Dr Elise Lefeuvre

Dr Elise Lefeuvre is adjunct lecturer at UCC School of Law. She holds a Master from Sciences Po Lyon, a MSc from LSE, and a PhD from UCC.

INTRODUCTION

Military work is, in essence, the use of force; or more explicitly, the capacity to kill and destroy.¹ This is the singularity of military work, making it unique and demanding for military personnel who must comply with extremely strict rules of conduct and decision-making. This essay looks at the latter i.e. decision making, which essentially refers to soldiers’ inner lives, beliefs, and values. The Roman Catholic Church has developed ethics of war, which are characterised by a strong focus on each soldier’s capacity for judgement and on defining soldiers as peacebuilders. ² Considering soldiers as enlightened men building peace during their military operations is, therefore, the proposal of the Church.³ This goes much beyond
peacekeeping, which is the maintenance of an acceptable level of security and an avoidance of escalation. The Church believes instead that soldiers have the power to replace the bonds of war with the bonds of charity, thereby being peacebuilders even in times of war.

The Kant quote in the epigraph captures the persistent belief that men can reconcile the complexities of life on earth with their ethical ideals. This is true even for soldiers, who can approach their martial functions by combining their military ethics and the ethics of the Church. The Church has elaborated its ethics of war based on the Gospels and the lessons of Jesus of Nazareth. Nevertheless, these ethics are not directed to Christians only but instead to all people of good will to whom the Christian vision can resonate — “Glory to God in the highest; and on earth peace to men of good will (Luke 2:14 NIV).” In that perspective, contemplating Catholic ethics should not be contradictory with secularity—most States are
now secular, often strictly separated from the Church, and so are their armed forces.

There is no single text or compendium containing all elements of the Church’s vision on warfare, which covers a wide range of practical topics such as decision-making, individual responsibility, conduct, right of self-defence, as well as larger ethical questions about the place of conflict within society. The Church’s vision on warfare is instead disseminated across several documents, notably the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, and several encyclical letters. The key ones being Pacem in Terris, Gaudium et Spes, and Fratelli Tutti.⁴ In addition, this is supplemented by Papal sermons, publications by conferences of bishops, and significant works by academic theologians. This article proposes to summarise and explain the contemporary vision of the Church, displaying its resonance with current ethical frameworks and practices within the European Union (EU) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Western and EU countries are already much aligned with the commands of the Church, due to their Christian roots. Even though there is a ‘by-default’ alignment, the vision of the Church still departs in many aspects. Bluntly summarised, the Church thinks about war as part of its wider project: to reform humanity and create a new society based on love and charity that pursues the common good.⁵ No Western or EU nation has committed to such an absolute project, and secular nations have been instead directed to the cohesion and temporal welfare of their citizens, emphasising the role of individual rights in line with liberalism.

The first element to note addresses key concepts that underlie the commands and rules for warfare. Much of the difference between the ethics of the Church and armies originate here. The Church can be seen as idealistic and absolutist (ban of war, peaceful resolution of disputes) versus States and their armed forces
that grapple with violence, aggressions, and provocations. The second element considers the practical commands for combatants, who are ultimately called by the Church to work on their inner self to profoundly anchor values including, love and charity. In short, combatants, whatever their rank and responsibilities, are asked to be builders of peace even in wartime through their actions and convictions. Building pax in bello ⁶ is necessary for a stable and durable pax post bellum, thereby gradually replacing the bonds of war with the bonds of charity, with the hope of reaching perpetual peace.

VISION, COMMANDS AND EXIGENCIES OF THE CHURCH TO BUILD A PEACEFUL SOCIETY

Conceptions of life, society, men and peace have a somewhat different meaning in the view of the Church in comparison to the most commonly accepted definitions. These fundamental deviations lead the Church to enact more radical and difficult-to-implement commands. One of the purposes of the Church is to push humans to change,⁷ and this includes battling against some of the most profoundly anchored features of human nature and instinct (such as violence and hate), in order to become closer to God, i.e. perfection. The pursuit of saintliness, versus the pursuit of happiness often set as the objective in secular nations,⁸ is therefore at the core of Christian life, and demands constant radical efforts over oneself.
Consequently, the Church does not intend to be pragmatic and accommodate its commands. This however does not necessarily mean that the Church is completely disconnected from reality and ignores it – on the contrary, the Church as an institution accompanies its members drawn into matters of war e.g. chaplains in the armed forces.⁹

