Well, friends. Pope Leo recently declared in his encyclical Magnifica Humanitas that “‘just war’ theory, which has all too often been used to justify any kind of war, is now outdated” (192). I feel that this may be a moment for me to speak into this discourse and particularly to my friends who want to honor or hold onto me.
Jesus offers us a way of love that calls us to care so much for others that we give the other space to respond and even to let go. Jesus invites us to a love that liberates us from possessiveness of another person and of our own lives. This non-possessiveness is particularly true for ideas or ways of reasoning.
I’m quite appreciative of the invitation into the Christian tradition by some thinkers who arose after Jesus. It’s nice to feel valued as a tool intended by some to prevent and limit war. We’ve certainly had many years together working toward this end, while others also saw in me a tool to enable certain ‘just’ wars. Either way, it does seem like we’ve reached a certain limit. Let me try to explain, in a spirit of love.
First, although some voices drew on me to prevent and limit war, unfortunately and over a conclusive period of time across cultures and types of society, I have mostly been used to justify wars, particularly by political leaders and even at times some religious leaders. Many of you who cling to me have recognized this. I really do understand the good intentions of many of you and the effort put in to make me known, to refine me, to enter me into legal frameworks. Yet, when we look at how I’ve functioned in human society, I humbly admit that I just haven’t been able to adequately prevent or limit war. This is the case whether I’ve been applied ‘correctly’ or ‘abused.’ It’s not merely about others misusing me. It’s not merely about ‘realist or permissive uses’ versus ‘restrictive uses.’ Cardinal McElroy has said the just war ethic itself has “become only a little bit less than a green light” for war and “increasingly ineffective at restraining war.”
Although I must also admit there is enough evidence to show that not only am I easily abused, but unlike many other moral ways of reasoning, when I am abused there are enormous and horrendous consequences for many people, generations, and the earth, as we have seen in Gaza recently. Is it worth it to keep me when this is the pattern and the fallout? It’s so traumatic for me. I just wonder if there’s a better way.
Second, even when it seems a situation meets some or all of my conditions for war, we still consistently get stuck in cycles of de-humanization and violence. We saw this with World War II leading to the Cold War and numerous proxy wars, such as Korea, Vietnam, Guatemala, and Afghanistan in the 1980s. The war in Afghanistan yielded in part the resentment and conditions which gave birth to Al-Qaeda, 9/11 in the U.S., the 20-year U.S. war in Afghanistan, the spread of Al-Qaeda and, with the 2003 Iraq war, the eventual morphing of parts of it into ISIS. Such cycles of military violence also create massive flows of refugees, generational trauma, and increased violent social habits, such as domestic violence and sexual assault. Research supports these examples as illustrative of a consistent pattern with military interventions.
Third, the possibility of a “just war” which is implied by the logic of my being, has correlated with significant structural and cultural violence. Someone must keep preparing to ‘win’ a potential ‘just war,’ and thus, it requires an ongoing arms race, investment, and diversion of resources. The corresponding cultural violence arises in the form of de-humanizing social habits generated by training for war, media propaganda to support war, and generational trauma from the experience of war. Cultural violence includes those aspects of culture that are easily used to justify or legitimate, both structural and direct violence. Examples include language, conflict habits, symbols, ideology, moral frameworks, media, racism, sexism, etc.The very language of “just war” too often functions in society, even if unintentionally, as a form of cultural violence that further legitimates direct and structural violence. Even Pope Francis clearly stated that “there was a time, even in our Churches, when people spoke of a holy war or a just war. Today we cannot speak in this manner.”
Fourth, it’s quite difficult, if not impossible, to prevent and limit war if I can’t provide adequate moral guidance to transform conflicts by addressing the root causes. I might limit some actions in war, but without paying attention to the root causes, the war will likely go on or start back up in some other form after it appears to end. Thus, I also fall short in building a sustainable peace. In fact, the broader structural and cultural violence normally associated with being prepared for a possible “just” war, often exacerbates the root causes of violence and inhibits sustainable peace. For example, the structural violence of the arms trade often generates more distrust and potential for profiting from war, particularly ongoing war. The use of AI in war represents a similar pattern as Pope Leo pointed out (197-198). Also, the associated cultural violence of de-humanization exacerbates the root causes of violence and inhibits sustainable peace.
I appreciate those who have considered refining and expanding me to ante bellum or post bellum norms as perhaps a way to better prevent war or minimize cycles of violence after war. Others will say “we just need to update me for the contemporary AI environment.” They will claim Pope Leo’s word “outdated” must simply mean I need to be updated. Others will argue that Pope Leo used principles in his encyclical like last resort or civilian protection that are traditionally parts of just war reasoning. Yet, the Pope doesn’t describe them as just war principles, and they don’t necessarily need to be described/re-inscribed as just war thinking. They can be stand alone principles or transformed into a different style of moral reasoning/new moral framework.
