Celledoor Bible: Radio Replies First Volume

DOWNLOAD FREE!
For the cost of a prayer, own a copy of this entire Catholic miscellany.
Tolle lege!

Radio Replies First Volume
The Catholic attitude to war

1557. You speak of a Christian solution of social troubles, but did not the Great War show the utter failure of Christianity altogether?

No. Christianity did not fail. The nations failed to observe Christian principles, a totally different thing. When I say the nations, I mean those in political control of their destinies, and the general outlook of the peoples concerned. Many individuals who fought were excellent Christians, believing the cause of their own country to be just and defending the right as they conceived it with the highest motives. And this on both sides.

1558. What a contrast to the Western Christians was the peace amongst the pagan Asian!

It may be that the Asians were at peace when the Westerns happened to be at war. But a study of history shows that the West has been at peace when the East has been at war. If the Japanese are at war with China when Europe happens to be at peace, a Japanese could say with equal lack of logic, "Has not Shintoism failed when you see the Asians at war while the Occidentals have peace?" These are the ups and downs of history. And in any case, as I have so often pointed out, temporal benefits are not the test of Christianity.

1559. Why did Christians fight, killing men they never knew and who never did them any harm?

Every war is a misery, and is due to injustice of some kind, or to misunderstanding. And whoever is really responsible for war is very guilty before God. But God alone can judge as to the guilt of the respective parties. As for the killing of men we never knew, remember that men can be considered as individuals or as units of another nation. If one nation is defending itself against the injustice of another nation, then the soldiers are considered not as individuals, but as national units. War is unchristian, but it is not unchristian for individuals to fight for their country.

1560. I submit that no war is justified, and that it is wrong for individuals to kill each other in war time.

You are confusing various aspects of the question. It is wrong for any nation or any group of politicians to give cause for war by unjust treatment of others, or by deliberate aggression. But if another nation wants to slaughter us unjustly, then, although the war as a war is unjustifiable, we are certainly justified in defending ourselves; and our soldiers are justified in killing the soldiers of the unjustly aggressive army.

1561. God says, "Thou shalt not kill." How can my country send me forth to kill?

"Thou shalt not kill" means without just cause. For example, if a thief is on the point of shooting me, I may kill him first if possible, provided I know that my merely wounding him is not likely to save my life. Therefore I am allowed to kill an unjust aggressor. And if my country is defending itself against an unjust attack, or defending its rights by just attack, it is not a crime to fight on her behalf. Loyalty to one's country is a virtue. As a rule, individual soldiers cannot decide whether the powers that be in a given country are right or wrong in their decision upon so extreme a measure as war. And with the good motive of defending what he conceives to be the rights of his country, the ordinary soldier is justified in his participation.

1562. Christ said, "Love your enemies."

He did. But He did not say, "Love their enmity." They do wrong in being my enemies, and the sooner I stop them from being my enemies the better for them.

1563. Roman theology dispenses a man from the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill" in war time; it dispenses a man from the commandment "Thou shalt not steal" in times of grave necessity; why not from "Thou shalt not commit adultery" while the Church is at it?

There is no parity between this last commandment and the two former ones under the circumstances of their application. We must be careful about the right interpretation of these laws. "Thou shalt not kill" does not prevent just and lawful killing. Legitimate public authority may condemn a man to death because the common good is more important than the individual good. Nor only is it lawful for the state to remove murderers completely from society by death. An individual may kill an unjust aggressor if it be necessary for the preservation of his own life. And in Scripture we notice how God Himself sanctioned war over and over again, when other means did not avail to secure justice.

"Thou shalt not steal" means that you can never take unjustly the goods of another against his reasonable will. But every word of this explanation must be noted. If a man is actually dying of starvation he may take food from those who have more than they need. But that is not stealing, for it is not unjust in extreme necessity to take food which is the product of the earth for the nutrition of the human race, nor is it against the reasonable will of the owner. It would be unreasonable to hold more food than you need and watch a fellow human being die of starvation.

But there can never be any exception from the commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." That commandment is absolute, because it can never be necessary to dispense from it in the interests of justice or for the necessities of human life. Adultery is always a serious evil, and therefore always seriously forbidden.

1564. Because God ordained certain wars, it does not follow that wars not ordained by Him could be lawful.

From God's own actions in this matter it follows that, provided similar grave causes, and similar moral principles are verified, just and defensive wars are justified.

1565. I cannot conceive that the Catholic Church, if it be Christian, would say to the nations, "Well, since you cannot settle your difficulties by arbitration, fight it out in unrestrained butchery."

The Catholic Church would certainly never say that.

1566. Surely the Church should remain strictly neutral, and try to conciliate the wayward nations.

I agree. But the trouble is, what if the nations will not accept any of her efforts at conciliation? If one ambitious and aggressive nation unjustly invades another's territory, and insists on trampling down the people, the invaded nation must either fight for liberty or go out of existence. An unjustly attacked nation is not obliged to be simply trodden under foot. Its soldiers may lawfully fight back in defense.

