-range
of non-military measures," including "a persistent effort to pursue negotiations," the latter phrase an amendment
proposed by Bishop Gumbleton and accepted by the bishops.
But a persistent tension remains between "the moral
right and grave obligation of nations to defend the common good and restore peace" through military action or
through the force of non-violence; between "the powerful witness for non-violent liberation around the world"
and the resort to military action by states.
The heart of this tension between Gospel non-violence and just-war
use of force is expressed by the bishops in the Pastoral Letter as follows: "Some Christians profess a position
of principled non-violence, which holds that non-military means are the only legitimate way to respond in this case.
This is a valid Christian response," and Bishop Botean adds in an amendment that was rejected, "It is the response
of the early Church, indeed the response of Jesus when faced with the threat of his own death."
The Pastoral
Letter, however, continues along another line: "While respecting this position and maintaining a strong
presumption against the use of force, the Church has sanctioned the use of the moral criteria for a just war to
allow the use of force by legitimate authority in self-defense and as a last resort." Why is non-violence always
relegated to the realm of individual conscience and not placed front and center in the public realm as the
responsibility of states?
In fact, the bishops do say, "National leaders bear a heavy moral obligation to
see that the full-range of non-violent means is employed." But this is immediately followed by their acknowledgement
of "the right and duty of a nation and the international community to use military force if necessary to defend the
common good by protecting the innocent against mass terrorism."
Why is more attention given to "the legitimate
use of force?" Do we not have a rich tradition of non-violent action in the public realm, precisely to defend the
values of justice, human rights, security and freedom that the legitimate use of force is said to protect? Are not
the non-violent campaigns undertaken by Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and by people in the Philippines against marshal
law, and later by Eastern Europeans and Russians during the collapse of the Soviet Union and its client states "public"
examples of effective non-violent action?
Challenging Just-War Doctrine on Its Own Terms
Even in its own
terms of just-war criteria, the bishops acknowledge that "those who subscribe to the just war tradition can differ
in their prudential judgments about its interpretation or its application." And here, too, can we not raise concerns
about whether the U.S. war on terrorism and U.S. military action and bombing in Afghanistan meet the specific criteria
required by the just war tradition?
For example, in terms of just cause, to what extent is a broad-based,
long-term war on terrorism legitimate self-defense? In terms of just intent, to what extent is this war on
terrorism limited by the objective to bring to justice those responsible for the crimes of September 11 and prevent
further terrorist activity and to what extent does it pursue objectives of political, economic and military advantage
in the world? Even if there is a probability of "success," what does this "success" look like to the victims
of the bombing and at what cost in human lives and destruction will this happen? In terms of proportionality,
the aim of the war is presumably restoring peace and security, but are these not also being undermined by the actual
and even potential suffering and destruction caused by such a war? And was this really a last resort? Couldn't
other means have been pursued that relied less on military action and more on political, economic and diplomatic means?
These criteria taken as a whole must be satisfied in order to override the strong presumption against the use of
force. Whether the current U.S. war on terrorism and the military action and bombing of Afghanistan meet any of these
criteria was never seriously discussed or questioned by the bishops.
The just war tradition also seeks to curb the
violence of war by imposing certain criteria for the conduct of armed conflict. Here, too, can we not raise the following
concerns? For example, at what point is the criterion of discrimination or noncombatant immunity violated? The
bishops do say, "Everything possible [must be done] to avoid civilian casualties, a commitment that must be sustained
over the long-term." But how many civilian deaths from the bombings can be tolerated? Where do we draw the line? Isn't
the death of one child too many? And at what point is the criterion of proportionality in the conduct of the war
violated? The bishops say, "Everything possible [must be done] to address the long-standing humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan,
especially the risk of mass suffering and starvation this winter." But so far this concern has taken a back seat to the
overall U.S. military objective of destroying the terrorists and the Taliban regime that harbors them. Does U.S. military
action and bombing help or hinder efforts to get humanitarian aid to the refugees? And if it hinders it, isn't the threat
of millions starving disproportionate to any good to be achieved by the war?
These criteria taken as a whole must also
be satisfied in order to override the strong presumption against the use of force. Whether five weeks of U.S. military action
and bombing of Afghanistan violates the norms of noncombatant immunity and proportionality was also never seriously discussed
or questioned by the bishops. What must happen for the bishops to decide that this war is no longer "just?" How much time
needs to elapse before the bishops decide to no longer withhold "specific judgments" about the U.S. war on terrorism?
And what are the long-term consequences of military action? Why didn't the bishops at least raise the "fear of disproportionate
results," i.e. that the damage to be inflicted by the war and the costs incurred would exceed any good to be expected by
military action? Something that John Paul II did a letter to President Bush, Sr. before the Gulf War. Clearly, in hindsight,
John Paul was right. According to La Civilta Catolica, in "Modern War and the Christian Conscience," more than 30,000
Iraqi civilians and 175,000 Iraqi soldiers were killed in the war, not to mention more than one million who have died - 500,000
of them children - due to the U.N. and U.S. economic sanctions imposed on the people.