Ethics of war are built on the balance of the capacity to kill versus the risk of being killed.¹⁰ The use of force is the monopoly of the State and soldiers have the exceptional right to kill during conflicts or under specific mandates. The use of force, together with conduct at war, are strictly framed by law (law of armed
conflicts, international humanitarian law, national laws), rules (rules of engagement), and customs. In essence, soldiers are authorised to kill, injure and destroy designated military targets. Thus the force is always constrained and limited to military necessity. Hence, the prohibition of killing is the normal rule (under civilian criminal law), and the right to kill is highly constrained and exceptionally granted to soldiers by the State. While States have clearly defined legal frameworks, rules, procedures and ethics for the use of force, the position of the Church is instead radical (no use of violence) and somewhat contradictory (still including indications for combatants when fighting).

The radicalism of the Church lies in the absolute biblical prohibition of killing — “[t]hou shalt not murder (Exodus 20:13 NIV),” and in the effective Papal ban of war enshrined by Pope Francis. He practically ends the centennial just war theory,¹¹ which still applies theoretically, but simply no wars can now meet its criteria. Just war theory was, in short, a long-standing development that framed war as an exception,
always wrong, but capable of being conducted with tragic integrity.¹² This tradition set out criteria and conditions allowing wars and limiting the use of force.¹³ Although just war theory is now in the process of being decommissioned, it has durably influenced the Western conceptions on war and the use of force, and most of its principles are replicated in existing laws, rules and customs (e.g., necessity to justify war,
necessity to find a peaceful resolution before entering into war). The prohibition of killing is corollary to the fundamental principle of the sanctity of life,¹⁴ that is to say, men cannot destroy life because it is a divine creation and project. Hence, the entire vision of the Church for society and men’s conduct is built on the protection and defence of life.

Alongside life, peace is fundamental in Christianity. It is an attribute of God—“the Prince of peace (Isaiah 9:5 NIV)”— and a legacy of Jesus of Nazareth—“[p]eace I leave with you, my peace I give to you (John 14:27 NIV).” This leads the Church to give an absolute definition of peace, which is “the fullness of life,”¹⁵ as well as the divine plan for humanity.¹⁶

Furthermore, peace denotes a state in which a society can live not only in moral and physical security but also in which it can develop strong and fair social bonds, i.e. “safeguarding the goods of persons, free communication among men, respect for the dignity of persons and peoples, and the assiduous practice of fraternity.”¹⁷ In the Christian perspective, society is the common place of living for human persons to contemplate the development of moral virtues—justice, equality, mutual respect, sincerity, honesty, fidelity”¹⁸ which differs from the liberal view where the society is an aggregate of individuals
linked by a social contract to pursue common well-being and interests.¹⁹ Put bluntly, the Church
(and Jesus of Nazareth in the first place) deliberately sets the bar higher so, rather than gathering humanity around some synchronised and negotiated interests, it asks humans to build a society articulated around the same profound understanding and practice of values and ideals. To do so, the Church urges for a change of perspective, which should ultimately lead to more peaceful and fairer societies, “we need to think of ourselves more and more as a single family dwelling in a common home.”²⁰ This society as defined by the Church does not exist yet, but the Church asks to work for its
advent and this goes through the deep change of individual and collective mentalities and behaviours, i.e. “a new vision of the world and a new way of approaching others”.²¹ Whereas the Church, as an institution, has had essentially conservative and reactionary positions, the recent return, impelled by Pope Francis, to the core concepts and commands restores Christianity in its original revolutionary approach
(“the music of the Gospel”).²²

