At war on the Fourth of July

The fireworks on the Fourth of July celebrate the political independence of the United States, but they also remind us that our national sovereignty was obtained through war and that war has been part of our nation’s history in almost every generation.

This Fourth of July, the United States is officially at war with a terrorist movement that attacked New York City and Washington, D.C., last Sept. 11. How do we bring moral judgement to this war? The usual framework for judging whether or not it is moral to fight a war presupposes that one nation is fighting another nation, that the enemy is another politically sovereign state and that the war is openly declared. “Just war” theory also presupposes that force is being used to repel unjust aggression of one country against another and that force will be used proportionately and only when all peaceful means to resolve the conflict have been exhausted. Even in the fighting itself, “just war” theory imposes limits by insisting on the distinction between armies and civilians; it condemns “indiscriminate” means of killing even in a just cause.

This classical “just war” framework for making moral judgments about armed conflict was reconsidered and refashioned in the U.S. Bishops’ Peace Pastoral of 20 years ago. The United States had been for several decades in a “cold war,” with armed conflict between nations avoided only by the threat of nuclear destruction. Was it moral to make such a threat, when nuclear weapons were completely indiscriminate, killing both combatants and non-combatants in the same strike? How did “just war” theory apply to a cold war? Cardinal Bernardin and the bishops of that time judged that nuclear weapons could be held by the belligerent cold warriors but not actually used in an armed conflict. It was moral to keep them but immoral to use them. Left unresolved was the dilemma that a threat that could not be acted upon loses its power to dissuade. Fortunately, that dilemma did not have to be resolved. With the internal dissolution of the Soviet Union, the framework of the Peace Pastoral also largely dissolved.

Can the “just war” principles be useful now in judging a war against terrorism? The enemy is not another state, but an ill-defined movement which operates in many states and is claimed by none. The combatants’ goal is not to win a battle but to terrorize, and civilians become the direct object of attack. Since this violent activity is clearly immoral, the U.S. bishops, along with the Holy Father and bishops from around the world, rightly condemned the attacks of Sept. 11 as immoral. The U.S. bishops said our country has a right and the public authorities have a duty to defend civilians against terrorist attacks. This is a just defense, designed to rescue very ordinary people from danger and fear in going about very ordinary activities: taking a bus or a plane, going to work or school, shopping and eating and worshiping God.

Moral questions remain about the means used to defend against terrorist attacks and the duty of the international community to combat terrorists no matter where they operate. Can “just war” theory be helpful in reflecting on these new moral challenges? What can be said after declaring that it is moral to defend oneself, even violently, against terrorists? Even if we agree that increased surveillance of the civilian population and clandestine operations against terrorists at home are moral in the context of the war against terrorism, must we also acknowledge a moral duty to defend foreigners against terrorism? In recent decades, protecting civilians in foreign countries against home-grown terrorism, sometimes by their own governments, has been justified under the theory of “humanitarian intervention.” These interventions are unevenly supervised by United Nations “peacekeepers,” and they have not prevented the massacre of civilians in Bosnia, Rwanda and Burundi. If there is a duty to defend others against terrorist attacks, we’ve not found ways to do it effectively.

Because “just war” theory is strained and perhaps inadequate in judging the moral use of violence in today’s war against terrorism, some moralists return to pacifism as an evangelical ideal. The witness of individual Christian pacifists is precious within the community of faith. Pacifism as a practical principle is like the profession of poverty, chastity and obedience in consecrated life: the Church needs witnesses to the Kingdom; but the Kingdom has not yet come. In the meantime, most people search for a public morality and a criterion for judgment for government officials and those who have responsibility for the protection of others in the context of politically sovereign nation states. Pacifism as a theory at least implicitly denies the legitimacy of the nation state. Pacifists should not be celebrating the Fourth of July; and many, out of a sense of their own integrity, do not. It is important to listen to them, even as we search for a moral theory to judge the use of violence against terrorism. Only if that search is deemed impossible, does one have the right to declare that all Christians must be pacifists.

On the Fourth of July, Americans celebrate their personal liberties as well as the independence of the United States. Religious liberty, supposedly key to our form of constitutional government, includes the right to worship God according to one’s faith and the right of faith communities to govern themselves and participate in public life. All three dimensions of religious liberty are being contested this Fourth of July by secularists and their allies. In recent weeks, the Mass has been transformed into a press conference, despite requests to the media to respect the worshiping community; the ordinary governance of the Catholic Church has been subjected to investigation and criticism in ways that leave our future uncertain; and the mere mention of God in public speech has been deemed a threat by a few federal judges. This is a topic that deserves longer reflection. Its practical forum is the media and the courts, in which a form of non-violent combat takes place. The rules of moral engagement in these combats are even more uncertain than “just war” theory, but the outcome will determine not only the future of the Catholic Church in this country but the shape of the country itself.

The attacks of last Sept. 11 reminded us that, fairly or unfairly, many outside this country see the United States not as a beacon of justice but as a source of oppression. Besides external enemies, there are internal critics who, fairly or unfairly, experience the United States not as a place of personal freedom but as a tyrannical system, a dictatorship of judges.

As we listen and ponder these criticisms, the celebration of Independence Day this year has us asking questions and praying for God’s direction. That’s what it means to be a pilgrim people. God bless you.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Archbishop of Chicago

Subscribe to the the Catholic New World

Top

---