The Christian Tradition of Just War - Essay Example

139864 "This war is not merely a political and an economic struggle, but rather a theological one. It is not political and economic, because politics and economics are concerned only with the means of living" (Sheen, 19431). Christian tradition of just war is very different from the contemporary patterns of warfare. Just War tradition was developed by many Christian theologians and Christianity had its own very specific concept of warfare and the way it should be conducted. Just war is rooted on high morals, good principles, exalted ethics, and intense desire to take the right path, honesty and impartiality. Many thinkers and intellectuals, not to mention religious leaders, have lent their support to Just War and have moulded it over centuries with their contributions. According to Christian theory, resorting to war under any circumstances other than self defence is immoral, because war is never justifiable. At the same time, war is State's option and right of self-defence. "This is selective pacifism, for it does not deny the state the right of self-defense; it only denies to the Christian the right to participate. Likewise the just war theory gives no blanket endorsement of war, but demands painstaking discrimination between just and unjust causes," (Holmes, 19752). Just war theory's whole object is achievement of peace and harmony for all concerned and should be resorted to after every other road to peace is closed. "The just-war theory requires that the object of war be peace and that every expedient for reconciliation shall have been exhausted prior to the declaration of hostilities," (Bainton, 19613). Just War is considered to be just, because it is interference on behalf of humanity, to establish peace, to repel an inhuman attack, to save people from its grips, to abolish anarchy. War for peace is also called Moral war because its intention is re-establishing morality and natural law. Just War tradition is of two fold: one is when to launch into a Just War and another, how to conduct the war without resorting into injustice. So it covers not only the motive, but also the process. The end result of winning or losing does not figure much in a Just War even though every war is fought for winning. As the means of winning the war has to be just and beyond reproach, the result of the war takes a secondary place. As morality, ethics and justice should support the origin of such a war and shape the conduction of it, its end result, even though important, cannot be achieved by mean methods. Cicero, Augustine, Aquinas, Grotius and many more philosophers stood by Just War. This includes demands like a competent authority to declare the war, and there should be all probability of success, amongst other just causes. St. Augustine categorised them as follows: "1. Defending against an external attack; 2. Recapturing things taken; 3. Punishing people who have done wrong." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war Just War should be conducted as an act of discrimination where only the guilty party should be punished and not the civilians and non-offenders. And this means biological weapons, weapons of mass destruction and nuclear weapons of any kind are ruled out. Another principle is that it should be governed by proportionality, and this means, the use of force should be proportional to the offence committed and not beyond that. Civilian deaths, attacks on helpless refugees, mass killings, and indiscriminate persecution are ruled out. Also it demands minimum force. Excessive killings, torture, destruction, upheaval, exodus, genocide, target killings of particular groups due to enmity are not allowed. Just wars demand just cause, just intent and war should be the last resort after exhausting all other means of achieving peace. There should be a lawful declaration of war and during war, non-combatant groups like medical services, ambassadors, journalists, individuals providing service like Red Cross, and organisations that provide relief to refugees and dislocated people should be spared of all military actions. "This rule states that those not directly engaged in the fighting or not contributing to the military aspect of the war effort, must not be the object of direct attack," (Harries, 19864). War's objective should be peace and this means any unconditional surrender should be accepted with minimum persecution. War's main intent should be minimising the war and not escalating the situation. Limited violence, natural law, But the real wars, especially the recent wars are very different from the Christian Just War theory. These pacifist and just war theories do not apply to present day war fare any more. It is difficult to say if Christianity should support guerrillas because like any other religion, Christianity is based on the natural law of justice. "The Christian just revolution tradition does not believe that only one principle is relevant. It deals with life in all its complexity and ambiguity and tries to provide a framework with which to think about the many difficult situations that arise when one group exploits and oppresses another," (Harries, 19825) Under St. Francis, Christianity went into reconciliation and pacifism and the crusade was being replaced by missionary activities. Medieval period was dominated by pacifism of Church and most of the feuds ended with reconciliation. There is Biblical basis for Pacifism and it stems out of the creation stories where man co-operates with God to safeguard the creation. In Bible there are many instances of understanding and conciliation. "So too, the entry into Canaan was accomplished by a warfare and massacre which were regarded as blessed by God, though it should not be forgotten that when Joshua met the captain of the Lord's army, and asked "Are you for us or for our enemies", the implicit answer was 'Neither', (Josh. 24.2-13)6. Just war tradition has no place in ambushes, terrorism, guerrilla warfare, or the present war in Iraq. They belong to different worlds, one to the tradition of Natural Law of justice and another, to the modern 'anything for a win' world, where civilians, non-combatants, children, any unconnected individuals, refugees all get killed, maimed, wounded and there is no discrimination or proportion in it. With today's weapons of mass destruction it almost becomes impossible to wage a war and not to use them and not spreading the war beyond its boundaries. "To destroy civilization as we know it by waging such a "total war" as today it could be waged would be a monstrously disproportionate response to aggression on the part of any nation" http://www.americancatholic.org/News/JustWar/justwar.asp Today's military ethics is a far cry from the just war, as we see battlefields of Iraq or even Afghanistan. Proportionate war, discrimination all have disappeared and States like US use their ultimate military strength on an insignificant and unorganised enemy. Who could be a better example of this than Israel, who has indiscriminately used its might against unarmed people of Gaza strip Moral courage and obligation, peace, harmony, and ethics do not go with the present war on terrorism. To be frank, things have changed from the erring side too, which calls for disproportionate actions. When just war was shaped there were no suicide bombers. It is difficult to classify the attack on World Trade Centre. From one angle it is a crime, from another it is an act of war, a just war. All religions have the basic understanding that God is fair and just and the followers of these religions have shown enormous courage faced by odds, depending on this belief and it is difficult now to understand how people could be killing in the name of the same God. "Religion is clearly not the only catalyst of total war and other forms of indiscriminate violence. People seem to be able to invent all sorts of rationales for mass killing without feeling the need to cite the will of God" http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/submitted/Perry/holywar.html Just war principles and counter terrorism are poles apart and perhaps circumstance dictated. Punishment of evil has two sides of it, as personification of evil is always the opposite party. Same goes with right cause where 'ours cause happens to be right and theirs wrong'. And the same goes to defence against wrongful attack. Modern pacifists are far and few in political circles and even if they are there, their voices are feeble now. Just war is an old tradition, now facing new challenges. The mainstream of Christian ethics approved of wars, but insisted that it should be a just one. We hear the voice of dissent even today, challenging the present wars of mass destruction with sanity of just war. BIBLIOGRAPHY: 1. Barette, Clive (1987), Peace Together, Cambridge: James Clarke & Co. 2. Bainton, Roland H. (1961), Christian Attitudes Toward War and Peace, London: Hodder and Stoughton. 3. Holmes, Arthur F. (1975), War and Christian Ethics, Michigan: Baker Book House. 4. Harries, Richard (1982), Should a Christian Support Guerillas Guildford: Lutter Worth Press. 5. Harries, Richard (1986), Christianity and War in a Nuclear Age, London: Mowbray. 6. Martin, David (1997), Does Christianity Cause War Oxford: Clarendon Press. 7. Sheen, Fulton J. (1943), Philophies at War, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. ONLINE SOURCES: 1. Just War, from Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war (accessed on 6.11.2006). 2. When is War Justified http://www.americancatholic.org/News/JustWar/justwar.asp (accessed on 7.11.2006). 3. http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/submitted/Perry/holywar.html 4. Read More