Cardinal Robert McElroy of the San Diego diocese may be the most interesting American bishop today. (Among clergy, he may be rivaled only by James Martin SJ.) He leverages the media to proclaim the Gospel in provocative ways.
NCR has published a story by Dennis Sadowski on Cardinal McElroy's appearance at Notre Dame last week on the occasion of the annual Notre Dame Forum. The theme for this year's symposium is "New and Old Wars, New and Old Challenges to Peace". Some excerpts from the story, together with my own thoughts and comments, are after the break.
Here is Sadowski:
Noting that it has been 60 years since Pope John XXIII's encyclical Pacem in Terris ("Peace on Earth") and 40 years since the U.S. bishops issued their pastoral letter "The Challenge of Peace: God's Promise and Our Response," McElroy called for renewed attention to the teachings found in the two documents.
He said Pope Francis has built on the teachings of his predecessors since the promulgation of Pacem in Terris to build a framework for a new Catholic tradition on war and peace throughout his papacy. This undertaking "places nonviolence rather than the just-war ethic as the dominant prism through which to evaluate decisions in situations of deep conflict," he said.
The Christian just-war theory, first addressed by St. Augustine of Hippo in the fifth century, holds that military combat can align with the Gospel as long as warfare protects noncombatants and the armed response is restrained.
In particular, McElroy pointed to the pope's urging to "no longer think of war as a solution" in his 2020 encyclical Fratelli Tutti as the foundation for church teaching in the 21st century.
Acknowledging that critics have described proponents of nonviolent action as naive, McElroy countered that authors Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan, writing in Why Civil Resistance Works, looked at movements worldwide and found that nonviolent resistance in some cases was more effective than armed conflict in protecting human rights and building peace...
There are "extreme" cases when armed intervention is necessary, however, he explained, citing the Russian invasion of Ukraine. He called the moral justification for military action in Ukraine "unassailable."
Still, McElroy said, "the overarching strategic framework of the just-war tradition — the ius ad bellum [laws governing war] — has become hobbled in its ability to provide effective comprehensive guidance in the modern day."
A problem with the just-war framework, he said, is that it has been used by leaders "inclined to go to war" to justify military intervention.
McElroy also described the just-war tradition as being weak in two areas of moral choice: the first being the requirement to actively seek peace even if it requires making significant concessions, and the second being the lack of attention to moral obligations of other nations in minimizing a military conflict. The result has been "surrogate wars" of the world's powers, he said.
My views on this are somewhat mixed:
- McElroy surely is right that Catholics are called to work for peace; and that this imperative can be profoundly countercultural, especially in the United States, a nation which undeniably has a warrior culture (cf its annual defense budget).
- The proliferation of nuclear arms gets more worrisome with each passing year. Each time another country gets the bomb, the incentives for other countries to do so increases. It seems the mullahs in Iran are very close to having nuke capabilities. South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Saudi Arabia...each must be thinking that it is entirely in its self-interest to be come a nuclear power, even if only for deterrence. It is worrisome enough that Putin and Xi have access to nuclear arsenals. So does Kim in North Korea. And the generals in Pakistan. And Netanyahu in Israel. So did Trump in the US for four years.
- There is no reason the just war theory should be exempt from critique. Can anyone doubt that it is inadequate in some respects, including those called out buy McElroy? At the same time, this article's summary of the just war theory - "military combat can align with the Gospel as long as warfare protects noncombatants and the armed response is restrained" - hardly does it justice
- McElroy describes Russia's invasion of Ukraine as "extreme". But viewed through a historical lens, it isn't extreme. It is scarcely an overstatement to say that world history consists of episodes, one after another, of invasions and wars that are much like what Russia is inflicting on Ukraine. War is close to inevitable when humans are gathered into clans, tribes, nations or alliances
- Perhaps unconsciously, McElroy seems to invoke the just war framework when he notes that the justification for military action by Ukrainians is "unassailable".
I am among those who find pacifism naive and untenable. Yes, the just war framework is inadequate. But all the alternatives seem worse.
It's funny how Crdl. McElroy's comments on war and peace have not consumed nearly as much oxygen as his discussion of sexual sins. But pondering the questions of war and peace is every bit as important as parsing sexual sins and their degree of gravity.
ReplyDeleteEven if nonviolence may be unattainable in a pure form, I think it will always be something that Christians should strive towards. I don't think McElroy is completely rejecting the just war theory.
One thing that complicates a just war theory in modern times is the sheer carnage and destruction of our weapons. While there might have been plenty of mayhem inflicted when knights of old had at one another with pike-staves and long bows, they were in fact limited in how much killing they could do. There is no such limit with our weapons and bombs, particularly the nuclear ones.
He mentions proxy wars. That subject ought to trouble the consciences of modern powerful nations. But I'm not sure that it does.
About McElroy's description of Russia's invasion of Ukraine as "extreme", something can be both common and extreme.
DeleteI think Cardinal McElroy is spot on. This nation (like all militaristic nations these days) has the pretense of some philosophical good to justify its aggression. We are not goody two shoes in the genesis of the Ukrainian conflict. We were directly engaged in Ukrainian politics to get a USA aligned leadership. The best thing would have been to seek neutrality for countries bordering Russia. Instead, we pushed NATO even after the Warsaw Pact evaporated. NATO now means projecting US hegemony everywhere anytime for any reason. Perhaps this Ukrainian War might have happened anyway if we were more prudent and less hubristic. But we'll never know because we trust and employ military power over diplomacy.
