PREVIOUS POSTS IN THIS SERIES:
JUST WAR PART 1: THE TIMES OF AUGUSTINE
JUST WAR PART 2: THE THEORY OF AUGUSTINE
JUST WAR PART 3: AQUINAS BUILDS
JUST WAR PART 4: UNDER THE INFLUENCE (Crusades)
JUST WAR PART 5: UNDER THE INFLUENCE (Natural Law)
JUST WAR PART 6: CHIVALRY
Once these major contributions to Just War thinking by warriors (knights) and the Church (Augustine and Aquinas) were made and largely accepted among Catholics of the Middle Ages, the tradition of Just War was taught as having two components: the right to go to war and the right conduct of war. These were labeled in Latin as “jus ad bellum” and “jus in bello.”
The criteria of jus ad bellum were:
1.War had to be declared by a “legitimate” authority.
2.War had to be declared with right intention, for a just cause
3.War had to be the last resort.
These criteria limited war somewhat but also made it possible, though exceptional, for a just war to exist. A just war had to meet these criteria. Most wars, because of the severe requirements of these criteria, were viewed as unjust. In addition to meeting the criteria of jus ad bellum, a war had to meet the requirements of jus in bello, further decreasing the possibility of a war being deemed “just”.
The criteria of jus in bello were:
1.The immediate objective of force couldn’t be to kill but to restrain.
2.Soldiers who surrendered could not be killed.
3.Non-combatants (civilians, the unarmed) could not to be attacked directly.
4.Indiscriminate force and weaponry could not be used (indiscriminate meaning without a specific limited target)
5.Unnecessary suffering was prohibited.
“While in a formal or technical sense this doctrine is essentially medieval and Catholic, in more loose and diffuse terms it remains to this day the dominant military ethos of the Western world."(1) Those are the words of an ethicist in the 1960’s, a time when these criteria influenced our thinking on war but obviously did not reign supreme over it. Something must have changed in our understanding of these criteria, between their authoring in the Middle Ages, when wars declared “just” were exceptions, and the twentieth century, when just wars were often waged by and approved of by the majority of American Evangelical Christians as “just”.
For now it suffices to point out that in time the criteria for just war has obviously loosened, losing much of the original restriction of force found in the jus ad bellum and jus in bello. These criteria evolved in some way allowing for the killing of “non-combatants” and use of “indiscriminate force” at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, for example. What I’ll contend in my next post on Just War is that the evolution or erosion of these criteria is not a modern American phenomena but instead began shortly after the ink dried on the words “jus in bello” and “jus ad bellum.” It began when Christopher Columbus brought war to the Americas in the sixteenth century.
SOURCES:
1. Paul Peachy, “New Ethical Possibility,” Interpretation 19 (January 1965): 26-27
Stanley Hauerwas and William Willimon tell the story in “Resident Aliens” of a young pastor proposing to a church committee the idea of starting a church day care center. He explained in detail why he thought it was a good idea and then a committee member named Gladys spoke up…
“Gladys butted in, “Why is the church in the day care business? How could this be part of the ministry of the church?”
The young pastor patiently went over his reasons again: use of the building, attracting young families, another source of income, the Baptists down the street already have a day care center.
“And besides Gladys,” said Henry Smith, “you know it’s getting harder every day to put food on the table. It’s become a necessity for both husband and wife to have full-time jobs.”
“That’s not true,” said Gladys. “You know it’s not true Henry. It is not hard for anyone in this church, for anyone in this neighborhood to put food on the table. Now there ARE people in this town for whom food on the table is quite a challenge, but I haven’t heard any talk about them. They wouldn’t be using this day care center. They wouldn’t have a way to get their children here. This day care center wouldn’t be for them. If we are talking about ministry to their needs, then I’m in favor of the idea. No, what we’re talking about is ministry to those for whom it has become harder every day to have two cars, a VCR, a place at the lake, or a motor home. That’s why we’re all working hard and leaving our children. I just hate to see the church buy into and encourage that value system. I hate to see the church telling these young couples that somehow their marriage will be better or their family life more fulfilling if they can only get another car, or VCR, or some other piece of junk. Why doesn’t the church be the last place courageous enough to say, “That’s a lie. Things don’t make a marriage or a family.” This day care center will encourage some of the worst aspects of our already warped values.”