“Christian peace”, seen by the Church as genuine or just peace,²³ is more exacting than peace being the mere absence of war,²⁴ and requires the full functioning and practice of institutions that guarantee liberty, democracy, and solidarity.²⁵ “Peace is the work of justice and the effect of charity.”²⁶ This absolute
definition of peace leads the Church to pay a lot of attention to post bellum considerations. It is to be understood within the wider Christian project to free humanity from the bonds of war (“the Divine Providence urgently demands of us that we free ourselves from the age-old slavery of war”),²⁷ and to instead settle and stretch the bonds of charity.²⁸ When war ends, the restoration of peace must be built to definitely end war and eradicate its roots. John Paul II declared that “[t]rue peace is never simply the
result of military victory, but rather implies both the removal of the causes of war and genuine reconciliation between peoples.”²⁹ History tells that, indeed, inauthentic and incomplete peace
has failed to stop the spiral of competition and war.³⁰ Therefore, armed forces have been involved in post bellum conflict contexts to ensure, among others, peace maintenance, the rebuilding of infrastructure, and settlement or restoration of democratic institutions.³¹

As noted earlier, the Church intends to reform people and urges them to overcome their most profound instincts. Therefore, the Church recognises that competition, violence, vengeance, and so war are inherent to human nature: “insofar as men are sinners, the threat of war hangs over them and will so continue
until Christ comes again.”³² Peace is eventually seen as the inherent objective of men—“[the] Creation, which is a reflection of the divine glory, aspires to peace.”³³ which effectively suggests that the end of war is achievable here and now, i.e. without waiting for the supernatural advent of a hypothetical Second Coming.

In the Church’s view, the eradication of war can be attained by the practice of mercy, forgiveness, and reconciliation—which are pillar values taught by Jesus of Nazareth to “[l]ove your enemies and pray for those who persecute you (Matthew 5:44 NIV)”, “forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us […] but deliver us from evil (Matthew 6:9-13 NIV)”—as well as by the strength of faith
and prayer.³⁴ Although the Magisterium does not mention it, the right to forget can be added
to the notion of forgiveness, as a way to end the spiral of violence.³⁵ From that perspective, forgetfulness can be constructed as a form of enlightened remembering, i.e. “a deliberate choice to think differently about the past, an attempt to remember it in a more positive or constructive way.”³⁶ Forgetfulness can also be temporary to allow peace, thereby restoring peace and stability immediately after conflict,
and waiting for Courts³⁷ to conduct their investigations and to rule the cases.³⁸

Hence, the combination of action (behaviour, undertakings, collective achievements) and prayer (practices, beliefs, convictions) is the motor of profound change—“the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war.”³⁹ Although the Church phrases this, understandably, in its technical language, this is still valid as a ‘secular
takeaway,’ meaning that pacifism and the resilience of societies to violence and war happen in actions and mindset—the latter being even more critical with the current development of strategies around cognitive warfare.⁴⁰

The Church recognises that societies are entitled to “the right to peace,”⁴¹ which is going much
further than what secular nations commonly recognise (security, access to elementary care and services). Peacebuilding and peacekeeping are therefore two processes promoted by the Church as “[b]lessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God (Matthew 5:9 NIV)”, which in that perspective supports military staff acting in the safeguarding of peace and the rescue of threatened populations.⁴²

GUIDANCE AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR SOLDIERS TO ACT AS ENLIGHTENED PEACEKEEPERS

The responsibility for the ethical conduct of war lies with military staff. They train soldiers. They interpret doctrines, establish procedures, and maintain chains of command. They take the crucial decisions in the field, receiving and responding to information, define targets, select weapons, and ultimately fire the shots. They are the ones engaging with civilians. They are the ones responsible for prisoners. Even if the Church stands against war, there is still the recognition that the military is essential to protect a nation or a population, and to ensure peacekeeping. Consequently, the Church supports military staff and provides them with guidance to perform their tasks in peace, deterrence, competition, (d)escalation, and war.

Most importantly, the Church traditionally does not speak only to its believers, but instead to all people of good will. Founded on the message of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-11), the approach of the Church has been to talk to people in their own language, regardless of where they stand in their inner life (beliefs, faith, values) and in their life in action (work, social environment, family). This approach is exemplified in the slogan of St. Paul,⁴³ who adapted his speech to various cultural and political audiences.⁴⁴

