When the Catechism of the Catholic Church addresses this issue, it does not start by answering this question, but by placing it in the context of the duty of safeguarding peace.
It says: “By recalling the commandment, "You shall not kill," our Lord asked for peace of heart and denounced murderous anger and hatred as immoral.”
The Catechism continues: “Deliberate hatred is contrary to charity. Hatred of the neighbour is a sin when one deliberately wishes him evil. Hatred of the neighbour is a grave sin when one deliberately desires him grave harm. "But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven."
Only then, after it had spoken about peace, does the Catechism speak about Avoiding war. This is in line with the teachings of the Popes since the Christmas radio messages of Pope Pius XII, the pope of the Second World War and Pope John XXIII in Pacem in Terris who spoke about rejecting war.
The Compendium of the Social Teaching of the Church speaks of the biblical concept of peace, and of its fruits.
It says: “In biblical revelation, peace is much more than the simple absence of war. It represents the fullness of life.”
The Catechism states: “The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war.
“All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war." However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."
There was a time in the church when theologians spoke of a “Just War”. The Catechism refers to this teaching of the Church. This was taught by St Augustine in the fourth and fifth centuries and St Thomas Aquinas (1226 – 1274) in the middle ages.
This teaching of Thomas Aquinas about a just war speaks about the moral reasons before a country goes to war and the rules of moral conduct during war.
The moral reasons that might justify going to war are enlisted as seven.
Before war ever starts there needs to be a just cause. Revenge, aggression, political, territorial and economic gain are not considered to be a just cause for a war. If citizens are captured, property is seized, land is occupied or allies are being invaded, there could be a case for a just war. One needs to remember that the reasons put out to the mass media are not always all the reasons. They could be some of the reasons, or they could be presented from a certain angle or with a certain spin.
The war needs to be declared by a competent authority. A private citizen, a trade union, a political party, a news paper, a television station, a website cannot call a war. A ruler of country could with due safe guards to the right requests of national and international law.
There needs to be comparative justice. In other words the question needs to be asked and answered in good conscience: is the damage that is going to be inflicted too big a price to be paid for the values that are at stake?
Not only must the competent authority be able to come up with a just cause for the proposed military intervention but it also needs to have the right intention.
The war has to be very much the last resort, after as many other peaceful methods have been used to achieve the same ends as the war have been used and failed. Economic sanctions could be applied but care needs to be taken that these do not punish those who do not deserve to be punished. Care also needs to be taken so that in the process of using peaceful methods like blockades, mediation, arbitration, public and political pressure, that the enemy is not given time so as to strike again and inflict greater harm on the defenceless. The true objective of such measures is to open the way to negotiation and dialogue.
A risk assessment needs to be done as to whether it seems probable that the war ends up as a success. If it emerges that it would just end up as a blood bath for its own sake, then there should be no war.
Also, the evils and suffering that result from the war must be proportionately less or smaller than the evils or suffering, which would have ensued had there been no conflict. If more misery will result by going to war than deciding not to go, the moral choice is to wait, defer, or use other means. The economic, physical, and human costs need to be planned and measured carefully before entering into war.
Once the decision is taken to enter into war, Thomas Aquinas gives two rules of conduct during war. There needs to be proportionality and discrimination of non-combatants.
Discrimination of non-combatants means that for example attacking a hospital or a block of flats or a village where innocent civilians live, for its own sake, is simply not acceptable. Military and strategic targets are the only morally permissible sites for attacks.
Proportionality during war implies that a war is not an exercise in revenge and causing damage for the sake of inflicting damage and harm. A just war would use moral means during the execution of the war. Biological weapons are considered immoral, because the damage they inflict is out of proportion to what is needed to achieve victory. Equally immoral are weapons of massive destruction. Care needs to be taken also in the use of tactical nuclear weapons. They can only be used if employed as a last resort, there are no other means to deter the aggressor, and there is significant accuracy and control to target only valid sites.
Although people still speak of a “just war”, the emphasis of the Magisterium of the Church however is on defending peace, defined not merely as the absence of war but as “development”. The church teaches that true peace is made possible only through forgiveness and reconciliation. Reconciliation is made up of both justice and truth. The church promotes disarmament.
One relevant point cannot be omitted especially in today’s climate.
It is about terrorism. The Catechism and the Compendium of Social Teaching of the Church both say that this is one of the most brutal forms of violence traumatising the international community today. It sows hatred, death and an urge for revenge and reprisal. It is to be condemned “in the most absolute terms”. It shows complete contempt for human life and can never be justified. Pope John Paul after the events of September 11, 2001, said that while “no religion may tolerate terrorism and much less preach it”, there exists a right to defend one self against terrorism.
The fight against terrorism presupposes the moral duty to help create those conditions that will prevent it from arising or developing. Then two years later the same pope identified a number of other issues in this regard. The right to defend oneself from terrorism cannot be exercised in the absence of moral and legal norms. The identification of the guilty party must be duly proven and “it is essential that the use of force, even when necessary, be accompanied by a courageous and lucid analysis of the reasons behind terrorist attacks”.
