Volume LVI, No 4
December, 2002
Nonviolence or Just War:
Two Legitimate Moral Options?
Mark Mossa, S.J.
IN THIS ISSUE
On November 12, 2002, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops expressed "serious concerns and questions about a possible war with Iraq," see <http://www.nccbuscc.org/bishops/iraq.htm>. Examining various approaches to "The War on Terror," Mark Mossa, S.J. suggests that there has been a failure of conviction and creativity in seeking alternatives to war as a last resort in recent conflicts.
These days, we Catholics are hearing a lot about "just war." The current war on terrorism and threat of war in Iraq have everybody talking. Is it just or unjust? And if just or unjust, what would be the basis of that judgment? There has long been a difference of opinion on precisely how precisely this is to be determined. A nonviolent Catholic might say that there is no such thing as just war, or that the Gospel teaches that all war is wrong. Go to your pastor and he's likely to tell you to use the Church's just war principles to make up your mind. The answer to the question, what does the Church teach about war these days? isn't as simple as you might think. Indeed, looking at the different resources which inform the question, it seems one cannot arrive at an answer so much as simply the state of the question.
It's in the Catechism
The just war teaching of the Church is presented in the sections on "Peace" and "Avoiding War" in The Catechism of the Catholic Church. Under the latter section, the Church cautions, "The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration," followed by a summary of the "just war" doctrine (Catechism 2309). These are the conditions to be met before undertaking and while sustaining an armed conflict. Briefly, they demand that the damage inflicted by the aggressor must be lasting, grave, and certain (as, clearly, was the death of thousands in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania on September 11), that all possible non-violent means of avoiding the conflict are exhausted, that there be a serious prospect of success, and that the evil inflicted (keeping in mind modern means of destruction) not be greater than that to be eliminated.
These criteria can be a great help in discerning for oneself whether a given conflict might be deemed just or not. But mostly they are meant to help guide government authorities, who have a responsibility for the common good, in the decision as to whether or not to undertake a war. The decision is left to their "prudential judgment." The Church, however, also feels a responsibility to help guide leaders in these judgments. So, quite responsibly, when the possibility of conflict is at hand, Church bodies such as Bishop's Conferences and Religious Superiors urge the government to adhere to these principles. The Jesuit Provincials and the Bishops of the United States, for example, both did so in letters to President Bush after September 11, as well as in the more recent threat of war against Iraq. These statements are necessary, but one wonders if they are simply ignored, as "the same old line." And, even if read, is the government really interested in abiding by these principles? The progress of recent conflicts, which often admit of little reflection before engaging in hostilities, is cause for wonder. And, indeed, once a war has started, it seems that both those for and against have little trouble arguing each of their positions based on the validity of just war principles. Many today are questioning the continued practical value of the just war tradition, or at least whether it alone is a reliable guide.
What About Catholic Social Teaching?
Many find the Church's recent social teaching a helpful supplement to the just war tradition. In 1963's Pacem in Terris, John XXIII declared, "Men are becoming more and more convinced that disputes which arise between states should not be resolved by recourse to arms, but rather by negotiation" (126). Significantly, the first encyclical addressed to all the world, it takes an optimistic look at the world's potential for peace. It does so, however, by reflecting seriously upon where the world stood, World War II still a fresh memory and only months removed from the brink of nuclear conflict after the Cuban Missile Crisis: "We grant indeed that this conviction is chiefly based on the terrible destructive force of modern weapons . . . Therefore, in an age such as ours which prides itself on its atomic energy it is contrary to reason to hold that war is now a suitable way to restore rights which have been violated" (127).This bold statement was and is interpreted by many as signaling a shift in the Church's teaching on war away from"justified" conflict and toward a more general prohibition.
Similar statements seem to confirm this change in emphasis. The Second Vatican Council in Gaudium et Spes affirmed the just war tradition while feeling compelled "by the addition of scientific weapons . . . to undertake an evaluation of war with an entirely new attitude" and warning, "The men of our time must realize that they will have to give a somber reckoning of their deeds of war" (80). It also recognized and praised "those who renounce the use of violence in the vindication of their rights and who resort to methods which are otherwise available to weaker parties too, provided this can be done without injury to the rights and duties of others or the community itself" (78). Thus the Council affirmed a "new attitude" and legitimized conscientious objection to war.
