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.
Continue reading at First Things