TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES AND MODERN
WAREARE.

FOLLOWING hard upon the close of the war of 1914-18
came a stream of writing about war. The nature of
that conflict and of the methods used in it struck the imagina­
tion of every sensitive man, the mind of every thoughtful one.
The result was an outpouring of books depicting the horrors
of modern warfare, its destructive power, the terrific cost in
money and lives, the desolation left on nation, on family, and
in the souls of men. All Quiet on the Western iront, What
Price Glory?, the play Journey’s End, and others to the recent
brutal Johnny Got His Gun have pointed the moral of peace.
The fiction of these twenty years was accompanied by a series
of didactic and dialectical works dealing with the nature of
modem war, all of a decided pacifist trend. This space of two
decades seemed—from these, its articulate voices—to be more
universally condemnatory of the art and science of war than
any period in the history of man.
A more realistic and less hopeful direction was taken by
statesmen and diplomats. This was evident in the collapse of
the League of Nations, the breakdown of the disarmament con­
ference, the persistent search for new, more efficient weapons,
the increase in armaments, the disregard of treaties, and the
final plague of war, in Asia, Africa and Europe. The con­
demnation had not reached the right quarters, was not
sufficiently universal.
But is the condemnation just? The reasons for it. given or
implied, are manifold. There are large groups of doctrinaire
pacifists who believe that war can never be morally justified.
Some of these oppose it as an evil contrary to the natural law
— a barbarism as unnatural as cannibalism or simultaneous
polygamy. There are others who hold that it is condemned
by the positive law of God, implicitly in the New Testament,
explicitly in the teaching of the apostolic and succeeding eras.
A great number admit that war in former time could be just,
but that war under modern conditions can not be morally right.
Of these, a few, i.E. I. Watkins, Father Gerald Vann), see an
essential change in the nature of war which has made it in­
trinsically evli. Many claim that the evil of modern war is

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES AND MODERN WARFARE.

5Q7

so serious, the weapons so destructive, the harm so universal
that no cause is sufficiently grave to permit it. Here we find
a number of Catholic moralists, the Dominican Stratmann,
Eric Gill, John K. Ryan.
Opposed to all these opinions is another held by a group—
less numerous, or less articulate if one may judge by the num­
ber of books and articles in which they defend their views,—
who consider war even in its modern guise, justified under
certain conditions. This is the popular view, that wars are
both just and unjust still. In this group we find the Catholics
who decide the question on the basis of the traditional Catholic
principles, Dawson, Maritain, Gilson, Father Plater, D’Arcy
and others, and some non-Catholics, who have difficulty in
analyzing the problem systematically and tend to believe that
a just cause makes a just war, regardless of other conditions.
Since the European situation has assumed a more or less definite
form, this opinion has come more to the fore.
It is obviously necessary to know whether war can be justi­
fied, and if so, what are the requisite conditions. With regard
to the objections already mentioned it must be said that war
in the abstract is not contrary to the natural law, not essentially
evil, and that it is not condemned by the divine positive law.
War is an effort on the part of one sovereign state to compel
another bv violence to do the former's will. As a conflict of
sovereign states it is distinguished from disputes of individuals,
from feud, rebellion, clan or civil strife. It is an act of vio­
lence. that is, an exercise of physical force. The state has an
admitted right to use violence when necessary to secure its
rights, of attaining i«
tnd· For 016 stltc ® a
per«on s' the natural supreme society, sanctioned by God him­
self And God must sanction what is necessary for its integricy
and proper development." 1 The fully constituted state is a
Mivreîen sodetv, an independent moral person, subject to the
mor-lbw and the claims of social justice, but to no earthly
superior Its duty is to administer justice among its subjects, so
th
" tt in their ends, natural and supernatural, in accordwS GoJ-s will- T°'
the
is necessary. Peace. says Pope Pius XI,- » an act resulting from
iPl»wr. Ρ’ί«η· " Plf'
2 Ubi Ar.-Λ' Dv·’·

r"·

THE ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW.

