‘Make me an instrument of your peace’
Christian vocation poses serious challenges to talk of war
“Make me an instrument of your peace.” So begins the familiar prayer of
St. Francis of Assisi. In it, we pray for the grace, wisdom, and courage
to be peacemakers in a world of strife and conflict.
The vocation to be peacemakers weighs heavily upon U.S. Christians these
days, as our nation debates, and apparently moves ever closer, to a
military invasion of Iraq.
While all wars raise issues for Christian consciences, the one now being
contemplated poses unique challenges. For a conflict with Iraq would be
a preemptive war. That is, a war waged not to respond to present
aggression, but to prevent possible future danger. Its aim is to take
out or neutralize a potential enemy, based upon a probability that a
nation could one day pose a threat to us.
Over the centuries, the Christian community and others of goodwill have
developed what has become known as the “just war” doctrine. It is based
upon the conviction that war must be avoided whenever possible, and
gives stringent conditions that must be present in order to override the
presumption in favor of peace. The Catechism of the Catholic Church
lists these “rigorous” conditions, among which are just cause, last
resort, lack of disproportional outcomes, and legitimate authority
(2309).
Using these criteria, Catholic officials in Rome, the U.S. bishops, and
other religious leaders have concluded that preemptive military action
is not morally justifiable. Such a war violates — or stretches beyond
recognition — the requirement that war is a means of last resort. Going
to war is morally legitimate only after peaceful alternatives have been
exhausted, and less lethal means have been shown to be ineffective. But
a preemptive war signals a lack of patience with exploring peaceful
alternatives. It shows a lack of confidence in diplomatic initiatives,
and even demonstrates an arrogance that prefers bombs over negotiation.
A preemptive war violates the spirit of our Christian conviction that
wars, because of the grave harms they cause, should be undertaken with
great reluctance only when such action is truly unavoidable.
But the criterion of proportional outcomes is the one perhaps most
severely tested and violated by a preemptive war. Proportionality means
that “the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than
the evil to be eliminated” (Catechism, 2309). That is, the costs and
harms of a war should not outweigh the possible benefits that are
gained.
One of the little-noted costs of a preemptive war against Iraq is that
it sets a dangerous national precedent and establishes a policy that
leads to international chaos and anarchy. Given the logic of preemptive
strike, what would keep Pakistan from invading India, in a preemptive
bid to eliminate a possible nuclear threat from its rival neighbor — a
threat that is more clear and immediate than the danger that Iraq poses
to the U.S.?
North Korea could also justify a military invasion of South Korea, on
the grounds that over 50 years of diplomatic tension makes its neighbor
a possible, potential threat that is better eliminated now than later.
Taiwan could also justify a preemptive strike against mainland China to
neutralize that nation’s superior military advantage, based upon a
possible future threat to that island’s independence from communist
rule.
In short, the cost of a preemptive war by the United States is that it
gives every nation the right to justify wars against those who might
someday become an enemy. Any disagreement between nations thus becomes a
justification for war, to eliminate the possibility that the disagreeing
party could become a threat. In such a world, peace becomes virtually
impossible. Preemptive wars thus fail the criterion of proportionality.
Their very logic introduces into the world a grave disorder that
imperils whatever fragile peace might exist between nations.
“Make me an instrument of your peace.” There is little disagreement
that the current Iraqi leadership has shown itself to be irresponsible
and even oppressive. No one denies that the situation must be met with
strong, determined action to ensure that this regime cannot harm
innocent lives. The challenge for Christians, as we join the debate
taking place in our nation and search for international consensus, is to
raise questioning — even dissenting — voices that reject a policy of
preemptive military action that leads to ethical relativism, moral
chaos, and the end of any effective restraint upon evils of war.
Massingale is an associate professor of moral theology at Saint Francis
Seminary, St. Francis.
|