The Progression and Regression of Ideas
Dominic Holtz, O.P. and Darwin rightly shine a light on the difficulties and dangers of analyzing the development of ideas in a way that assumes the superiority of their early stages and the initial motivations behind their primitive formulations. So, for example, that the conceptions of matrimony or communal life or just war theory began upon specific presuppositions and for specific reasons does not make those specifics superior to later developments and new motivations. The history of ideas involves both progression and regression, evolution and de-evolution, development and corruption. And sometimes simply value-neutral change. In either case, the origins of an idea may have something beneficial to say to fuller developments of that same idea, especially if those developments have moved away from or forgotten its origin. Or they may not.
In the case of just war tradition of the Catholic Church, I sense a movement away from the traditional formulation. On the one hand, you have Catholics such as Michael Novak arguing that just war theory has to be rethought in light of the threat of terrorism and non-State actors. On the other hand you have the Vatican in Gaudium et Spes calling for all war to be outlawed by international consent, Pope John XXIII in Pacem in Terris remarking that, in our age of indiscriminate warfare, war is no longer a suitable means of restoring rights which have been violated, and Pope John Paul II in Centesimus Annus crying out, “No, never again war, which destroys the lives of innocent people, teaches how to kill, throws into upheaval even the lives of those who do the killing and leaves behind a trail of resentment and hatred, thus making it all the more difficult to find a just solution of the very problems which provoked the war.”
Where this movement will take the Church’s ideas about war is anyone’s guess. A lot may depend on whether the Church can provide a reasonable and practical alternative to war when the lives of people are threatened by coordinated violence. By saying that all war (not just the traditionally “unjust” ones) should be abolished and outlawed and never again waged, the Church seems to assume a workable alternative, but this alternative is still in need of development, and this development, so to speak, may well see progression and regression before a new conception is formulated.
And, of course, the debates about its idea will still continue.
Comments are closed.
If the Church would like to see all war abolished, how much more would she like to see all adultery abolished? I’m not inclined to interpret a pope’s expression of such a wish as a realistic expectation that it could actually happen.
I remember John Paul II’s declaration because of the irony in him saying it. Were it not for a very large number of men willing to lay down their lives for their neighbors, he with high probability would have spent the preceding 40 odd years at the bottom of a mass grave instead of on the road to becoming Pope.
And one could say if Christians were willing to follow the peaceful ways of the martyrs for 2000 years, and didn’t glorify war, who knows, maybe there would have been no genocides and the like in the 20th century. It’s always nice to do a “if” isn’t it?
HK writes, “And one could say if Christians were willing to follow the peaceful ways of the martyrs for 2000 years, and didn’t glorify war, who knows, maybe there would have been no genocides and the like in the 20th century.”
Sure. And if Christians would only live sinlessly we’d all be assured of Heaven. Wouldn’t that be great?
You fail to see the point I was making: we can all make “what ifs” if we want, to make ourselves feel secure in our ideologies. However, when we start pronouncing what would have happened if our “what if” had happened, well, I am quite skeptical. History shows many who followed the Pope’s ways did not find themselves killed, and they lived to give the message he gave.
Agellius
It seems odd to me that you would want or expect Christians to live in the same way as non-Christians (except perhaps a bit nicer). That seems to deny the grace we receive at baptism and the grace we receive on the Eucharist. This grace transforms who we are so that we no longer conform to the patterns of this world.
We are not assured of heaven through our own sinlessness but because we are reconciled and united with the Sinless One. Surely if we are truly united with Christ and we truly receive grace through the power of the Holy Spirit in the sacraments, we should expect to be not just a bit better than those who have not received grace but to live in a way that is not possible for those who have not received grace. Or is that too much to expect from God?
Ryan writes, “It seems odd to me that you would want or expect Christians to live in the same way as non-Christians (except perhaps a bit nicer). ”
It seems odd to me that you would interpret my statement in that way.
My point in commenting on this thread has been, that no matter how much the popes may deplore war, they ought to implore personal sin even more. As Cardinal Newman said, it would be objectively better that the whole world were destroyed by fire than that one person should commit a single venial sin (or something to that effect). War destroys the body but sin destroys the soul.
Yet we all know that personal sins will always be with us. And if sin, then conflict, and if conflict then war. Certainly God by his grace and power could eliminate the possibility of war from the human condition. For that matter he could also eliminate sin if he chose. But for reasons of his own, he doesn’t.
I have seen and heard of schemes and programs to move “beyond war” before. I remember as a teenager, my grandmother embracing this new organization called “Beyond War”. “It’s a new idea, you see, to eliminate war as one of the options for problem solving. We just have to get people to think ‘beyond war’”, and so forth. Just the other day I saw a bumper sticker that said, “There is no path to peace, peace is the path”. It was on a background of bright pink with flowers and so forth, apparently intended to convey the idea that it’s all about attitude: We just need to think brightly-colored, happy thoughts and everything will be fine.
