Links to related websites Contact us for more information View our site map
Sisters of the Holy Cross Home Page
Congregation Overview
Our Commitment to Global Justice
Historical and Contemporary Influences
Vocation and Calling
The Congregation Development Office
Information and Education about the Sisters of the Holy Cross
Congregational Archives
Congregation News and Updates

According to our tradition, what are the criteria for a Just War?

            The Just War theory, attributed to St. Augustine in the fifth century, has evolved until the present day, but essentially presumes war is evil and should therefore be avoided. If war cannot be avoided, it must at least be limited. And even if there is a just cause, it does not assure a just war.

          The Catechism of the Catholic Church enumerates strict conditions for a “just war” which require “rigorous consideration.” These conditions must be applied at one and the same time (cf. nos. 2302-2317).

  1. Just Cause – the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain.

  2. Last Resort – all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective.

  3. Probability of Success – there must be serious prospects of success.

  4. Proportionality – the use of arms must not produce evils or disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

  5. Discrimination – there must be a distinction between combatants and noncombatants. (While the Catechism considers discrimination to be of secondary importance, most just war theorists consider it essential.)

Would a preemptive military strike on Iraq conform to the Just War criteria?

          Each person of conscience must evaluate the proposed war on Iraq and decide for her/himself. However, several questionable areas are evident:

  1. Has Iraq inflicted “lasting, grave, and certain” damage on the U.S. or other allied nations who may join the U.S. in the preemptive military strike?

  2. Have all other means of settling the conflict been exhausted? (e.g. diplomatic means, renewed weapons inspections, a consideration of the sanctions currently imposed on Iraq, mediation by a third party or nation, etc.)

  3. How will success be defined? (Regime change, confiscation of “weapons of mass destruction,” destruction of weapons producing facilities, victory, peace, etc.)

  4. Questions about proportionality will be raised before, during and long after any proposed military strike occurs. Many experts believe that modern weaponry obviates the possibility of a just war (cf. Pastoral Constitution on the Modern World – Gaudium et Spes, n. 80).

  5. The fact that in the 20th century between 50-80 percent of all fatalities in war have been civilians raises grave questions about discrimination in future military conflicts.

The Just War Theory is part of our tradition, but so is pacifism and nonviolence. Is a nonviolent response possible in this present situation?

          Pacifism was the primary Christian response to conflict for the first three hundred years following Christ’s life on earth. Yet many Christians are not aware of pacifism as a viable Christian alternative to war. In fact, many are not even aware of what constitutes a pacifist approach to conflict.

It’s important to note that pacifism does not mean passivity. In fact, Webster’s dictionary notes that pacifism is rooted in two Latin words: pax and facere, to make peace. Gandhi preferred the term active nonviolence to pacifism.  He stated, “Nonviolence is not a garment to be put on and off at will. Its seat is in the heart, and it must be an inseparable part of our being.” He further reflected that Christians seem to be the only ones who don’t acknowledge or admit that Jesus was nonviolent. Love of enemy is the ethic taught by Jesus. Episcopalian priest Charlie McCarthy noted that it’s acceptable to subscribe to the Just War Theory to remedy a wrong (assuming you meet all of its criteria). But it would be wrong to say that you are doing it in the name of Jesus.

          Jesuit priest, author and peace activist Daniel Berrigan may have said it best: The reason we don’t have peace is because peacemakers are not as willing to sacrifice as much as those who make war.1.

          So what would a pacifist/nonviolent response to the present crisis over Iraq look like? It could include several actions, such as:

  1. Organizing and/or participating in lawful demonstrations or vigils

  2. Prayer and fasting

  3. Lobbying/letter writing (faxing, e-mailing) to elected officials

  4. Sponsoring an educational event on Iraq for your religious congregation, community group or place of worship

  5. Writing letters to the editor or op-ed pieces for your local newspaper

  6. Participating in nonviolent civil disobedience at U.S. Federal facilities, Congressional offices, military installations, or other appropriate places.2.

1.Christian Response to Terrorism: Nonviolence by Bob Bossie, SCJ. Published in Centerings, Vol. XXVII, No. 2/Winter 2001, p.6.

2.Actions include those cited in the Iraq Peace Pledge of the Fellowship of Reconciliation. See          http://www.peacepledge.org/pledgecombined.pdf