Subsidiarity and Inner Leadership

In the Church’s view, military personnel have two key duties: the duty to serve their country and to act in favour of common good and peace⁴⁵; and the duty of disobedience to unlawful, inhumane or immoral orders.⁴⁶ For the latter, the Church targets the capacity of assessment of each personnel, thereby giving them an autonomy of decision as well as an individual responsibility, by being “fully responsible for the acts they commit in violation of the rights of individuals and peoples, or of the norms of international humanitarian law.”⁴⁷ Military personnel are consequently seen before all as reasoning humans able to give meaning to their actions and to conduct moral or ethical assessment of their actions. This is close to the German vision, which considers soldiers above all as educated citizens (Staatsbürger in Uniform). In that perspective, German military staff are trained and educated to have the necessary knowledge and awareness to act at the best of their conscience, so called “inner leadership” (inner Führung).⁴⁸ Delegating assessment to military staff refers also to the principle of subsidiarity, which finds its origins in church teaching, receiving its most influential modern treatment in Rerum Novarum.⁴⁹ For now and in most Western armed forces, delegation to subordinates generally concerns a limited range of actions leaving little leeway for initiative.⁵⁰ The Church and the Bundeswehr are here a step ahead by granting autonomy and anchoring a system of values in each personnel regardless of their rank (i.e. not only officers).⁵¹

Education and training of all soldiers on laws, morality, and ethics are critical and should be at a sufficient level to allow critical assessment. This is especially the case under stressful situations, during which reasoning is typically altered and instincts gain the upper hand because there is nonetheless “the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict.”⁵² Making the objectives of the military—“to defend good, truth and justice in the world”⁵³ practical as well as instilling the reflex of critical assessment (on top of all fight reflexes) should therefore be the challenge of military academies and instructors.

Common good and peace

While serving the country is commonly agreed (often referred to as ensuring national security and sovereignty), common good and peace are rarely phrased in this way. Instead, “peacekeeping” is more often used. While the task of defining missions and their objectives sits at the political level (national governments, North Atlantic Council), the military is in charge of their implementation (strategies, operations, tactics).⁵⁴ Therefore, common good and peace must be defined in concrete actions on the field by the military, considering inter alia the quality of communication with the population, attention
to the perception of legitimacy of their actions, and humane treatment of the population.⁵⁵ More than restoring a certain level of security and stability, military personnel are considered by the Church as active builders of peace and good, so the seeds of peace must be sowed during their operations and during the war.

The Church defines the duty of protection (“the duty to protect and help innocent victims who are not able to defend themselves from acts of aggression”),⁵⁶ with particular attention to civilians, refugees, and populations threatened of genocide.⁵⁷ This duty can legitimise the use of force (“those […] [who] make use of [the] means of defence available to the weakest, bear witness to evangelical charity”)⁵⁸, and must have priority over military objectives (“the good of the human person must take precedence over the interests of the parties to the conflict”)⁵⁹ The duty of protection somewhat differs from the principles of humanity and discrimination, because it demands to actively engage the military in the protection of populations, and not only to avoid or bypass them during operations. Active protection of a population
also involves a complex conduct of operations, because civilians enjoy a protected status under the Geneva Conventions⁶⁰ and other laws of war,⁶¹ and because the relationship with the local population can be difficult or even hostile, thereby adding social and psychological parameters.

The duty of protection is effectively a third-party support in self-defence. The right to self-defence
in treaties, laws, rules and customs is the only legitimate reason to enter into war.⁶² The Church
concurs with this approach (“the right and the duty to organize a defence even using the force of arms”),⁶³ but warns against “an overly broad interpretation”.⁶⁴ The Church states that all measures and efforts must be undertaken to avoid conflict,⁶⁵ and self-defence should apply only “once all peace efforts have failed”.⁶⁶

Furthermore, the Church lists conditions for self-defence, ⁶⁷ which originate from just war theory and do not substantially differ from the commonly agreed approaches (although nations have different doctrines). In addition, the Church sees the right to self-defence, combined with the duty of protection, as the only legitimate reason for having armed forces (“the requirements of legitimate defence justify the existence in States of armed forces, the activity of which should be at the service of peace”).⁶⁸ Similarly,
the right to self-defence is the only legitimate reason for building armament stocks, which should cover self-defence needs only and cannot exceed them.⁶⁹ When it comes to armaments, the Magisterium prohibits possession and use of indiscriminate weapons,⁷⁰ and more particularly chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons,⁷¹ because they are “far beyond the bounds of legitimate defence”.⁷²