Well, you know, if everyone were as nice as the person with the bumper sticker, probably we could eliminate war. The problem is, **everyone is not that nice**. And some of those who are usually that nice, are not that nice all the time. If we knew the secret of how to get everyone to think brightly colored, happy thoughts, and be nice all the time, why then we could live in Eden (though even Eden was not immune from sin). We could have heaven on earth.
But divine revelation makes clear that the world is not heaven and never will be. The world will always hate truth and beauty and authentic love. Not because God can’t make it otherwise, but because he lets us make it as we choose, and that’s what we, as a fallen race, choose.
Now you would hope that at least *Christians* could live in peace and harmony, without hating one another. But guess what? Even we are subject to concupiscence and sin, and find it difficult to avoid strife. Certainly I believe that living the Catholic faith makes people better. I’m certain it has made me better. But the fact is that I still sin. And if I, who hold the faith to be the highest and best thing in life, adherence to which is my highest priority, can’t keep from bickering with my wife from time to time, not to mention other sins of omission and commission which I commit on a daily basis — how can I possibly expect the *whole world* to live in a state of permanent peace??
Most of the world is not even *trying* to live the Gospel. If we who at least try, can’t manage to be always and everywhere at peace, what can we expect from the vast majority who don’t even try?
So, in my view, “beyond war” is a pipe dream. A nice idea, and one which God could pull off if he chose, but one which — come on, get real — he’s not going to. What are you going to do when the next Hitler rears his head? Hand him a “Beyond War” pamphlet, and then lay down and let him steamroll you? Or stand up to him before he invades his neighbors and kills six million of some despised minority?
I apologize for misinterpreting your statement, but I think you’ve done the same to mine. I completely agree that “programs and schemes” to create peace will fail. And of course the world is not “trying” to live the Gospel. How can they? Even Christians cannot live the Gospel simply by “trying”. The only way the Gospel can be lived is according to the grace given in baptism and Eucharist, so how can we expect the world which has not received that grace to live it out?
If you look a bit closer, you will see that I am also talking about individual sin and evil. Yes, this world runs according to the pattern of sin and evil and no one is exempt from that fallenness (including myself). And war is ultimately the result of that sin. But I am troubled by your lack of faith in God’s ability it deal with sin and evil. God has dealt with sin and brought peace, even in the face of all the Ceasars and Hitlers that rear their heads, through the cross. True, that peace is not completely manifested on this side of the eschaton, but if that is how God has brought peace and reconciliation, wouldn’t that suggest that we should work in the same way?
Now if we truly receive grace in the sacraments, grace that actually has an effect on us – uniting us with Christ and conforming us to his pattern of life – then I would expect that we should live according to the pattern of Christ. And if he overcame sin and evil through the cross, then that is the pattern we have been given in overcoming sin and evil. To deny that the grace given in the Eucharist can change us in this way is to deny the Real Presence.
If you feel that Christ, being both God and human, is too high a bar to pattern our lives after, we have also been given the testimony of the martyrs. They were humans, just as we are. They faced sin and evil just as we did. And they overcame not through violence by resisting the temptation to use the tools of evil to defeat evil. I agree that “beyond war” is a pipe dream (at least on this side of the eschaton), but that can’t stop us from proclaiming the sinfulness of war when we see it. Seeing someone else sin, even if they sin against us or against others, does not mean we can respond to them in a sinful way ourselves. It means we do whatever we can to stop them, but we do so in conformity to the pattern we have in Christ and the martrys and in the grace we receive in the sacraments.
I admit that there are times that the only way I can see to deal with someone else’s sin or violence is to respond violently myself. But when I do so, I still want to distinguish between the good that I will (the stopping of evil) and the sinful means I employ to do so.
Ryan:
Since I agree with virtually everything you say here, I’m hard pressed to see where we’re disagreeing (though I don’t doubt we are). What exactly did I say that you think is wrong?
Agellius – Perhaps I’m reading a caricature of what you wrote rather than what you actually wrote. I interpreted your comments to be dismissive of the striving for peace and even of the possibilty of God giving us the grace to live as a peaceful people in this world of violence. I’m glad you agree with virtually everything I said, but I agree that we still disagree at a fairly basic level.