Pope Paul VI stresses the urgency of ending war and its causes, beginning especially with disarmament. In Populorum Progressio he proposes a fund, made up of money which would be otherwise spent on arms, to bring relief to the destitute of the world, adding: "When so many people are hungry, when so many families suffer from destitution, when so many remain steeped in ignorance, when so many schools, hospitals and homes worthy of the name remain to be built, all public or private squandering of wealth, all expenditure prompted by motives of national or personal ostentation, every exhausting armaments race, becomes an intolerable scandal" (53).
In his address to the United Nations General Assembly in October 1965, he urges them to move forward in promoting disarmament and peace: "It is enough to remember that the blood of millions of men, numberless and unprecedented sufferings, useless slaughter and frightful ruin are the sanction of the covenant which unties you, in a solemn pledge which must change the future history of the world: No more war, war never again." Paul VI emphasizes that "the development of peoples," not defense budgets, is the best defense against war: "the new name for peace is development" (Populorum Progressio 87).
John Paul II continues the emphases of his predecessors in Centesimus Annus: "It is not hard to see that the terrifying power of the means of destruction—to which even medium and small-sized countries have access—and the ever closer links between the peoples of the whole world make it very difficult or practically impossible to limit the consequences of a conflict" (51). Recalling Paul VI's words, he continues: "At the root of war there are usually real and serious grievances: injustices suffered, legitimate aspirations frustrated, poverty, and the exploitation of multitudes of desperate people who see no real possibility of improving their lot by peaceful means. For this reason, another name for peace is development. Just as there is a collective responsibility for avoiding war, so too there is a collective responsibility for promoting development" (52).
John Paul also takes time to reflect on recent events, dedicating an entire section to the events surrounding the fall of Communism in 1989, emphasizing especially the non-violent means used in achieving that goal: "It seemed that the European order resulting from the Second World War and sanctioned by the Yalta agreements could only be overturned by another war. Instead, it has been overcome by the non-violent commitment of people who, while always refusing to yield to the force of power, succeeded time after time in finding effective ways of bearing witness to the truth . . . I pray this example will prevail in other places and other circumstances. May people learn to fight for justice without violence, renouncing class struggle in their internal disputes and war in international ones" (23).He also recalls his reaction to the Persian Gulf War: "I myself . . . repeated the cry: `Never Again War!' 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" (52).More than any other contemporary Pope, John Paul II has lauded and held up as an example the witness of those who choose nonviolent resistance rather than violence and war. Indeed, in Evangelium Vitae, otherwise silent in directly addressing the issue of war, he points out: "Among the signs of hope we should also count the spread, at many levels of public opinion, of a new sensitivity ever more opposed to war as an instrument for the resolution of conflicts between peoples, and increasingly oriented to finding effective but "non-violent" means to counter the armed aggressor" (27).
There seem, then, to be at least three distinct identifiable trends in the Church's social teaching: 1) A stronger anti-war stance prompted by the destructive potential of modern weapons, especially nuclear arms, 2) a call for disarmament which includes a recognition of the role development of peoples rather than weapons must play in achieving peace, and 3) praise for and promotion of conscientious objection and nonviolent alternatives to war. The question is whether, as many claim, these statements represent a shift or development in Church teaching on war.
The U.S. Bishops seem to think so. They weigh in strongly on these matters in both The Challenge of Peace (1983) and The Harvest of Justice is Sown in Peace (1993). They teach that the Christian has two legitimate moral options in choosing a response to war: nonviolence or just war. In the earlier document, they insist: "The Christian has no choice but to defend peace. This is an inalienable obligation. It is the how of defending peace which offers moral options" (73). Here, even critics recognize, the two choices achieve a parity which belies the somewhat begrudging recognition previously allowed the practice of nonviolence. The Bishops clearly do not see this as their own innovation, but as an articulation of the direction indicated by the aforementioned papal documents. They also see this as a normal development in the history of the tradition: "Throughout history there has been a shifting relation between the two streams of the tradition which always remain in tension." The Bishops signal their document's consistency with the papal documents by echoing their concerns: "The destruction wrought by these recent wars reinforces and strengthens for us the strong presumption against the use of force, which is shared by both traditions [i.e. nonviolence and just war] . . . The presumption against the use of force has also been strengthened by the examples of the effectiveness of nonviolence in some places in Eastern Europe and elsewhere." The significance of these statements for understanding the Church's current teaching on war, and where it is headed, is the subject of much debate.
Just War: What is it Good For?
It has become something of a commonplace to presume that the past forty years have been a time when people's thoughts have more often turned away from war and placed greater hope in peacemaking and negotiation. Whether or not this is indeed the case, it is presented as incontestable by those on both sides of the just war debate.