Consequently, the Magisterium has strong moral reservations on deterrence, because it leads to infringements to the principle of sufficiency,⁷³ and thereby increasing the likelihood of escalation of conflicts.⁷⁴ The Church does not consider deterrence as a permanent and sustainable solution for ensuring peace, as the latter should instead emanate from the “mutual trust between nations and not be
imposed on them through a fear of the available weapons”.⁷⁵

In summary, the Church’s commands and guidance are insightful, insofar as their focus is on intelligent and meaningful military decision-making and action to allow a swift return to peace. Put simply, based on the Church’s statements, the moral values of each military personnel should be sincerity, honesty, trustworthiness, respect, openness, fairness and charity.⁷⁶ These values translate into concrete actions towards oneself, comrades, civilians, and even enemies: protect, communicate, listen, care and take care, educate and integrate. Points of attention are the defence of human dignity,⁷⁷ and empathy ⁷⁸“I have indeed seen the misery of my people in Egypt. I have heard them crying out […], and I am concerned about their suffering. So I have come down to rescue them […]” (Exodus 3:7-8 NIV). These values and behaviours should be developed and trained at the inception of a soldier’s career, during training, when stationed, and when on mission, so that they become anchored in mindset and habit. Quality of work is eventually the most critical issue, and this is achieved by continual training of body, mind, and professional tasks (drilling of procedures etc.). All this should lead to the maintenance of values on which fair societies are built, even in wartime, and thereby limiting the disruption of order caused by wars as
well as facilitating the restoration of peace.

CONCLUSION

Through its commands, the Church seeks to effectively translate the peace of God (Pax Dei) in actions and convictions for people so that they can frame and build peace (Pax Nostra) by extending and improving their own capacities and resources. By operating this translation, the Church delivers a universal message, that is to say, all people of good will (and not only believers) can follow the commands to build a steadfast peace. This also means that building peace is a mission for all humans. It is not a task narrowly charged to Christians, although believers may find in their faith and prayer strength and inspiration to conduct the mission of pacification.⁷⁹

Thus, the contribution of the Church to the ethics of war is insightful, primarily because it addresses all personnel—regardless of their ranks—with a challenge to focus on inner leadership, i.e. the most profoundly anchored values and beliefs that guide actions. In addition, the Church believes in the capacity of humans to create, impact, and change themselves and their environment by means of individual and
collective actions. Therefore, although it is ancient, war is not an inevitability, and people are able to build peaceful societies. Believers may see in this the advent of the divine project for humanity as “[a] voice of one calling in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him’(Matthew 3:1-12
NIV)”, whereas people of good will may simply see the human aspiration to live in security and solidarity.

Ultimately, the Church calls on people to seek to surpass oneself, daring us to translate ideals into concrete actions, even if ideals – such as the end of wars – seem unachievable and fanciful. Therefore, military personnel must not renounce and cease to believe, but instead they must live and act in “a world where action is […] the sister of dreams.”⁸⁰

Footnotes:

