It is difficult to give a comprehensive analysis of the many issues which an effective and morally legitimate response to the threats of terrorism in the wake of September 11th in the space of a half hour. We face not only the constraint of time; we are also dealing with events that intimately concern us and which are rapidly developing--leaving us to work with a factual picture which is far from certain. So what I will do today is provide some principles from our heritage of Catholic Social Teaching that I believe are especially relevant for our collective discernment, and raise issues for discussion and moral assessment in light of these principles.

In this effort, I am making an important assumption, one which should be obvious, but needs to be stated forthrightly: Even at a time like this--indeed, especially at times like these--ethics is relevant and Christian beliefs have an essential contribution to make to our public discourse and political discernment. There are those (and perhaps they are many) who take a different stance. They insist, in the name of “realism,” that war is essentially a matter of self-interest and survival.¹ Thus moral considerations become secondary, even irrelevant, to the overriding goal of winning the conflict by any means and at any cost. This stance is reflected in statements such as "All's fair in love and war;" "We will do whatever it takes;" or "Inter arma silent leges" (In times of war, the law is silent). War thus becomes a matter of "anything goes" as long as we win or achieve our security. The Christian ethical tradition profoundly disagrees with such a Hobbesian and ultimately cynical view of the world, a world where “might makes right” and the strong can do whatever they want simply because they can. Our tradition, from as far back as St. Ambrose in the fourth century and St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th, insists that there are certain rights and covenants that bind even in times of war. As we will see, our opposition to a stance of supposed “realism” is grounded both in principle and pragmatism. The claim I am advancing here is that only a principled ethical perspective leads to true peace and real security--and therefore is truly realistic and effective.

As a way of structuring my remarks, I now offer seven principles rooted in Catholic Social Teaching that guide our individual reflection and public policy.

1) Combating terrorism is a moral responsibility. At the center of Catholic reflection on social issues is a belief in the sanctity of human life. The dignity of the human person, made in the image of God, establishes the strongest presumption against the taking of human lives. In 1987, Pope John Paul II described terrorism as "the intention to kill people and destroy property indiscriminately and to create a climate of terror and insecurity."² Precisely because of its indiscriminate killing of people, Catholic social ethics holds that terrorism is a policy that is never justifiable regardless of the cause it supposedly advances or supports. Thus speaking immediately after September 11, the pope judged those events as "inhuman behavior," an "unspeakable evil," and a crime against humanity.

Because terrorism is such a grave moral scourge, people of good conscience must struggle against it. Nothing in the Christian tradition condones passivity, capitulation, or resignation in the face of evil. Christians cannot be indifferent in the face of serious violations of human life and human rights. Combating terrorism is a moral duty, one that must be met with commitment and “resolve.”³

2) The use of military force requires moral justification. In light of the fact that most of our nation’s response to terrorism has been a military one employing the use of lethal force, the next three principles deal with the moral use of military options.

Given the strong presumption against the taking of human life, any killing must be ethically justified. For unjustified killing or taking human life is the sin of murder. The Catholic church, and others of goodwill, scrutinize the use of military force thorough a set of principles known as the “just war” tradition. This tradition is rooted in St. Augustine, has been codified by St. Thomas Aquinas, and received further refinements through the centuries.

The first thing to note about the just war doctrine is that it begins with a presumption against waging war. Because of the terrible consequences of war, violations of justice and human rights are to be countered by nonviolent means preferably. Thus this tradition is described by the U.S. bishops as "a system of constraints on the use of force."⁴Just war teaching seeks to clarify when the presumption in favor of nonviolent means of conflict resolution may be overridden, and then it seeks to limit the damage caused by war.

For lethal military force to be justifiable, a number of conditions must be satisfied (traditionally called the ius ad bellum). There must be a "just cause" guided by a "right intention." That is, wars can be fought only to protect lives, restrain aggression, and reestablish peace. Offensive wars are condemned. Wars of retaliation, revenge, or national pride--motivated by a desire to "get even"--are expressly forbidden. The war must be declared by a "competent, legitimate authority" (in the United States, the Congress is the constitutionally legitimate authority to declare war). The war must be waged as a "last resort" after all peaceful alternatives have been tried or determined to be ineffective. The war effort must have a "reasonable hope of success," that is, there must be a well founded hope that the war effort will result in a more peaceful and just state of affairs. (This restricts authorities from committing their citizens to futile causes). Finally, the war must not produce more harm than good; that is, the war must be "proportionate" and appropriate to the goal of obtaining peace.