Peace activists like Jesuit Father John Dear applaud this state of affairs and point to the recent statements of the Popes and the U.S. Bishops as an indication that the Church is moving away from its just war teaching toward a stronger emphasis on nonviolence as a Christian obligation. Dear's conclusion is that "the Church is moving beyond the age-old just war theory and back to the roots of Gospel nonviolence" (Dear, The God of Peace). I admire Dear's enthusiasm, but he clearly overstates the case. While there is indeed a stronger recognition of nonviolent alternatives to war, there is also a continual reaffirmation of the Church's just war teaching from Gaudium et Spes to The Harvest of Justice is Sown in Peace. Also, considering recent Church statements regarding the U.S.-led war on terrorism, one can't help but notice the more frequent recourse to just war teaching and not to promotion of nonviolent options.
Writers appearing in First Things, and the publication's editors, take a decidedly different view of this commonplace. Darrell Cole, in an article appearing just days before September 11, laments the fact that "many Christians today wish to disown the tradition's acceptance of warfare as a potential good" (Cole 27). He recognizes the influence of recent Church documents: "There is an additional reason why the bulk of Christian laity accepts the modern ethos of war: their leaders have bought into it. We see evidence both of pacifism and liberal humanism influencing official Church documents on war in the twentieth century, both Protestant and Catholic" (28). He faults both the Catholic and Methodist U.S. Bishops for documents that "assume that just war theory and pacifism share equal status in the tradition and that pacifism ought to inform just war thinking" (29). He fails to mention the influence of recent Popes on these documents. To defend his view that participation in war can be a good, charitable, and morally obligatory demonstration of love for God and neighbor, he falls back on Aquinas. I do not dispute his explication of Aquinas, or its conformity with traditional Church teaching. I question, however, the implication that we must ignore the lessons of 700 years of history when considering our response to war.
George Weigel criticizes what he calls the "new `default position' in contemporary Catholic commentary on war and peace" in the April 2002 issue of First Things (Weigel 33). He claims this new attitude amounts to "a functional pacifism that mistakenly imagines itself an authentic development of the just war tradition" (33). Weigel is more explicit about its supposed connection to the just war tradition (whereas Dear would see it opposed to the just war tradition), but they are both pointing to the same phenomenon. Weigel says that the issue is not whether some Church authorities hold what he—I think exaggeratedly—calls "functional pacifism." He believes this to be the case. What must be established, he argues, is whether "the new `default position' is in continuity with the great tradition of Catholic thought on war and peace" (34). "And that," he concludes, "cannot be done" (34).
Weigel draws his arguments, like Cole, from Aquinas as well as from Pope John Paul II. His arguments are well made, if a bit too academic, but I find one of his central arguments especially naïve. If true, this argument would indeed challenge the belief in an apparent development in the Church's view toward war, but, in all respect to Weigel whose knowledge of world affairs certainly exceeds my own, I don't think it can be reasonably asserted. He disputes what he considers an outdated claim that the greatest threat to peace "was the mere possession of nuclear weapons," asserting: "The opposite, of course, turned out to be true. Nuclear weapons were not the primary threat to peace; communism was. When communism went, so did the threat posed by the weapons" (35). Weigel is not alone in this belief that the end of the Cold War signaled the end of the nuclear threat, but I think it is a belief that is patently wrong and that refuses to acknowledge the United States, with its sophisticated weapons arsenals, as a significant threat to peace and human life. This most serious consideration in contemporary reflection on war cannot and should not be dismissed so easily.
The editors of First Things also attack Christian nonviolence, so harshly it prompted Stanley Hauerwas to reconsider his position on their editorial board. They claim to approve of pacifism and its "long and venerable history in the Christian tradition," but find the concept of nonviolent resistance "a proposed tactic that most sensible people find implausible" (Editors, 4). They endorse pacifistic nonresistance while making the absurd assertion that "those who in principle oppose the use of military force have no legitimate part in the discussion about how military force should be used" (4). Hauerwas, responding to this claim as a pacifist, takes exception at being "silenced" so. Proponents of nonviolent resistance, on the other hand, are not even given the benefit of peaceful silence, but accused of living "in a unreal world of utopian fantasy that has no basis in Christian faith" (4). Pope John Paul II, no doubt, will be surprised to find himself in such a position. To borrow a phrase from Paul VI, it may be that the editors of First Things are not being realistic enough.