The young pastor was tempted to say, “Darn you Gladys, why don’t you let me worry about ethics? I’m the resident ethical expert here!” But what he said was, “Gladys, with questions like the ones you are raising , we just might become a church after all.”
”ATLANTA (AP) — Ashley Smith, the woman who says she persuaded suspected courthouse gunman Brian Nichols to release her by talking about her faith, discloses in a new book that she gave him methamphetamine during the hostage ordeal.
In her book, “Unlikely Angel,” released Tuesday, Smith says Nichols had her bound on her bed with masking tape and an extension cord. She says he asked for marijuana, but she did not have any, and she dug into her illegal stash of crystal meth instead…
During the ordeal, Smith says, she pulled out Rick Warren’s book “The Purpose-Driven Life” and read to Nichols a chapter called “Using What God Gave Me” to gain his trust. Nichols later released her, and she called 911 and told authorities where to find him.”
Click here for the full story.
QUESTIONS: Does this hostage’s use of drugs or her captors use of drugs negate her claim that God intervened to free her? Does God use “sin” to bring about virtue? Can both drugs and deity be active in a person’s life at the same time? Could it be that this “God” character this woman speaks of is some sort of nickname given to her dealer? Like “Big Joey” or “The Ice Cream Man”.
PREVIOUS POSTS IN THIS SERIES:
JUST WAR PART 1: THE TIMES OF AUGUSTINE
JUST WAR PART 2: THE THEORY OF AUGUSTINE
JUST WAR PART 3: AQUINAS BUILDS
JUST WAR PART 4: UNDER THE INFLUENCE (Crusades)
JUST WAR PART 5: UNDER THE INFLUENCE (Natural Law)
Picking up where we left off with Augustine and Aquinas, the next major development in the evolution of Just War doctrine was chivalry - the code of conduct followed by the knights of the Middle Ages. Chivalry imposed upon warriors a set of regulations for the conduct of war(1). Since knights did not declare wars but simply fought them, chivalric code sheds no light on just cause for declaring or commencing a war but only how one is to be justly fought by soldiers once declared.
For instance, the code of the knights sought to end unrestrained violence by prohibiting certain acts such as attacking noncombatants. And this is possibly the greatest contribution the knight code of chivalry made to the development of Just War thinking. With chivalry the only legitimate target of an attack was considered by the knights to be another armed warrior.(2)
Theologians like Aquinas or Augustine mapped out the do’s and don’ts of just cause and declaration of war hoping to avoid placing their souls in peril by erring and acting unjustly. But the knights concerned themselves with the rules of just combat for reasons having nothing to do with the soul or religion. Their motivations centered around personal honor and material gain. “Stated succinctly, it appears that knights had two important reasons for guaranteeing the protection of noncombatants. First there was NO GLORY in armed combat with a nonknight, for knights were professionals. Secondly, noncombatant serfs, peasants, artisans, and merchants were the SOURCE OF WEALTH for the knightly class."(3)
SOURCES:
1. Louis A. Manzo “Air Power History” vol 39, No 3 (The Air Force Historical Foundation, Fall 1992) p38.
2. Michael Howard, “War In European History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976)
3. Johnson, “Can Modern War Be Just?” p5
See you there: Tuesdays 8PM(ish) The People’s Church Franklin, Tn. (In the Fellowship Hall)
Once these major contributions to Just War thinking by warriors (knights) and the Church (Augustine and Aquinas) were made and largely accepted among Catholics of the Middle Ages, the tradition of Just War was taught as having two components: the right to go to war and the right conduct of war. These were labeled in Latin as “jus ad bellum” and “jus in bello.”