S08

love, sustained by justice. When it is disturbed within the state,
the state has the power and the duty to adjust the disturbance,
to exercise the right of judgment, and to enforce justice by force
when necessary, and to punish those guilty of violating justice,
or disturbing the peace. Subjects may not exercise force one
against another, for if their rights are threatened, they may
normally have recourse to the state for protection.
The state, however, has no superior. And it has certain
fundamental rights, necessary to its being and its purpose: the
right of self-preservation and development, the right of own­
ership and jurisdiction, the right of independence. If these
are attacked, if its peace is disturbed from without, it has no
recourse to a superior, it must defend them. And if pushed
to the ultimate resort of force, it may use force. For to repel
force by force is a fundamental law of nature. A man, a
subject, may defend his life, and the lives of others, his pro­
perty, by force when necessary, even to the death of an unjust
aggressor. It would be unreasonable to deny to the state what
is permitted to its subjects. Who would be willing to call the
defence of Finland an unjust or an immoral act?
Nor is war condemned by revelation, by the teaching of
Christ, or by his Church. It was, on occasion, commanded by
God in the Old Testament times. Christ, while preaching the
gospel of love and peace, did not denounce the profession of
the soldier, but commanded soldiers to be just in that profes• on. Paul took his similes for the spiritual combat from the
military campaign as from the athletic field, with no hint of
dis probation. Some of the early writers, Tertullian for ex-.-npie, pushed the counsel of non-resistance to evil to a con­
demnation of war, but these few stand out from their fellows
by that teaching. It was not the common belief. Many an
early saint was soldier both of Christ and of the Empire.
From the time of the barbarian invasions, in which war
seemed clearly a necessity, there is no dissenting voice. From
Augustine on, war ..a defense of the Christian ideals and Christ a:i culture, was regarded as licit, even necessary. Says Chris'
‘ wher Daws.n, “ Through out fiftten centuries the soldier’s
tn .rg
recar-.-d as i r..'c;«-.-.ry edict in the Christian state
mt u-u’.jy a, t.-.c r.'.· -t S-n.rtr·:.· ot sec.dar p.·. ·.·-Ln··."
Ct

.

I.·’*, f. ‘Z

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES AND MODERN WARFARE.

509

We must conclude then that war is not an intrinsic evil, but
an act which may be justified by the fulfilment of certain con­
ditions. This is the teaching of St. Thomas,4 and of the over­
whelming majority of Catholic moralists. It may not be
denied that war is an evil, but it is not intrinsically such.
Father Plater says,5 " In their physical aspects all wars are the
same, involving the violent destruction of human life and
health and integrity, and of property both public and private.
Hence the work done is a real evil, though only a physical evil,
viz., the destruction of a physical good. As a physical good is
inferior to a moral one, the former may reasonably be sacrificed
to the latter when they cannot be possessed together. More­
over one physical good may reasonably be sacrificed to gain a
greater good of the same kind.”
The act then takes its morality from origin and motives,
and from the means used. On the basis of such considera­
tions a set of necessary conditions are drawn up. The tradi­
tional ones are those due to St. Thomas, as analyzed and
appi’éd bv later theologians, especially Francis de Vitoria, the
classic authority on the subject. These are summarized by
Stracnunn. in his book, The Church and
p. 79, in the
following terms:
1. Gross injustice on the pin ot one a.-J only one of the con­
tending parties.
2. Gross formal moral guilt on one side.—nt.-.teriai gui’.t
no:

sufficient.
„ ,
3. Undoubted knowledge of that guilt.
4. That w.ir should only be decureu v r.en e^ery means t? pre-

GuV/\nd runuiuner.t should be proportionate. Punish­
ment awe exceeding the measure of guik js unjust and not

ç

,
7‘

to be allowed.
., , . .
... i
,:ntv that the side of justice will win.
ïnwnûok to further what is good by the war and to

8. X1 must be rightly conducted; restrained within the limits

of justice
4. AxoiUiiik.- ■-· --

upheaval , i ^---ries not immedi;u, Christie- ct’rr-.:runity.

510

THE ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW.