Lacking definitive and uncompromising support for conclusions already made, both sides of this debate select only part of the truth to demonstrate their position. Dear, in defense of a nonviolent tradition, interprets the Second Vatican Council and the Popes' praise for and promotion of nonviolent resistance as "paving the way for a day in the future when Gospel nonviolence will be fully embraced and the just war theory discarded once and for always" (Dear, The God of Peace). This is a serious overstatement that ignores the continued resilience of the just war theory in many of the same documents. Given the rate at which the Catholic Church historically undergoes such changes, Dear seems to turn what is, at best, a baby step into a giant leap forward. Besides, if the U.S. Bishops are right about the shifting relation between just war and nonviolence in the history of the Church, then such a complete shift seems improbable. Things would be just as likely to shift back the other way, precipitated by, perhaps, a war on terrorism.
The First Things authors are also not innocent of overstatement or exaggeration. The actual existence of this new "default position" of Catholic commentary on war and peace seems questionable at best, largely limited to the documents we have discussed and less apparent in broader levels of discourse. Speaking with Catholic friends, reading Catholic publications and even talking with other Jesuits I just don't find evidence of a "functional pacifism." Indeed, I tend to find the opposite. As editor of the student newspaper in my Catholic college during the Gulf War, I found overwhelming support among my peers for the war. A review of the discourse concerning the U.S. war on terror in the Catholic press since September 11 also reveals that those who oppose this war are certainly in the minority. It seems that Weigel, Cole, and others have set themselves against a straw man that doesn't exist. As for the editors' remarks regarding nonviolent resistance, they belittle a legitimate attitude of conscience which Pope John Paul II enthusiastically promotes among the faithful. Weigel may be right in saying that the Pope is not a pacifist, but he certainly thinks nonviolent resistance is a pretty good idea.
War After September 11
The events of September 11 have only further complicated the question. In the face of such a huge loss of innocent life, no one can easily find peace in any approach to the morality of war. Even those with long-held nonviolent convictions find themselves wavering in their resolve. The emotional impact of such a horrific attack demands a very pastoral approach to the question of how to respond. Some, with the courage of their convictions, will speak boldly and confidently, but often imprudently. But such matters of great moment do require a swift response by authoritative bodies to not only guide the faithful, but to advise the government as to how to act for the common good. These are hard statements to make which risk the ire of many no matter what guidance is given.
The initial response of the U.S. Bishops was in a letter to President Bush on September 21. It did little more than what might be expected—it condemned the September 11 attacks, urged a just response and reiterated the teachings of the just war tradition. This was certainly responsible behavior on the part of the Bishops. However, there is a glaring omission from the letter when it urges recourse to "the norms of the just war tradition such as probability of success, civilian immunity, and proportionality." It does not mention explicitly the requirement that all nonviolent means of resolving the conflict be exhausted and, indeed, seems to presume that military conflict is inevitable. Such omissions and presumptions do cause one to wonder whether there really is a "new attitude" or "default position" which includes a strong presumption against war in favor of negotiation.
While the Bishops' letter may have been lacking, it still must be commended as a responsible exercise of the duty of the shepherds of America's Catholic community. Less responsible, in my opinion, were the statements of some individual Bishops that made far too quick and unequivocal judgments about the just nature of American military response. Cardinal Belivacqua, for example, just days after military action began, wrote to the president: "The United States and its partners in the coalition made clear their preference to protect humanity by diplomatic means rather than military force. Sadly, because past and recent diplomatic efforts and political and economic sanctions failed, military action became necessary. These facts, together with the well-founded hope that we will ultimately succeed in the war against terrorism, demonstrate that we are engaged in a just war." Fair or not, American Catholics are likely to see these statements as a judgment of the Church and a justification for unconditional support of such a war, which is neither desirable or consistent with Church teaching.