I must admit these efforts to update me or reinscribe principles don’t change my inherent being as a “just war” framework. These efforts still fail to help people get to the root causes and focus on other nonviolent strategies once war has broken out, and thus, make it more likely the war continues. They also keep in place the “just war” language and implication of a possible “just war,” that carries with it the previous concerns.
There is still work to do regarding the principle of legitimate defense, which Pope Leo does identify. In order to do this well, I encourage us to reflect on what is most critical to defend, and the various types of defense such as nonviolent civilian-based defense, nonviolent resistance, and unarmed civilian protection. We must not assume legitimate defense must mean armed force.
Fifth, to have much of a chance at using me well, the person or people must have become courageous nonviolent peacemakers. Such people have cultivated a kind of attention, imagination, virtues, skills, and commitment to not only the dignity of our enemies and to develop strategic nonviolent practices and institutions, but also to better and perhaps “really” know if such a moment as “last resort” ever arrives. I don’t really make much of a contribution to this.
Sixth, commitment to human dignity, especially of adversaries, is a real struggle for me. I do want to protect people, especially the dignity of those being attacked. I know my friends may want this. I understand how my friends think such a desire to protect is better for some humans, hence they offer rules to only intend the killing of combatants or to use proportional violent force.
Yet, in practice, I’m just not seeing how I’ve cultivated the normalization of acting in accord with human dignity. How do I help soldiers act as sacred gifts when militaries intentionally train them to de-humanize the adversary and suppress empathy to win these “just wars”? How is dignity being illuminated when even “just war” consistently generates in soldiers persistent trauma, mental health issues, psychological disorders, anger issues, and even moral injury? In addition, “just wars” impact broader societies with generational trauma, de-humanization, increased domestic violence and suicide; not to mention structural and cultural violence. How can this be aligned with human dignity? Even some of my friends recognize that “violence including killing harms human dignity,” and the recent Popes have been crystal clear that violence is inconsistent with human dignity.
Seventh, with all the concern and attention to caring for the earth as God’s creation and our common home, I have tried to find a place in this movement. Some have tried to help me include environmental impact in my criteria of proportionality. I’ve appreciated that. And then I realize how difficult that is in practice. I recognize how the preparation and training for war have a massive toll on the environment, such as military drills, testing weapons, or building bases, which are often on the Superfund list for grave environmental damage, etc. Pope Francis has reminded me that “war always does grave harm to the environment.” This includes damage to air and water quality, destruction of forests, contamination of land, plundering of natural resources, exorbitant use of fossil fuels, harm to biodiversity, killing of animals, and damage to human infrastructure that supports the environment.Much of this harm to the environment includes significant impacts on human health.
Eighth, I am reminded of Vatican II’s call for us to “strain every muscle to…‘outlaw all war’” (Pastoral Constitution, par. 81). Then I wonder, what is my role in this? How would I be constructive in this endeavor? I’m just not sure. Is my inherent logic to “outlaw war,” or while I critique some wars to also continue the possibility of a “just war”? On the one hand, my role theoretically can be to try and prevent some wars, although I’m not sure how often I’ve actually contributed to preventing a war in practice. On the other hand, the inherent logic of “just war” signals that there theoretically could be a war that meets my criteria; and thus, practically, this means cultivating the mentality, culture, structures, and investments, which makes the possibility of a just war an ongoing characteristic of society.
Ninth, I realize that Cicero was one of the originators of me, although much of the Christian tradition has latched on to and developed me. One of the most uneasy aspects of this for me is that I look at Jesus’ way of nonviolent love of friends and enemies, and I really struggle to see how I’m helping Christians draw closer to Christ. Their scripture calls Christians to “put on the mind of Christ.” We are redeemed through the Cross that exposes injustice and violence, not through the use of violence. The mission of the Christian Church is to be a sacrament of our ultimate unity as Children of God and with all creation. Cardinal Turkson said “all killing is fratricide”. At best, I seem to be a distraction from Christ, and sadly at worst, and this is hard for me to say, I may be an obstruction far too often.
Letting Go
Self-reflection is a difficult path. Knowing when to let go, rather than clinging to others, is a great challenge of love. For the good of the Christian community and out of love, I’m ready to let go and perhaps allow you all to grow, flourish, and be drawn closer to Christ and the mission of the Catholic church. I hope and pray that you also might be willing to let go of me, and explore other styles of moral reasoning rooted in empirical evidence and the active nonviolence of the Gospels, such as just peace.
Sincerely,
Just War Theory