Let me put it this way. I believe that we as Christians must say “Yes!” to the call to resist evil wherever it is manifest, whether in our own lives, in our communities and in the world. On this I’m sure we agree. But I also believe that we as Christians must say “No!” when we are called to use violence to resist evil, whether that call comes from within ourselves, from others or from the State. And that power to say “No” to violence and resist evil through other mean comes as we receive grace from God to become conformed to Christ. I suspect that it would be here that we disagree. However, I would be more than happy to be wrong on this count ;)
Henry writes, “You fail to see the point I was making: …”
You’re right, I did miss your point due to inattention to the preceding comment. Sorry.
“History shows many who followed the Pope’s ways did not find themselves killed, and they lived to give the message he gave.”
Well, the vast majority of people in every country are never killed in war. Usually even the majority of soldiers are not killed.
Ryan writes, “But I also believe that we as Christians must say “No!” when we are called to use violence to resist evil, whether that call comes from within ourselves, from others or from the State.”
If you’re saying that Christians should be total pacifists, I certainly disagree. The Church has never taught that violence is intrinsically evil.
We should totally abstain from sin. For example, the Church has taught that birth control is intrinsically evil, therefore there is no circumstance in which a married Catholic may use it licitly. But it has not taught that there is no circumstance in which we may use violence licitly.
And now we come more closely to the initial point of Kyle’s post. The early church was certainly pacifist. Church teaching about war and violence developed away from pacifism, and it now seems to be moving back in that direction.
But under the just war tradition (as was pointed out in the previous post Kyle linked back to at re beginning of his post) killing another human being was understood to be sinful even in a fully justified war. The example of William the Conqueror was given, where even though his invasion was just in the eyes of the church, his soldiers needed to do penance before being admitted to the Eucharist.
So even if the violence is justified, it is still sin. And if we are to abstain from sin, that would appear to mean we must abstain from violence. Or at least recognize that when we commit violence (which we all do, regardless of whether we go to war), not matter how just the violence might be, it is still sinful and requires repentance.
I wonder if we might profit by examining the just war theory through the lens of Fr. Rhonheimer’s interpretation of Pope Benedict’s “continuity and reform” that I posted about last week. Rhonheimer argued that Dignitatis Humanae represented a rupture or break with papal teaching (particularly in the 19th century), but the break occurred at the level of contingent and temporal decisions, not at the level of dogma. He argues that DH represents a reclaiming of the underlying Church teaching that had become obscured by this earlier teaching.
Seen in this light, we can ask if the just war theory represents not a fundamental teaching, but a contingent response to circumstance, and that in the current day we might be better served by “breaking” with this teaching in order to more fully reclaim the underlying (and more important) ideas. I have toyed with doing a longer post about this, but can’t bring my ideas into focus, so instead I will throw this question out: what is the underlying principle that the just war theory was intended to promote, and can this principle be better served by breaking with the just war theory?
Ryan writes, “The early church was certainly pacifist.”
I’m not certain how certain that is.
Ryan writes, “Church teaching about war and violence developed away from pacifism, and it now seems to be moving back in that direction.”
Well, as of now the Catechism still says that I can defend myself and those under my care, to the extent of using lethal means when necessary. I will be very surprised if that gets deleted any time soon.
Ryan writes, “… even if the violence is justified, it is still sin.”
That’s a contradiction. “Justified” means “demonstrated to be right and proper”. It can’t be justified and still be sinful.
Ryan writes, “And if we are to abstain from sin, that would appear to mean we must abstain from violence.”
Again you’re saying that violence is intrinsically, i.e. always and everywhere, evil. That is not the Church’s teaching. You are welcome to campaign for the Church’s teaching to be changed in this respect, but as of now it has not been.
Since I try not to be contradictory, let me amend my statement to say that even if we sincerely believe the violence to be our only option, rather than justified. I still think there is a distinction, at least in the application of church teaching, that is brought out by the demand that soldiers do penance after killing even in a justified war.
Or how about this: while there may be situations in theory where violence is justified (thus removing violence from the realm on intrinsic evil), our fallen nature and improper motives preclude the ability to ever actually commit violence without sin. Ironically, in this case, the only human who would actually be able to act violently towards another human without sin would be Christ.
Perhaps our differences lie in the realm of what is versus what should be.
Ryan writes, “… while there may be situations in theory where violence is justified (thus removing violence from the realm on intrinsic evil), our fallen nature and improper motives preclude the ability to ever actually commit violence without sin.”
If that is the case, then the Catechism is woefully remiss in not saying so, since it says quite plainly, not only that we may defend ourselves and others, but that we have a *duty* to do so. See 2263-2265.
As far as soldiers doing penance upon returning from battle, the quotes provided constitute anecdotal evidence, i.e., purports to state what was actually done in some cases at a particular period of time. This is not the same as magisterial teaching. While people in the Church may have (understandably) believed at one time or another that all violence was sinful, this is not the same as the Church teaching it as a matter of principle.