Giving the Bishops their due, I must say that their November 14 pastoral message, "Living With Faith and Hope After September 11," is a much more balanced statement. While it has been criticized by some as being too supportive of U.S. military action, it does not give it unequivocal support. It also demonstrates that the Bishops have not fallen out of line with recent developments in the Church's attitude toward war. It recognizes, for example, the importance of the nonviolent witness of Christians and people of other faiths which serves as an "effective counter to terrorist claims of religious justification." It also advises that "Even if the cause is just . . . we must not only act justly but be perceived as acting justly if we are to succeed in winning popular support against terrorism." This, it seems to me, is good advice in light of the disturbing "wanted dead or alive," "we will not negotiate," cowboy mentality which has often been demonstrated by President Bush and other top officials during this conflict. The Bishops also demonstrate this documents' continuity with their other peace documents and urge Catholics toward conscientious reflection when they say: "While we have offered our own judgment about aspects of this question, we recognize that application of moral principles in this situation requires the exercise of the virtue of prudence. Some Christians profess a position of principled non-violence, which hold that non-military means are the only legitimate way to respond in this case. This is a valid Christian response. While respecting this position and maintaining a strong presumption against the use of force, the Church has sanctioned the use of moral criteria for a just war to allow the use of force by legitimate authority in self-defense and as a last resort. Those who subscribe to the just war tradition can differ in their prudential judgments about its interpretation or its application."
The State of the Question
"Living in Faith and Hope After September 11" may be more significant in what it has to say about the state of moral reflection about war in the Catholic tradition than in its evaluation of proper military and non-military approaches to the war against terrorism. The passage I have just quoted, while probably unsatisfying to anyone of strong convictions in this matter, does characterize in a very real and insightful way the state of the question as to where Catholic teaching stands on this matter today. Until or unless the Catholic Church abandons or alters its teaching with regard to just war—which, at this juncture, seems unlikely—or forbids conscientious objection and principled nonviolence—unlikely, too, given the Church's great respect for the well-formed conscience—this must be the case. However, one must be careful not to see this as the triumph of relativism. For while it is clear that there is more than one morally legitimate response with regard to these matters, those responses are possible only within certain defined and, some would say, increasingly more narrowly defined conditions.
Certain to draw criticism from every side, let me attempt to indicate what I take at least some of those conditions to be. The first clear mandate from the Church is that one cultivate in oneself a desire for peace and work to extend that desire to the communities in which one lives and participates and, ultimately, to the entire human community. This includes recognizing that the just development of all peoples is the way to peace. Secondly, there must be a strong presumption against the use of violence and it should always be seen as a last resort. This point is strongly disputed by Weigel and others whose views can perhaps be defended in an appeal to Aquinas, but this only by ignoring the weight of evidence for this presumption in social encyclicals and pastoral letters of the past forty years. Third, every person must take steps to adequately inform their conscience. This means not stubbornly holding to one's own opinions, but being conversant with the Church's teaching on the matter and striving to understand more and more completely the complexities of the matter in light of the that teaching and the teaching and witness of Jesus Christ. Fourth, one cannot reflect on this matter without recalling the great tragedy of World War II with its enormous cost in human life, its demonstration of the great evil human beings are capable of under such conditions, and its introduction to the enormous threat posed to all human life by the destructive capacity of modern weapons, especially nuclear arms. Finally, we must heed the words of Pope John Paul II in his message for this year's World Day of Peace, "No peace without justice, no justice without forgiveness." We must, as he urges, set about the difficult task of cultivating an attitude of forgiveness first within ourselves, and then in our society: "The ability to forgive lies at the very basis of the idea of a future society marked by justice and solidarity. By contrast, the failure to forgive, especially when it serves to prolong conflict, is extremely costly in terms of human development. Resources are used for weapons rather than for development, peace, and justice . . . Peace is essential for development, but true peace is only made possible through forgiveness."
These principles provide the groundwork for a conscientious choice between an attitude of nonviolent resistance to war or support of war waged according to the principles of the just war tradition. Whichever we choose, it is essential that we be conversant with the just war tradition, for one just does not choose a position and fall silent, no matter what the editors of First Things might suggest. One might be opposed to war in general and even the idea of just war, but that does not mean that one cannot use the principles of just war to argue that a war is unjust. Indeed, would that not be the only way of convincing the just war advocate that a given war is unjust? We are called to dialogue and to contribute to the ongoing conversation about how we as Christians are to promote peace and justice, even if that includes war. Like it or not, the just war teaching is the teaching of the Church and no Catholic discussion of war can take place without it. And while those who choose the path of nonviolent resistance might insist that they have nothing to talk about to those who would allow for the possibility of war, and vice-versa, we all have a Christian duty to do so. "The dread of being open to the ideas of others generally comes from our hidden insecurity about our own convictions," explains Thomas Merton, "The mission of Christian humility in social life is not merely to edify, but to keep minds open to many alternatives" (Merton 24). So, in such a situation we have a duty not only to edify with the convictions we have arrived at, but also to be edified by the witness of another Christian who has in good faith arrived at different convictions.