10. Declaration of war by lawful authority exercised in the
name of God.

(«W··

»$!·«
·Λ*0«
1

. 40«
t^1·
•'40*
• ;40*
i40‘
'■î^h

The first three of these conditions have to do with a just cause.
That requirement, and the one of right intention, the seventh
above, and of lawful authority, the tenth, are the conditions
as laid down by St. Thomas. It is clear from the conditions
that no war can be formally just on both sides, though both
sides may feel themselves justified in it. These are the condi­
tions for a just war. How do they apply to modern war?
Let us first consider the opinion of those modern authors
who believe that war in its latest aspect is an act which differs
essentially from any previous form, and that that essential
change has made modern war an intrinsic evil. Not many
hold that view as consistently as E. I. Watkins, who, in his
book, Men and Tendencies, p. 303, regards war even of sheerest
self-defense as an evil and envisages a German occupation of a
peaceful England with resignation as a lesser evil. He writes
in the Colosseum, March 1937, p. 12:
The difference between modern and ancient warfare is essential.
Modern weapons and organization have replaced a war of armies
by a war of entire nations. And the slaughter and destruction
which a modern war between civilized nations must produce is
incomparably beyond what ancient warfare could produce. More­
over, the modern nations have pledged themselves to settle their
disputes peaceably and whatever its executive weakness, the League
of Nations does at least provide the machinery of arbitration.

This view lacks neither plausibility nor adherents. But the
opinion that modern war cannot be justified can be argued
more conservatively and more safely on the basis of the tradi­
tional principles. For these changes may be said to constitute
a lack of one or more of the needed conditions of a just war.
If the definition given here be an essential one, these changes
cannot be said to be of the essence of the act of war. It seems
still an act of physical force by one sovereign state to compel
the submission of another to its will. But that there exists a
means of arbitration which has not been used means that the
requirement that war be a final resort is not observed. That
battle is joined between nations, rather than armies, seems a
matter of degree, than of kind, and indicates, under the old

CATHOLIC PPdNCIPLLS A.VD -MODERA’ WARFARE.

Ju

principles, that a proportionately more grave cause must be
present to justify the strife. Perhaps there exists no cause
sufficiently grave, but that must be proved.
Father Gerald Vann, in his book, Morality and War, and in
an article in the Colosseum, March 1937, p. 15, advances the
same opinion in what appeals to me as a more cogent form.
He distinguishes between civil wars, wars among or against
small nations, and wars between great powers. Of the last
he says: ” War is a new thing.” The difference lies not in the
greater horror of modern war, nor in the greater degree of
suffering. These are accidental differences. The essential dif­
ference is one of object, intention, and result. The object of
modern warfare is not to win a battle, but to exterminate a
people, or at least destroy their economic life. The result is
the disruption of economic and social life, and the collapse of
culture and religion, for victor and vanquished alike. That is,
there is no possibility of winning in any true sense, for neither
side wins. The intent is such that military* action no longer
simply permits, per accidens, the killing of civilians, but di­
rectly* and deliberately* attempts it. This is Father Vann’s view.
But, once more, these attributes of modern war, if they* actually
pertain to it, may quite justly be considered a violation of con­
ditions for a just war, rather than essential changes which
render war intrinsically evil. Further these are matters which
must be proved, not assumed, to exist. Is the object of every*
War conceivable in modern time, a de.-trucrion of a people?
Is the present conflict directed to the destruction, or ruin of
the German scare? Is the " Primum intentum ”, quoting
Vann, the mas,acre of the German civilians? Will the re­
sult of the war be the collapse of the nations engaged? If so,
the war is unjust, evil, by the traditional principies as by his
analysis. But of this we have no proof.
It is more logical then to consider modern v, ir an accidental
Variant of the species, rather than an tssenta’Iy new type. And
Occam's razor leaves the problem rr m—.ed to the ultimate
question: Can a modern war be ju'tirxd by the traditional
principle^; can there exist under modern conditions all the
traditional requirements for a jus: w.ir?
Certain of these requirements hate ’.e-., importance or less
urgency than others. The cectjrati· =n k>f war is demanded

J22

7Ή£ ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW.