In sum, the just war tradition maintains that the only morally acceptable reason to wage war is that it is judged to be the only means available to secure peace.

The just war criteria raise a number of moral questions or issues for public discussion; some of these I will treat shortly under principle #3. For now, let us note the following. Even with a just cause--which many assert is present in the current situation—the spirit of the just war tradition demands that war “always be undertaken with a deep sense of regret.”⁵ An issue that Catholics and others of goodwill must discern is whether the comments of our public officials reflect such a tone of regret and sincere wishing that things would be otherwise.

3) Any use of military force is subject to strict ethical scrutiny. Even in a justifiable military action, the just war tradition seeks to curb its violence and damage. In short, not everything is legitimate in waging war; war is not a matter of “anything goes.” The actual conduct of the war must be closely monitored on an ongoing basis. Two principles must be respected (traditionally called the ius in bello). The first is "proportionality," which means that the tactics used in the war may not cause more damage than is necessary to lead to the eventual goal of peace. A classic example of the violation of proportionality is a statement attributed to a soldier during the Vietnam conflict, “We had to destroy the village in order to save it.” The second principle is "discrimination," which is also known as "noncombatant immunity." This means that all possible care must be taken to avoid killing civilians and destroying facilities essential their well-being, such as hospitals, schools, power plants, sewage facilities, water treatment plants, and the like.

Thus far, most public attention has been given to the rightness of our cause; little attention has been devoted to the actual conduct of the “war on terrorism.” Yet the principles of just war raise serious issues concerning the legitimacy of some actions currently underway or contemplated. The first is the issue of so-called “collateral damage,” the military euphemism for unintended civilian casualties, which some sources claim number as many as 3700.⁶ The use of this phrase is problematic. It objectifies the personal tragedy of ordinary human beings who, through no fault of their own--like the victims of the World Trade Center--found themselves caught up in an inescapable situation not of their choosing. The depersonalization of these innocent deaths is compounded by the fact that they occur out of sight of general public. Our media has shown us few pictures of civilian fatalities; we have no faces or names to go with the infrequent acknowledgment of unintended harms. Absent media coverage, we have no way to know the full extent of the damage caused by a war being carried out in our name.

Our military’s stated commitment to do everything possible to avoid civilian casualties is commendable. But this commitment must be evidenced not only in our targeting policies or rules of engagement, but also by 1) forthright acknowledgment and not a cover-up of mistakes (we need to know what is being done and the extent of the damage done); 2) open investigations to determine the cause of and any culpability involved in civilian deaths; and 3) statements of sincere regret as opposed to an attitude of callous dismissal (justified under the rubric of “that’s the price of war”).

A second area of concern falls under the criterion of “proportionality,” or restraint in the use of armaments. Many have questioned the use of so-called “daisy cutters,” the most lethal weapons in our arsenal short of nuclear weapons. These bombs cause a mushroom fireball that has a chilling resemblance to an atomic detonation. It is difficult to see how such a weapon can respect the criterion of “discrimination” or not cause damage out of proportion to the goal of obtaining peace. Also of concern is the large amounts (“tons,” according to a recent NPR report) of unexploded ordinance which now litters the Afghan landscape and poses on-going threats to the civilian population. Christian morality would ask how such tactics further the cause of peace; and question if they are truly necessary if our goal is peace, and not retaliation or humiliation.

A final observation on the conduct of war relates to the rhetoric being used to characterize our adversaries as “evil.” Even if one grants that some sort of military response is warranted and necessary, the danger of such often repeated characterizations is well-expressed by a Catholic ethicist, Michael Duffey: "When nations claim that "absolute justice" is on their side, conflicts take on a dangerous dualism: ‘we are good, they are evil’; ‘we are light, they are darkness.’ Such dualism fosters a crusade mentality blinding nations to their own injustices. Nations embarked upon a crusade lose the capacity for critical deliberation about the ends they hope to achieve and the means by which they achieve them. Believing their cause alone is just, they are easily tempted to permit anything to further it."⁷

I gave this criterion more attention than the others because public attention thus far has focused almost solely on the justness of our cause; the actual conduct of warfare has received relatively little attention. But both are matters of moral concern and practical effectiveness. Any strategy which increases the resentment that many feel toward the U.S. cannot lead to lasting security and peace. As the U.S. bishops state: “We must not only act justly but be perceived as acting justly if we are to succeed in winning popular support against terrorism.”⁸

All of the concerns I raise can be summed up in this observation: there is a moral distinction between “war” and “murder.” The noted ethicist, Michael Walzer, writes: “War is distinguishable from murder and massacre only when restrictions are established on the reach of battle.”⁹ Subjecting the conduct of war to constant ethical scrutiny is important not only as an expression of respect for human life, but also as a manifestation of right intention. Limiting the atrocities and horrors of war is absolutely essential if any kind of peace is to be a realistic outcome.