Final Thoughts
In fairness to the reader, perhaps I should say a little about my own position in this matter. As far back as I can remember (and perhaps it has something to do with the fact that I was born in the sixties) I have been personally opposed to war. It is indeed a matter of conscience for me and in my life up until now I have yet to find anything to sway me from this position. Yet I do believe that we must take the just war tradition seriously if for no other reason than that it is and continues to be the teaching of the Church. At the same time, however, we cannot ignore the evidence of history and the challenges of the present insofar as they speak to the danger and feasibility of war. Our recent Popes and Bishops clearly agree and have made statements with an important relationship to the Church's teaching on war and peace. Indeed, their importance is attested to by the fact that consideration of conscientious objection and the destructive potential of modern weapons are included in the Church's teaching on war and peace in the current Catechism.
For those, then, who take the just war tradition seriously, I offer a final thought. As much as people claim that it is the case, recent conflicts have caused me to wonder how much more inclined people really are to negotiation over armed conflict. The just war requirement that all other means of resolving a conflict must be exhausted before proceeding with a war seems to be mostly ignored and hardly attempted. I would be inclined to deem most recent wars unjust simply because they failed to meet this one requirement, no matter the other merits of the war. This I attribute to a failure of creativity and initiative, which if one takes time to look at the social encyclicals of the Church, will be found two important requirements for social change. Government officials too often seem to see few alternatives to war beyond ultimatums and limited diplomacy. It seems to me, for example, that the U.S. refusal to negotiate before the attack on Afghanistan at least compromises, if not totally negates, any claim to its being a just war. In this light, I was struck by a scene in the recent film "Thirteen Days," about the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Kennedy brothers, faced with the discovery of Soviet missiles in Cuba, turn to their advisors for help. Their advisors offer all the standard solutions, all of which amount to some kind of armed conflict. Despite the strong pressure to follow this advice, President Kennedy instead insists that they come up with an alternative solution. They do, and war is averted. Of course, it was not as simple as all that, and the historical accuracy of the film may be questionable, but I hope my point is clear. Government officials must be open to new and even radical alternatives to war and be patient enough to see them through. Perhaps this might be seen as compromising political popularity, but humankind will be better preserved by work for peace than four more years of death-bringing compromises. Conviction and creativity are sorely needed in our government and in our own lives if as Christians, whether we subscribe to the just war tradition or take a position of nonviolence, we are to achieve our common goal, justice and peace.
Endnotes
Belivacqua, Anthony Cardinal. Letter to President George W. Bush. October 16, 2001.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church. New York: Catholic Book Publishing Co., 1994.
Cole, Darrell. "Good Wars." First Things116 (October 2001), 27-31.
Dear, John. The God of Peace: Toward a Theology of Nonviolence. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1994.
The Editors. "In a Time of War." First Things 118 (December 2001).
Gaudium et Spes. December 7, 1965.
Hauerwas, Stanley. "In a Time of War: An Exchange." First Things 120 (February 2002).
John XXIII. Pacem in Terris. April 11, 1963.
John Paul II. Centesimus Annus. May 1, 1991.
John Paul II. Evangelium Vitae. March 25, 1995.
John Paul II. Message for the Celebration of the World Day of Peace. January 1, 2002.
Merton, Thomas. Faith and Violence. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1968.
Paul VI. Address to the United Nations General Assembly. October 4, 1965.
Paul VI. Populorum et Progressio. March 26, 1967
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The Challenge of Peace. (Washington, DC, 1983).
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The Harvest of Justice is Sown in Peace. (Washington, DC, 1993).
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Letter to President George W. Bush. (Washington, DC, September 21, 2001).
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. A Pastoral Message: Living With Faith and Hope After September 11. (Washington, DC, November 14, 2001).
Weigel, George & Paul Griffiths. "Just War: An Exchange." First Things 122 (April 2002), 31-36.
About the Author
Mark Mossa, S.J. is the Director of Campus Ministry and Community Service at Jesuit High School in Tampa, FL. He recently completed an M.A. in Philosophical Resources at Fordham University. He also holds a M.A. in English from the University of South Carolina. Mossa became fascinated with the varied approaches to "The War on Terror" in the Catholic media, and in the New York Catholic community of which he was a part until just recently. So, he set about examining these different approaches in the light of Catholic doctrine and recent pastoral letters and encyclicals. This article was written as part of a seminar on Social Analysis and Catholic Social Teaching with Fordham's Dr. J.R.Kelly.