1567. During the Great War in Europe, it is common knowledge that the Pope was not neutral, but sympathised with the Germans.

The Pope remained strictly neutral. When nations are angry, they are like angry individuals, who at once suspect that all are against them who do not side actively with them. While many among the Allies accused the Pope of being pro-German, the Germans accused him of being against their nation. Count Ludendorf, in his book, "My War Memories," p. 514, says, "The Pope was in favor of a peace expecting us Germans to make considerable sacrifices, while the Allies got off very cheaply."

1568. The Pope rules 400 millions. Why did he not stop the last war?

He could not do so, or he certainly would have prevented it. He did his best, suggesting all means of peace, laboring for the welfare and exchange of prisoners, and giving utterly impartial advice. In 1914 Pius X tried to prevent the outbreak of war, and urgently pointed out the terrible miseries which would ensue. In 1915 Benedict XV made it his first duty to bring about peace if at all possible. But the Allies did not want peace then. They met in London, and drew up what is known as the "London Pact." In it we read, "France, Britain, and Russia undertake to support Italy in preventing the Holy See from taking any steps whatever for the conclusion of peace, or the settlement of questions bound up with the war." Under these circumstances you cannot blame the Pope for not having made peace. If the nations will not have peace, they won't have it.

1569. Had the Pope imposed peace he would have won millions of converts to the Catholic Church.

I do not think so. People become Catholics because God gives them the grace to see that the Catholic Church is the one true Church of Jesus Christ. This grace is usually the fruit of prayer, not the fruit ol witnessing the Pope stop the nations from fighting. If the Pope cannot bring about peace, men say that he cannot be the representative of Christ. But had he succeeded in imposing peace, it is more than likely that men would have called him an interfering politician who should mind his own business.

1570. Your talk about the Pope and peace is nonsense. Is he not trying to awaken a strong anti-communist feeling in order to launch a tear against the Soviet?

No. He is trying to preserve Christians from a very grave danger to their religion.

1571. He conjures nations to unite together and to save themselves and mankind "even at the cost of heavy sacrifices." What do those last words mean but war?

They have nothing to do with war. They demand that men be prepared for the sacrifice of their selfish commercial interests and their greed, in order that the inequalities and injustice prevailing in the present economic system be remedied. The wealthy capitalists must be prepared to forego some of their wealth, and make it available for employment and the bettering of the poor. Work must be made available to the unemployed, and those who are employed must be prepared to work for reasonable remuneration. If the nations would follow the advice of the Pope, war would become almost impossible. It is the absence of a spirit of self-sacrifice which is the very cause of war.

1572. He urges the use of "all useful means" in his campaign. Does not that include war?

No. The Pope is anxious to remedy the miseries of mankind. War is not a useful means to that end. It causes still more misery and abject poverty.

1573. He speaks of the satanic hosts of militant atheism. That obviously indicates the Soviet Union.

Many supporters of the Soviet Union will not thank you for your implicit admission. However, the Pope had not the Soviet Union in mind when he wrote those words. He was indicating forces actively working in the midst of almost every nation today.

1574. Would the Pope approve of war against the Soviet to bring back Russian Catholics to the faith?

No. The Catholic Church does not rely upon force of arms to propagate the Catholic faith or win back deserters.

1575. Why does the Church maintain a criminal silence concerning the manufacture of munitions in order to have another war?

They are not being manufactured in order to have another war. No one wants another war. But each nation has the right to possess adequate means of defense and self-protection, unless all nations agree simultaneously to disarm themselves. In November, 1932, Cardinal Bourne addressed a special disarmament conference in London, and said, "It is the manifest duty of Catholics to work and pray for disarmament; and the Holy See has often spoken in this sense." But he added, "This can only be, if the right of defense be safeguarded without such means of self-protection. We must not be led away by mere sentiment; and if we are apprehensive of future attack, we must rely on our own military protection, if other protection be not guaranteed."

1576. Why does not the Church denounce absolutely the holocaust being prepared by capitalists for the people?

Because the Catholic Church is eminently sane and Christian. Being sane, she realizes that the armament problem concerns self-defense and protection rather than aggressive tendencies. Being Christian, she grants to nations as well as to individuals the right to be prepared against possible unjust aggression.

1577. Do you teach Catholics to be the disciples of the Prince of Peace on Sundays, and allow them to work in munition factories during the week?

If self-defense is allowed, as it is, the preparation of means of self-defense is lawful. No individual nation can afford to disarm while others do not General disarmament is good and to be attained if possible. But until that is secured, no individual nation is obliged to leave itself unprotected. The manufacture of war material is evil or not according to the intention prompting the manufacture of it. If for war of unjust aggression, it is unlawful; if for legitimate defense, it is lawful.