4) Military force alone is an insufficient and ineffective response to the terrorist threat. In his general audience on September 12th, the Holy Father not only condemned the terrorist attacks, he also declared: “I strongly reiterate that the ways of violence will never lead to genuine solutions to humanity’s problems.” Military force, however justifiable and necessary, cannot of itself bring about genuine peace. This is for several reasons. First, we are dealing with non-state terrorism. The members of Al Qaeda, according to some reports, are active in as many as 40 countries. It seems impossible to eradicate shadowy and amorphous terrorist cells solely by cruise missiles, massive bombardments, and other tactics of war.

Moreover, Catholic popes and other moral leaders have long insisted that true peace is impossible as long as excessive social and economic inequalities exist among nations. In the 1960s, Martin Luther King, Jr., while condemning the method of rioting, observed that riots were the language of the desperate. In the same vein, without for a moment condoning or justifying the events of September 11th , any honest observer must conclude that the state of the world provides a fertile breeding ground for resentment and desperation--the breeding ground for terrorism.

Here we must raise some difficult questions: How can impoverished peoples--the majority of the world’s population--not be resentful of us when 5% of the world’s population consumes up to 50% of the world’s goods? How would we respond if the situation were reversed? In a remarkable recent statement, formulated by an interfaith coalition not noted for their “liberalism,” the signatories admit: “At times our nation has acted with arrogance and ignorance toward other societies. At times our nation has pursued misguided and unjust policies. . . . Some values seen in America are unattractive and harmful (for example, consumerism). . . . We know that for some of you [in Muslim societies] mistrust of us is high, and we know that we Americans are partly responsible for that mistrust.”¹⁰ As a concrete example of such attitudes, note the following statement of an American woman who purchased a low mileage SUV after the Afghan conflict began: “She believes that Americans have a right “to do what we want and buy what we want. Isn’t that why we are fighting?”¹¹

What this means is that military force alone, no matter how justified, cannot bring about a just and lasting peace. Military strategies alone cannot make us secure. They are quite limited in what they can accomplish. A truly secure world requires that we actively rebuild Afghanistan (as we did Europe after WWII); that we strengthen international organizations such as the World Court and establish an effective international police force capable of dealing with non-state terrorism (which are crimes against humanity, not acts of war); that we develop a deeper understanding of and respect for Islam and other major world religions; that we reexamine foreign policies that cause international resentment; and that we ask serious and searching questions about the consequences of our consumer lifestyle. Some may differ with these concrete steps; that’s alright. The fundamental point remains: Military action “is by no means sufficient to deal with the terrorist threat.”¹²

5) Any strategy to combat terrorism must respect human rights. Human rights are the concrete requirements for human dignity; they form the cornerstone of Catholic ethical reflection. Our Catholic bishops exhort us, in the midst of terrorist concern, “to not lose sight of the basic ideals of justice, freedom, fairness, and openness that are hallmarks of our society. We must not trade freedom for security. We must not allow ourselves to be captured by fear.”¹³ Here there arise several concerns: 1) the mistreatment and suspicion of “Arab looking” individuals; 2) the Pentagon’s recently disclosed plan to plant false news stories in the foreign (and domestic) press in an effort to influence public sentiment and policy makers.¹⁴ (How can we exercise democratic oversight when our access to the news is not only limited and censored, but in fact false? This is a matter of human rights, for John XXIII declared that the right to be truthfully informed about public affairs is a fundamental human right);¹⁵ and 3) the treatment of detainees, a policy which we reversed only when the Pentagon raised the question, “What about if it were us? We wouldn’t want our soldiers to be treated by a future hostile power as we are treating them.” This is not solely a matter of military policy, but of fundamental and equal human rights. If all are created in the image of God, and if we are called to love even our enemies, surely these convictions must have concrete expression in how we treat those we imprison.