. . . that is, the offending nation must have put definitely be­
fore it the last fateful choice of rendering justice or having
it forced from it. That this declaration be made and the war
waged under the supreme authority in the state has no alterna­
tive at present; it is no longer possible for a great lord to engage
a neighboring state in war without recourse to king or
commons.
That war must be a last resort to be used only when every
other means of establishing a right have been exhausted is a
condition that obviously can be fulfilled in modern times.
Whether it is fulfilled in any particular case is a question of
fact, but it is reasonable to assume that a modern government
in dissension with another of its own rank and power, will be
led by the very horror of modern warfare, its destructive effects
on the financial and economic structure of the nation, to adopt
every means of negotiation, arbitration and compromise, short
of surrendering what seems to it essential to its position, before
engaging in war. And a war in which this condition has been
left unfulfilled is much more apt to be a war of a great power
against a small or weak nation,—a war of conquest—in which
other conditions of a just war are also missing.
The requirement that there be a moral certainty of success
is baffling in itself, rather than in its application to modern
conditions. Does a fight for existence or for the fundamental
means to that existence become morally wrong if there seems
slight hope of a successful outcome? That would apparently
make Polish resistance to Germany, or Finnish resistance to
Russia a crime,—and those participating sinners.' It is, I be­
lieve, permitted a man to resist an aggressor under such cir­
cumstances—hoping that his courage will arouse the justice of
man to offer him aid, or his prayers bring God to his rescue.
The Code of International Ethics of the International Union
of Social Studies says; " A higher obligation,—that of respect­
ing one’s plighted word, of defending the higher values of re­
ligion and civilization, etc.—may sometimes lead to choosing
a heroic defeat instead of an inglorious capitulation. The
nations which have been martyrs to them duty render a supreme
testimony to Right which . . . kte;?; .human :tv faithful :·· the
cult of honor and jd.t.ce," A nation cannot be crmcetniKd.
winch ni rise last extremity cniwses to right against odds rather

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES AND MODERN WARFARE.
J13
BWlSWLtLLt LL Οι·' LL-at a t Ο:' ayt O tat 1OB tataLiLtO ttL Li ·
than submit to its own destruction, the intellectual poisoning
of its people and the annihilation of its religion. But in the
usual circumstances, the outbreak of a war means simply that
both sides are morally certain of victory. Neither Germany,
nor Anglo-France will admit defeat until defeat is in their
walls.
The remaining conditions may be discussed under two head­
ings, and they are the most difficult to apply to modern war,
perhaps to any war. There must be a just, a certain, a pro­
portionately serious cause, and the war must be conducted by
lav fjJ means without direct injury to the innocent, and with­
out unnecessarily disturbing the peace of nations not engaged.
T.'-e eras: must be a defense of an essential right, existence,
independence. the r’giit to ownership and jurisdiction, or of a
means agential to the exercise of these rights. Note the word.
detense.” ,n>r the distinction between defensive war, and wars
or aggros; on is c-oncudng. Jonn K. Ryan, in his doctoral dis'errati·':'., ?LJ. r;; Wsr juJ Basic Frbics, ;p. 15). <ays: "The
sth· ia-tics did not debate concerning the ’war of defense, its
justice ·<\.ι>· granted, but concerning aggressive war-,—an att,ntpc by force of arms to wring justice from another nation
and thus -nfeguard true peace." A defensive war, in rhe usage
•;t - >me modern writers, is a defense of a country’s borders
agi’i'.st actu.!· attack nr inra-An. Others mean by it any deb-.:>e w’ an c-S'Cnttai right, es an by means of a military offensive,
t.e. wp.ar the former call a.a aggressive war. Some tew limit
ju1: wars t> actual defen.-e against invasion, whicn 'cen’.s unrc’.s..r.a'’le. for ti:e right of jjri-dicrion may be invaded w’thoat actual invasion of territoria! limits.· the rig·?: ■.·■: exincnej
thre.-un.d by the stoppage ot es;en:iai suppi’e-·. It -v,;. n.-.t
actual invasion that provoked our war with itnciind in Si 2,
but disregard of our rights as a sovereign outside our b. /Gt -..
(.V-aiming, among us Americans, that it was t
v .-.r!
Ti c cause must be certain, the guilt formal and cn ->r.e side
''η ·.·. If both nations are at tault there can r._>; re iu-'tice in
an attack bv one ιιπΓ·π the other. One or both must cease the
o-.re.isc and jif-er re para non. Ir t;?e cau,e re known and the
u>u.il means of cbtam.ng repress, si·.urr ι·ί war, œ tried, the
guilt will certainly be made kr.jwti :o the guilty.—w;'i be ar. ide
formal. But to know the cause with certainty—a ditficuit task.

