The USCCB’s Just War Error

Just war is again being discussed in the public square by policymakers and prelates alike. Recently, the chairman of the USCCB’s Committee on Doctrine, Bishop James Massa, made a clarification about just war in response to comments from the president and vice president. Given the war in Iran, there is no better time for such conversation. While much of Bishop Massa’s statement could be interpreted as a defense of the pope, I feel compelled to correct the record on the just war tradition.

Before going further, permit me to make two caveats. First, the discussion of just war in the public square is a welcome occurrence even as it comes in the wake of war, of which Augustine warns us, “if he remembers that he is a human being, he will be much readier to deplore the fact that he is under the necessity of waging even just wars.” Both politicians and clerics avoid discussions of the just war tradition far too often, so I praise Bishop Massa for entering the fray. Second, I leave the analysis of the justice of the Iran war to another (larger) space. Opinions vary on Iran: For instance, Edward Feser argues that the war is unjust while Fr. Mitch Pacwa and Robert Royal have offered arguments in favor of its justification.

The core of Bishop Massa’s statement regards just war’s inherent defensive nature. He says, “a constant tenet of that thousand-year tradition is a nation can only legitimately take up the sword ‘in self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed.’ . . . That is, to be a just war it must be a defense against another who actively wages war.” This statement is incorrect. Self-defense against an enemy actively engaged in war is the easiest justification for war, but it is by no means the only justification. 

Thomas Aquinas says, “those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault. Wherefore Augustine says: ‘A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly.’” Augustine and Aquinas speak of avenging and punishing grave wrongs against those who have committed a fault, not merely defending against an imminent attack. Modern preoccupation with the strict defensiveness of war comes much later than even Francisco Suárez and Francisco de Vitoria in the sixteenth century, culminating with twentieth-century international law.

The classical just war authors differentiated between offensive wars and defensive wars, as I explain in more detail elsewhere in First Things. While Bishop Massa equates just war to wars of defense, the classical authors spend little effort arguing for self-defense because it is so clearly justified. In Suárez’s “Disputation XIII: On War,” he says, “our question relates to offensive war; for the power of defending oneself against an unjust attacker is conceded to all.” Vitoria also says, “any person, even a private citizen, may declare and wage defensive war. This is clear from the principle that ‘force may be resisted by force.’” Just war is thus primarily about restricting offensive war, not defensive war.

If only defensive war is permitted, why then do we need strict conditions for jus ad bellum like right intention, just cause, last resort, and proportionality? Take last resort as an example. Obviously the war is a last resort if the enemy is actively killing your people. It would be a dereliction of duty for those in positions of public authority to deliberate and attempt another round of negotiations when their people are being slaughtered in the streets. Rather, last resort is meant to limit the declaration and the waging of war against an enemy who is not actively engaged in warfare—jus ad bellum does not limit defensive actions taken under necessity.

The point by Bishop Massa is also meant to alleviate concern over Pope Leo’s declaration that God does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war. Massa argues that the Holy Father means to say God does not listen to those who commit the first offense, waging wars of power or conquest. Pope Leo’s statement makes most sense if just war is merely defensive; however, if offensive war is permitted as the tradition argues for, then his statement requires clarification. 

Again, I applaud the USCCB and Bishop Massa for preaching about just war. I also emphasize that discussions about just war are necessary and long overdue on the world stage. The Church has not used precise language regarding war in recent history, and the political community is perennially under pressure to use force to solve its problems, most principally a superpower like the United States. So even if the conversation between prelate and politician has been somewhat rocky of late, dialogue is always welcome.