1578. Is all this a temporal matter in which the Church does not see fit to interfere?

It is a temporal matter in which spiritual and moral principles must be applied lest justice be violated. God has never forbidden war in all circumstances. In the Old Testament He sanctioned the vindication of justice by defensive and punitive wars. Christ forbade all injustice, but never forbade war. He praised the faith of the Centurion who had said, "I have under me soldiers," but added no command to give up a military career. So, too, He used an ordinary fact of experience saying, "What king about to make war against another doth not first think whether with 10,000 he can meet him who hath 20,000?" He takes the fact of wars as an accepted thing, and utters no word of condemnation.

1579. You tell us, then, that killing is permissible in a just war, or by an agent of the state for the common good?

That is so.

1580. You have said also that motive makes morality.

A good motive is a necessary condition of morality in the sense that an evil intention vitiates any action.

1581. What would be the moral position of individual soldiers in an invading army?

The invading nation could, of course, be justly aggressive in vindication of its rights had they been violated by the invaded nation. But if the invading nation has unjustly declared war, prompted to aggression by mere ambition, then no individual citizen of that invading nation who knows quite well that the war is unjust is free in any way to volunteer or assist If he does so he is guilty of immoral and sinful conduct Each individual invader therefore who is aware that the aggression is unjust, and who is voluntarily present in the army, is guilty of sin.

1582. In the Great War some nation must have been guilty from a moral point of view in causing such suffering. Which nation was it?

I have no idea. God alone can say.

1583. Is every individual soldier bound to satisfy himself as to the justice of his side before participating in war?

Catholic theologians say that volunteers must satisfy themselves that the cause is not unjust. Conscript soldiers are not obliged to solve the problem, but may obey orders, unless the war be clearly and obviously unjust. In this latter case they would be obliged in conscience to refuse service.

1584. I am not satisfied yet that killing can be lawful. You say that the official hangman of the state is not guilty of sin. What of the one who authorizes his action?

If the hangman be commissioned by lawful state authority, he is free from guilt. The lawfully appointed authority who sentences to death is free from guilt provided he rectifies his intention and has a good motive; provided the crime be a grave one; provided civil law has decreed death as a proportionate penalty; and finally, provided the judge, acting in his official capacity, has sufficient evidence to prove that the criminal was indeed guilty of the crime, having sufficient use of his faculties to be morally responsible for it.

1585. You oppose sterilization of the mentally deficient for the common good, yet you justify the taking of the criminals very life?

There is all the difference in the world between these two things. Where sterilization of the unfit is in question, many other factors come into the case besides the common good. The state has no direct right over the life and members of its subjects. It has an indirect right to sentence to death as a punishment for grave crimes. But sterilization of the mentally deficient is a measure directed against those lacking moral responsibility, and who are guilty of no crime in being mentally deficient through no fault of their own. Nor could we support sterilization of those who have been guilty of sex crimes, and who are not mentally deficient, for sterilization is not proportionate as a punishment; and far from being a deterrent for the future, it leaves a man with all his passions and no fear of the consequences. Sterilization is useless both as a punitive measure and as a reformative measure; and it is not justifiable even where the death penalty is.

1586. After all you have said about the lawfulness of killing and of war, the crux seems to be as to who is to decide the justice of any particular war. What authority is entitled to declare a war just or unjust?

The nations at present acknowledge no independent authority whose decision they would accept. The only suitable authority I know of in this world is the Pope, who is above all national considerations. The Pope has all the necessary qualifications, but the nations will not entitle him to decide. They make themselves judges in their own case, despite their experience of the consequences.

1587. We do not have to appeal to the Pope. We have the League of Nations.

That does not really escape the difficulty. In the League of Nations we have representatives of the very nations concerned. Both the cause and the power behind each individual representative is the cause and the power of the nation he represents. There are forty million people in the representative of a country with that population, and perhaps but five million in the representative of some smaller country. G.K. Chesterton has rightly pointed out that any international council is necessarily but a reduced model of the nations represented in it. "Suppose," he writes, "that in the international interchanges of the future some power, say Sweden, is felt to be disproportionate or problematical. If Sweden is powerful in Europe, she will be powerful in the Council of Europe. If Sweden is too powerful in Europe, she will be too powerful in the Council of Europe. And because she is the very thing that is irresistible, she is the very thing to be resisted; or at any rate to be restrained. I do not see how Europe can ever escape from that logical dilemma, except by discovering again an authority that is purely moral and is the recognized custodian of a morality." The Pope is the only one in this world who could possibly become such an accepted authority.

1588. Would you please tell me what steps I must take in order to join the Catholic Church?

By all means. Call at the nearest Catholic Rectory in your suburb or district, ask to see the Priest, and tell him that you would like to receive instruction in the Catholic Faith. He will arrange for your instruction, and if, after having had the Catholic religion fully explained to you, you still desire to become a Catholic, he will gladly receive you into the Church.

<prev