ReplyDeleteSomething HAS to be done about this war thing. As one who worked for the military, I see three problems. This military stuff is becoming more and more costly. This is draining resources needed for our collapsing civilization and the people who live in it. Secondly, the weapons are getting scarier and humans are extremely delicate creatures, Rambo and Dirty Harry included. Add AI to robotics (it's being done) and you have something I wouldn't want to meet in a dark alley or a well lit one. Guns would be useless.
Thirdly, there's a powerful element in this country that likes war. They make big money off it. Also, military dollars are in our universities and provide votes. How can you kill wasteful program X if the gazotchkies for the undercarriage of System X are made in your district?
Maybe 100% pacifism is naive, but gung ho hypermilitarism is nurtz. Perhaps just war theory, if followed, might have prevented our two dumb wars that cost 6T USD. It certainly wasn't followed. And nothing about it from any pulpit I know.
Raber has argued some of your same points. I am a bit more hawkish, but the Nintendo approach to warfare is pretty disturbing.
DeletePart of the problem with trying to curb military spending is the way the Propaganda Machine has elevated Our Troops to near-cult status. Can't criticize our military activities because that disrespects Our Troops. Never mind that Our Troops are underpaid, underserved, and subjected in some cases to harassment, hazing, and rape.
I knew a lot of former soldiers from Vietnam in college. I had many wonderful ex-soldiers as students after their tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many struggled with mental health fallout, and some didn't survive it. That seems to have been a factor in the recent death of our neighbor.
I don't see a lot of hope for change with the current crowd of politicians.
Christianity may not have been founded on pacifism, but it was founded on non-violence. Both the non-violence with which Jesus meet his accusers and suffered his death, and the non-violence with which the Christian martyrs met the Roman empire and through their deaths gave witness to their following of Jesus. We grew through non-violence rather than violence.
ReplyDeleteJesus did not advocate the overthrow of the Roman Empire, or resistance to the Jewish authorities. On the contrary he encouraged his followers to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to respect the Temple and the Law even while he was transcending both.
I do not believe in pacifism at the personal level. Despite all our laws, our police and technology, there always will be circumstances that require us to defend the lives of others against violence. However, there are many circumstances in which at a personal level we may chose not to defend our own lives, especially if we have little or no family obligations. When we do have such obligations, we should feel free to defend our own lives.
Pacifism at the institution level is another thing. War is institutionalized violence. Simply speaking all Christians should decide NOT whether this war or that war is just, but whether or not the WAR MACHINE of their own country makes sense for themselves, their nation, and for the world.
The reality is that war decisions are made by political leaders, not citizens or troops. Clearly this country has a recent history of becoming involved in wars that are very difficult to justify. Clearly its whole military apparatus is outsized and that it serves the needs of the military-industrial complex rather than our nation or the world. Other countries may or may not be in similar positions.
While the church has since Vatican II recognized the right of conscientious objection that has been in the context of just war theory. I think we need to modernize the concept from a right to a privilege and treat it as something like a religious vow.
In other words, I think all Catholics, women as well as men, should decide during their youth, say from age 16 to 26, whether or not they wish to dedicate a portion of their lives in part to peace and nonviolence. As evident of that commitment, they would spend two years within approved church environments working and praying for peace in preparation for a lifetime of praying, networking and volunteering part-time for peace.
At the end of the two years the bishop would receive their lifetime commitment to peace by praying over them, anointing them with oil, and bestowing upon a cross as a sign of their commitment. By this the church would proclaim that these people like religious are exempt for military service, although their country may still require them to perform some humanitarian alternative service. This would commit the church to a large scale world-wide, voluntary effort for peace and nonviolence.
All this would not detract at all from Catholics who wish to serve their country in the military in the hope that their political leaders and citizens will only exercise violence in a just manner. We should continue to be respect soldiers, and police for their form of self- sacrifice just as much as those who commit themselves to peach and non-violence.
The Amish have a pretty strong commitment to non-violence. But how does that work if you don't live in a country where your right to be a pacifist is defended by others?
ReplyDeleteThe Amish have no explicit constitutional protections as pacifists. I read a whole history about it once. The US DoD came up with standard rules about it after WWI, when many Amish were jailed for refusing to fight or serve as non combatants. Local draft boards during WWII were supposed to apply the policies according to DoD guidelines. There is international law upholds conscientious objection, so many countries have provisions that allow pacifists some latitude to serve as non combatants. It's an interesting topic.
DeleteRaber and The Boy used to attend the yearly Pax Christi programs in Lansing. In fact, last time he was here, The Boy asked if they had started meeting again since the pandemic. I think the average age in that group is about 65. Raber gets The Catholic Worker, and that is pretty pacifist. I don't know to what extent young Catholics are drawn to these movements within the Church.
ReplyDeleteOne thing is for certain. We aren't the same country that defeated Nazi Germany and the Imperial Japanese. Our country's industrial might has been eviscerated by the capitalists. We have a mercenary army (called "volunteer). We have also been economically and socially weakened by our senseless wars over the last thirty years. And now we want to elevate our confrontation with two powers, one of which IS our industrial base. Idealism whether real or propaganda doesn't win wars. Troops and stuff win wars. Hitler thought it was the Will. Nope. Troops from the Soviet Union and stuff from the USA. I just don't see how it adds up for our winning a two front confrontation.
ReplyDelete