In brie, my point is this: an effective and legitimate response to terrorism must respect human rights, both here and abroad.

6) Patriotism (i.e., love of country) is a virtue with limits. In a Catholic Herald column (24 September 2001) I treated this subject at length and can only summarize what I said then. Christians have an obligation, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, to obey civil authorities and contribute to the common good of the nation. But this duty is not absolute. There is a higher law to which nations and political authorities are accountable. Love of country cannot be equated with “blind obedience” or uncritical loyalty. Political authority is legitimate only when it uses morally acceptable means to achieve the common good. At times, the Christian citizen must protest unjust policies and abuses of public authority. This is why we must subject our nation’s policies in the “war against terrorism” to constant ethical scrutiny. And why I suggest that we would be better served by making distinctions between our support for individual persons (such as the men and women of our armed forces), and our critique of public policies. Love of country requires both genuine support and moral critique.

7) Global solidarity is not only a noble ideal but a practical necessity. The Christian vision, because we are brothers and sisters of one Creator God, summons us to a wider and more universal perspective. The end of our strivings has to be a new way of living and being in the world. In the words of Martin Luther King, Jr., we now are compelled to the realization that we live in a "world house," where the welfare of Palestine, Kenya, Bosnia, and Indonesia is directly relevant to the welfare of the United States. The events of September 11 are a call to wake up to the deeper humanity that connects us all, a call to see that global interests and national interests can no longer be neatly segmented or pursued in isolation. It is a call to a vision of interdependence characterized by what the Catholic tradition calls "solidarity."¹⁶

It is a vision that requires the strengthening of global institutions; securing human rights; assuring sustainable development; restraining nationalism and religious violence; building cooperative security; and sharing responsible U.S. leadership.¹⁷ Such actions are not just good politics, but requirements of faith.

But here I return to the theme with which I began: ethical ideals are not merely noble, pious sentiments, but practical and effective strategies. The events of September 11 hopefully will move us to realize that solidarity and universality are no longer moral ideals but concrete imperatives. In the words of King, "We must learn to live together as brothers and sisters, or we will perish together as fools."

It is with some frustration that I conclude, for there is much more that could and should be said, not the least of which is some treatment of Christian pacifism and the wisdom it could offer us. Yet I hope that what I have said is helpful in providing some insight into what the Catholic ethical tradition offers us during this time of moral discernment and public discussion . . . and that I have demonstrated that one can formulate an effective response to terrorism and still remain a Christian.

(Rev.) Bryan N. Massingale, S.T.D.
Saint Francis Seminary
Milwaukee, WI

Notes

1. See the statement of 60 prominent American intellectuals, “What We Are Fighting For: A Letter from America,” published by the Institute for American Values. Available at February 12, 2002.

2. See Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (On Social Concern), #24.

3. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, A Pastoral Message: Living with Faith and Hope after September 11 (Washington, DC: U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2001). Available on-line at .

4. National Conference of Catholic Bishops, The Harvest of Justice is Sown in Peace (Washington, DC: U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1994) 6.

5. National Conference of Catholic Bishops, Living with Faith and Hope after Sept. 11.

6. See the statement of national Catholic leaders, “A Catholic Community Responds to the War Living with Faith and Hope,” (December 17, 2001).

7. Michael K. Duffey, Peacemaking Christians: The Future of Just Wars, Pacifism, and Nonviolent Resistance (Kansas City, MO: Sheed and Ward, 1995) 25.

8. U.S. Bishops, Living with Faith and Hope after Sept. 11.

9. Duffey, 53.

10. “What We Are Fighting For: A Letter from America.” The signatories of this statement include Mary Ann Glendon, Michael Novak, Robert Royal, and George Wiegel.

11. Cited in Newsweek (November 19, 2001) 42.

12. U.S. Bishops, Living with Faith and Hope after Sept. 11.

13. U.S. Bishops, Living with Faith and Hope after Sept. 11.

14. “Pentagon Readies Effort to Sway Sentiment Abroad,” New York Times on the Web (February 19, 2002). . See also “Concern at Pentagon over ‘Strategic Influence’ Plan,” Reuters (Feb. 19, 2002). Available on-line at

15. John XXIII, Pacem in Terris (Peace on Earth), #12.

16. Pope John Paul II, Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (On Social Concern), ## 38-40.

17. U.S. Bishops, The Harvest of Justice, 8-18.