http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=14554

-----------------------------------------------------


Is This a "Just War"?

Administrative Staff, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops
November 15, 2002



As we Catholic
Bishops meet here in Washington, our nation, Iraq and the
world face grave choices about war and peace, about pursuing
justice and security. These are not only military and
political choices, but also moral ones because they involve
matters of life and death. Traditional Christian teaching
offers ethical principles and moral criteria that should
guide these critical choices.



Two months ago, Bishop Wilton Gregory, President of the
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, wrote
President George Bush to welcome efforts to focus the
world's attention on Iraq's refusal to comply with several
United Nations resolutions over the past eleven years, and
its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. This letter,
which was authorized by the U.S. Bishops' Administrative
Committee, raised serious questions about the moral
legitimacy of any preemptive, unilateral use of military
force to overthrow the government of Iraq. As a body, we
make our own the questions and concerns raised in Bishop
Gregory's letter, taking into account developments since
then, especially the unanimous action of the U.N. Security
Council on November 8th.



We have no illusions about the behavior or intentions of the
Iraqi government. The Iraqi leadership must cease its
internal repression, end its threats to its neighbors, stop
any support for terrorism, abandon its efforts to develop
weapons of mass destruction, and destroy all such existing
weapons. We welcome the fact that the United States has
worked to gain new action by the UN Security Council to
ensure that Iraq meets its obligation to disarm. We join
others in urging Iraq to comply fully with this latest
Security Council resolution. We fervently pray that all
involved will act to ensure that this UN action will not
simply be a prelude to war but a way to avoid it.



While we cannot predict what will happen in the coming
weeks, we wish to reiterate questions of ends and means that
may still have to be addressed. We offer not definitive
conclusions, but rather our serious concerns and questions
in the hope of helping all of us to reach sound moral
judgments. People of good will may differ on how to apply
just war norms in particular cases, especially when events
are moving rapidly and the facts are not altogether clear.
Based on the facts that are known to us, we continue to find
it difficult to justify the resort to war against Iraq,
lacking clear and adequate evidence of an imminent attack of
a grave nature. With the Holy See and bishops from the
Middle East and around the world, we fear that resort to
war, under present circumstances and in light of current
public information, would not meet the strict conditions in
Catholic teaching for overriding the strong presumption
against the use of military force.*



Just cause. The Catechism of the Catholic Church limits just
cause to cases in which "the damage inflicted by the
aggressor on the nation or community of nations [is]
lasting, grave and certain." (#2309) We are deeply concerned
about recent proposals to expand dramatically traditional
limits on just cause to include preventive uses of military
force to overthrow threatening regimes or to deal with
weapons of mass destruction. Consistent with the
proscriptions contained in international law, a distinction
should be made between efforts to change unacceptable
behavior of a government and efforts to end that
government's existence.



Legitimate authority. In our judgment, decisions concerning
possible war in Iraq require compliance with U.S.
constitutional imperatives, broad consensus within our
nation, and some form of international sanction. That is why
the action by Congress and the UN Security Council are
important. As the Holy See has indicated, if recourse to
force were deemed necessary, this should take place within
the framework of the United Nations after considering the
consequences for Iraqi civilians, and regional and global
stability. (Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran, Vatican Secretary
for Relations with States, 9/10/02).



Probability of success and proportionality. The use of force
must have "serious prospects for success" and "must not
produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be
eliminated" (Catechism, #2309). We recognize that not taking
military action could have its own negative consequences. We
are concerned, however, that war against Iraq could have
unpredictable consequences not only for Iraq but for peace
and stability elsewhere in the Middle East. The use of force
might provoke the very kind of attacks that it is intended
to prevent, could impose terrible new burdens on an already
long-suffering civilian population, and could lead to wider
conflict and instability in the region. War against Iraq
could also detract from the responsibility to help build a
just and stable order in Afghanistan and could undermine
broader efforts to stop terrorism.



Norms governing the conduct of war. The justice of a cause
does not lessen the moral responsibility to comply with the
norms of civilian immunity and proportionality. While we
recognize improved capability and serious efforts to avoid
directly targeting civilians in war, the use of military
force in Iraq could bring incalculable costs for a civilian
population that has suffered so much from war, repression,
and a debilitating embargo. In assessing whether "collateral
damage" is proportionate, the lives of Iraqi men, women and
children should be valued as we would the lives of members
of our own family and citizens of our own country.



Our assessment of these questions leads us to urge that our
nation and the world continue to pursue actively
alternatives to war in the Middle East. It is vital that our
nation persist in the very frustrating and difficult
challenges of maintaining broad international support for
constructive, effective and legitimate ways to contain and
deter aggressive Iraqi actions and threats. We support
effective enforcement of the military embargo and
maintenance of political sanctions. We reiterate our call
for much more carefully-focused economic sanctions which do
not threaten the lives of innocent Iraqi civilians.
Addressing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction must be
matched by broader and stronger non-proliferation measures.
Such efforts, grounded in the principle of mutual restraint,
should include, among other things, greater support for
programs to safeguard and eliminate weapons of mass
destruction in all nations, stricter controls on the export
of missiles and weapons technology, improved enforcement of
the biological and chemical weapons conventions, and
fulfillment of U.S. commitments to pursue good faith
negotiations on nuclear disarmament under the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty.



There are no easy answers. Ultimately, our elected leaders
are responsible for decisions about national security, but
we hope that our moral concerns and questions will be
considered seriously by our leaders and all citizens. We
invite others, particularly Catholic lay people -- who have
the principal responsibility to transform the social order
in light of the Gospel -- to continue to discern how best to
live out their vocation to be "witnesses and agents of peace
and justice" (Catechism, #2442). As Jesus said, "Blessed are
the peacemakers" (Mt. 5).



We pray for all those most likely to be affected by this
potential conflict, especially the suffering people of Iraq
and the men and women who serve in our armed forces. We
support those who risk their lives in the service of our
nation. We also support those who seek to exercise their
right to conscientious objection and selective conscientious
objection, as we have stated in the past.



We pray for President Bush and other world leaders that they
will find the will and the ways to step back from the brink
of war with Iraq and work for a peace that is just and
enduring. We urge them to work with others to fashion an
effective global response to Iraq's threats that recognizes
legitimate self defense and conforms to traditional moral
limits on the use of military force.



*"Just war teaching has evolved ... as an effort to prevent
war; only if war cannot be rationally avoided, does the
teaching then seek to restrict and reduce its horrors. It
does this by establishing a set of rigorous conditions which
must be met if the decision to go to war is to be mostly
permissible. Such a decision, especially today, requires
extraordinarily strong reasons for overriding the
presumption in favor of peace and against war. This is one
significant reason why valid just-war teaching makes
provision for conscientious dissent." The Challenge of
Peace: God's Promise and Our Response (1983), #83.



© 2002 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.