Argument of Thomas Aquinas
In
the Summa Theologia, Thomas Aquinas presented the issue of just war. This issue
emphasizes the particular rules for a war to be just. He quoted the Augustine words to defend this
standpoint: “If Christian teaching forbade war altogether, those looking for
the salutary advice of the Gospel would have been told to get rid of their arms
and give up soldiering. But instead they were told, do violence to no man, be
content with your pay”[1]. He
mentioned three conditions (rules) for just war. 1) Authority of the sovereign,
this means that the leaders of the nation have right to start and conduct war.
The war was not started by civilians. 2) Just cause, this means that “those
who are attacked are attacked because they deserve it on account of some wrong
they have done”[2].
The purpose of war is to self-defend, protect, prevent and remedy the wrong or
evil. 3) Right intention, people support for the good and stay away from
the bad or evil. People have to determine clearly that the core of war is to
bring peace, so after finishing war, people should not continue to provoke, but
should return to a life of regularity. Actually, Thomas Aquinas based on
Christian charity to draw his model of war.
Argument of Bryan Hehir
J
Bryan Hehir used many different resources to name the issue of war and peace.
Especially, he based on two main texts: John XXIII’s Pacem in Terris (1963)
and Vatican II’s Gaudium et Spes (1965) to support for his standpoint of the
morality of war and peace. He quoted in Pacem
in Terris “…it is irrational to think that war is proper way to obtain
justice for violated right”[3]
and in Gaudium et Spes “... to
undertake an evaluation of war with an entirely new attitude”[4]:
two products of this new attitude are the endorsement of nonviolent philosophy
and support for conscientious objection”.
Based on these ideas, he insisted that war can be incompatible with moral
order because the nature of war is the use of force to resolve conflict. This harms
human life which is considered as moral problem. He emphasized the centrality of love and the
divine in every human creature. (Disarmament 1978). However, he opened that
some “use of force within the moral universe” is acceptable in the terms of
legitimate ends and limited means. These forms of force are considered as “just
defense” related to “the principle of proportionality" and the “rule of
noncombatant immunity”.
The similarities, differences,
and their reasons
Through
two arguments of Thomas Aquinas and Bryan Hehir on the Church tradition on war,
I can see that Bryan Hehir agrees with Thomas about proper authority that not
everyone can go to war. The reason is that they both inherited the Augustinian
position that “The natural order conducive to human peace demands that the
power of council and declare war belongs to those who hold the supreme
authority”[5].
At the position of just cause, Thomas and Bryan agree that the purpose of war
is to settle conflict, try to oppose evil through multiple ways, and protect the
common good. The reason is that they both based on Catholic theological
tradition to develop the issues of charity and justice. “Thomas located his
analysis of just war within the framework of an ethic of charity and tied it
directly to the needs of the common good”[6]. Also, Bryan
used the document Gaudium et Spes
that “Catholic moral theology retained the conviction that war is possible, may
be necessary in the name of justice…”[7].
However,
Thomas didn’t consider explicitly about the principles of proportionality and
non-combatant immunity. “One author suggests this was because Aquinas thought
`right conduct in battle is largely culture-dependent; what counts as
praiseworthy or blameworthy action in combat will vary from place to place’. If
the Christian soldier acted virtuously, right judgment would help them act
appropriately in the widely differing circumstances they were likely to face”[8]. Furthermore, based on the historical
event of the persecution of heretics and infidels, Thomas accepted the just
wars against infidels who harmed Christians. At this point, Bryan insisted that one can use many ways to
oppose evil, but those ways must never harm human life. His argument was based
on “just war doctrine” to imply that not all reasons or ways justify war.
However, he mentioned some use of force is morally acceptable. This kind of
force is as “means of implementing the gospel command of love in the political
order”[9]. For
Aquinas, he didn’t mention morality in his rules of just war. Perhaps he didn’t
think that morality was governed by these rules, but as in idea that “Aquinas
did theology in the context of a unified Christian commonweal with the Church
established as the recognized moral authority”[10]. However, Bryan
emphasized morality in his argument on Christian tradition on war. He quoted
Potter’s words that “The logic generally applied by wise critics in thinking
about right and wrong in the use of force is admirably simple in its basic
structure”[11].
(P 18).
[1] Summa Theologia, Question 40. War, p 81
[2] Summa Theologia, Question 40. War, p 83
[3] War or Peace ? the research for new answer, p 14
[4] War or Peace ? the research for new answer, p 15
[5] Summa Theologia, Question 40. War, p 83
[6] Summa Theologia, Question 40. War, p 116
[7] War or Peace ? the research for new answer, p 17
[8]http://www.socialjustice.catholic.org.au/Content/pdf/the_struggle_to_develop_a_just_war_tradition_in_the_west.pdf
[9] War or Peace ? the research for new answer, p 16
[10]War or Peace ? the research for new answer, p 16
[11] War or Peace ? the research for new answer, p 18
No comments:
Post a Comment