514

THE ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW.

We are still after twenty years, debating the cause of the " Last
War
But in practice, the men who hold the burden of rule
will know what urges them to the point of war, and they will
know that with certainty and they must judge whether the
injustice, the wrong done their nation be gross, certain, formal,
—and sufficiently grave to warrant war, as an alternate and
lesser evil.
Can there be any cause sufficient to justify the modern war,
to balance its toll of lives, its ruin of physical resources, the
burden of hate it engenders, the degradation it works in the
souls of men? This question has been given the answer:
" Probably in the negative,” by nearly every modern authority,
Chesterton dissenting,—until the Spanish civil conflict, or until
Germany began its march on Central Europe. Since these
events many have admitted that modern war may indeed be
the lesser of two evils, and a necessary course for the preserva­
tion of rights more sacred than life, or wealth; that the Spanish
rebellion or the war with Germany is such a case, a just modern
war. But let us too be just. Men such as Maritain have not
changed their principles; they admitted the abstract possibility
of a just war, but could not see, or foresee, how a proportionate
cause could arise. That vision has been clarified by events, or
obscured by patriotism, as you will, but they retain their prin­
ciples and strive to live them,—they are sincere. Has not
our own attitude been influenced by these same events?
As I see it, the only answer that can be given this question
is: it is possible that such a cause arise; there are intellectual,
spiritual, and social ideals which are essential to us as we are,
and without which we will not be, but will become another
state, another nation. These must be preserved and if force
should become the only defense, then force will be used. But
as Catholics, we must admit with Maritain 6 that: " The most
terrible anguish for a Christian is precisely this of knowing
that there can be justice in the use of horrible means.”
One last condition, lawful means of warfare, remains for

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES AND MODERN WARFARE.

515

cannot be controlled, or can be controlled only approximately.
If these are used against fortifications, men under arms, they
are horrible indeed, but a part of the horror of war. If di­
rected against the civilian populations, non-combatants, they
are an immoral weapon and the policy of using them thus
renders the act of war immoral. It is true that in modern
warfare the civilian population is as much a part of the military
machine as the army; the clear distinction once possible be­
tween the combatant and non-combatant can no longer be
made. The army is composed of conscripts, who are forced
into war and must be adjudged innocent, as individuals, of in­
justice; without the civilian aid the modern army would soon
collapse. Eut neither the common opinion of man, nor inter­
national law, nor any Christian morality yet devised, permit
the direct attack on the civilian population. There is opposed
to it a pragmatic reason,— it has been tried and found wanting.
It provokes reprisals, stiffens resistance, and has not the desired
effect of breaking the national spirit and isolating the army.
And opposed is an ethical condemnation: as the " Code of In­
ternational Ethics” (p. 88) reads: "The extermination of
entire populations ... is obviously a dreadful crime against
humanity.” This does not prohibit the bombing, or shelling or
gassing of military objectives; army posts, lines of communica­
tions, munitions, deposits, factories, but declares the policy of
bombing or destroying open towns and large or small centers
of population, hospitals and so on. to be unjust, and to render
the war immoral. But is the determination to use such means
in integral part of the policy of modern war? All belligerent
nations declaim it: according to reports it has been used in
Poland and Finland, but has not yet been used against Germany,
or England and France. That may be from fear of reprisa',
or realization of the futility of the practice, or from ethical
considerations_ but so far, at least, the condition has been
maintained, in this modern war.
Summarily, a modern war can m the ab^ract be jastined on the traditional principles. In the concrete the problem « much
more ccmnlex, but I am inc'.mcu to bel-.evc that it is a possic,::;,,- t/.<·:. i-‘ die present war lust—I do not know. .md,
thank Ged.' I am not yet compeileu to decide.
Howard Kîw.. C.S.C.
Al·,/’·, Ιλπ.-.ν,