Addressing the Roots of Violence
and Its Consequences
To be fair, there are many statements in the Pastoral Letter that do address the roots of
violence. The bishops affirm: "Our nation must join with others in addressing policies and problems that provide fertile ground
in which terrorism can thrive." They mention Pope Paul VI's declaration, "If you want peace, work for justice." And they add,
"This wisdom should not be misunderstood. No injustice legitimizes the horror we have experienced. But a more just world will
be a more peaceful world. There will still be people of hate and violence, but they will have fewer allies, supporters and
resources to commit their heinous acts."
The bishops also call for "greater moral scrutiny" with regard to globalization:
"Our nation, as a principal force for economic globalization, must do more to spread the benefits of globalization to all,
especially the world's poorest. The injustice and instability in far away lands about which we know too little can have a direct
impact on our own sense of peace and security." They specifically cite "the scandal of poverty" as deserving special attention:
"Intolerable extremes of misery and a growing gulf between the 'haves' and the 'have-nots' characterize much of today's world,
and breed hostility towards economic globalization. This hostility can be addressed, in part, by a comprehensive development
agenda, including substantially increased foreign aid, more equitable trade, and continuing efforts to relieve the crushing
burden of debt." In particular, the bishops challenge the United States to substantially increase its share of development
aid: "We who have so much have a responsibility to the world's needy. We cannot remain last among donor countries in development
aid. The United States contributes just one-tenth of one percent of its gross national product in official development assistance,
as compared with the international development target of 0.7% of GNP, a target endorsed by our country many times." By way of comparison,
after the Second World War, the United States contributed two percent of its GNP to the Marshall Plan. Nowhere, however, is
the contradiction between "maintaining a strong military" and "substantially increasing foreign aid" really addressed. Pope Paul
VI alluded to this decades ago when he called the arms race "a theft from the poor" because it deprived the poor of valuable
resources. Recently, the U.S. Congress gave President Bush $40 billion to fight the war on terrorism. According to international
development economists, such an amount could easily ensure that the basic needs of health and education are met for all the
impoverished children of the world. Nor does the $1.6 trillion tax cut recently passed by the U.S. Congress raise a single
penny for development aid. Challenges such as these must be made more directly if our nation is not going to continue in an
endless cycle of increased military expenditures, military interventions and military violence.
One bright spot in the
Pastoral Letter are the references made to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and to Iraq. The bishops call on "all parties,
including the United States, to put an end to the violence and to return to comprehensive negotiations leading to a just
and peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that respects human rights and international law. We support
real security for Israel and the establishment of a viable state for Palestinians." In Iraq, the bishops regard the continuing
massive suffering of the Iraqi people over the past decade as "simply intolerable," and "they deplore the unconscionable
policies which have led to the death, from disease and malnutrition, of hundreds of thousands of children." And while they
hold the Iraqi government responsible for this suffering, they also condemn "the comprehensive economic sanctions, even as
modified by the 'oil-for-food' program, for causing horrendous suffering," and call for bringing them to an end "without delay."
Finally, they cite an important commitment to solidarity: "While our first responsibility is to the common good of our own
society, we have an inescapable obligation to promote the global common good as well."
The Cross of Jesus Is the Greatest
Symbol of Nonviolent Love
The bishops have, in their own words, presented "a balanced document," but they have failed to
present a prophetic one in times such as these that cry out for justice and for peace. Is it too much to have wished they might
have said what several Nobel Peace Laureates said in a letter to the Secretary General of the United Nations entitled: "Human
Life is Sacred: An Appeal to Restraint and a Call to Action in a Moment of Crisis."
"In this moment of crisis we are
confronted by a challenge whose outcome may determine the future of this first century of the new millennium. The UN General
Assembly has declared the first ten years of the 21st century to be the Decade for a Culture of Peace and Nonviolence for
the Children of the World. We believe that the time has come to implement that decision. We therefore call upon the world
community and especially upon the American people to take up the challenge that is presented to them in the midst of adversity.
We recognize the need to respond quickly and decisively to these terrible acts of terrorism. Yet we appeal to the American
government to refrain from military retaliation. Any actions taken must be guided by international law and fall within the
bounds of the United Nations Charter."
And why couldn't they have said, with Gospel simplicity, what Mairead Corrigan Maguire,
herself a veteran of peace efforts in Northern Ireland and a Nobel Peace Laureate said: "I came to the realization as a Catholic,
as a Christian, that Jesus said love your enemy. There is no just war. You can't read the gospels and not know that Jesus was
totally nonviolent. The cross is the greatest symbol of nonviolent love."
In the end, we got just what the bishops promised
us, "a balanced document," even a very pastoral one. In these "troubling and challenging times," however, we had hoped for a
prophetic and, perhaps, even a more Gospel one.
© Scott Wright, November 21, 2001