1. See: Robert J. Art and Kelly M. Greenhill, The Use of Force: Military Power and International Politics (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2015); Gloria Gaggioli, “Expert Meeting: The Use of Force in Armed Conflicts,” International Committee of the Red Cross, December 20, 2021, https://www.icrc.org/en/publication/4171-use-force-armed-conflicts-expert-meeting. ↩︎
2. This article studies the ethics developed by the Roman Catholic Church, however it should be noticed that other Christian traditions have also developed their own interpretations (Calvinists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, etc.). In addition to this, other religions have their commands and teachings on the ethics of war, which might also be a source of inspiration to military staff. ↩︎
3. All references to the “Church” refer to the Roman Catholic Church, unless otherwise mentioned. ↩︎
4. John Paul II, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed., (Libreria Editrice Vaticana: Citta del Vaticano, 1993), https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/INDEX.HTM; Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, (Libreria Editrice Vaticana: Citta del Vaticano, 2005). https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526compendio-dott-soc_en.html; Pope John XXIII, Pacem in Terris (Libreria Editrice Vaticana; Citta del Vaticano, 1963), https://www.vatican.va/content/john-xxiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_j-xxiii_enc_11041963_pacem.html; Pope Paul VI, Gaudium et Spes (Vatican: Vatican, 1965), https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vatii_const_19651207_gaudiumetspes_en.html#:~:text=Gaudium%20et%20spes&text=1.,of%20the%20followers%20of%20Christ; Pope Francis, Fratelli Tutti (Assisi: Vatican, 2020), https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20201003_enciclica-fratelli-tutti.html#:~:text=Fraternity%20between%20all%20men%20and%20women. ↩︎
5. However, as per the Church’s doctrine, “Consisting both of body and immortal soul, man cannot in this mortal life satisfy his needs or attain perfect happiness”, Pope John XXIII, Pacem in Terris, §59. ↩︎
6. Peace in war. ↩︎
7. “[…] the Lord Himself came to free and strengthen man, renewing him inwardly […].” Pope Paul VI, Gaudium et Spes, 13. For a long time, the Church has focused most of its Bible study on sin and fear, see analysis in Jean Delumeau, Le Péché et la Peur, la cupabilisation en Occident, XIIIe et XVIIIe siècles (Paris: Fayard, 1983); and Michel Grandjean, “L’Occident face aux feux de l’enfer” (Campus no105: Université de Genève, 2011). The Church is now moving away from this approach, notably under the impulse of Pope Francis. Therefore, the renewal of people should now be understood as a life-long effort to live a life of love and charity, and not so much doing so in fear of purgatory or hell. ↩︎
8. The most remarkable example is in the 1776 United States Declaration of Independence. Full text available in the U.S. National Archives: https://www.archives.gov/foundingdocs/declarationtranscript. ↩︎
9. David Leonard, “Peacemakers: chaplains as vital links in the peace chain,” Joint Force Quarterly 96, 7 February 2020, https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Media/News/NewsArticleView/Article/2076112/peacemakerschaplains-as-vitallinksinthepeacechain/#:~:text=The%20Geneva%20Conventions%20identify%20chaplains,of%20the%20Red%20Cross%2FCrescent.. In addition, see testimonials of chaplains for the Irish Defence Forces and the British Army: Intercom, “Interview: The Second Military Career of Fr David Murphy,” undated, https://www.intercommagazine.ie/interview-the-second-military-career-of-frdavidmurphy/;
   Fr Ian Evans QHC, “Ministering to the Catholic and Wider Christian Community: Life As a Army Chaplain”, Roman Catholic Bishopric Of The Forces, July 31 2023, https://www.rcbishopricforces.org.uk/post/life-as-a-army-chaplain. In international humanitarian law, the Geneva Conventions recognise and protect chaplains and ministers, see: Article 24 of the Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, Geneva, 12 August 1949, https://ihldatabases.icrc.org/en/ihltreaties/gci1949activeTab=undefined
   and Articles 32 and 36 of the Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciii-1949?activeTab=undefined. See also the commentary by Stefan Lunze in ‘Serving God and Caesar: Religious Personnel and Their
   Protection in Armed Conflict’, Revue Internationale de La Croix-Rouge/ International Review of the Red Cross 86, no. 853 (March 2004): 69. ↩︎
10. François Lecointre, ‘L’action militaire aujourd’hui : un sens à partager’, Inflexions 1, no. 1 (2005): 89–101. ↩︎
11. “[…] it is very difficult nowadays to invoke the rational criteria elaborated in earlier centuries to speak of the possibility of a “just war”. Never again war!” See Fratelli Tutti, § 258. ↩︎
12. Daniel M. Bell, Just War as Christian Discipleship : Recentering the Tradition in the Church Rather than the State (Grand Rapids, MI : Brazos Press, 2009), 24. ↩︎
13. Jean-François Chemin, Bellum iustum, aux origines de la conception occidentale de la guerre juste (Editions Apopsix, 2018); Jean-Philippe Schreiber Théologies de la guerre (Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles, 2006); ‘Guerre-Version 2016 | DSC’, Doctrine sociale de l’Église catholique,, https://www.doctrine-sociale-catholique.fr/quelquesthemes/76-guerre; Béatrix de Vareilles, ‘Guerre Juste ?’, Justice & Paix (blog), 12 January 2021, https://justice-paix.cef.fr/paix-etsecurite/guerrejuste/. ↩︎
14. “Every human life, from the moment of conception until death, is sacred because the human person has been willed for its own sake in the image and likeness of the living and holy God.” Catechism of the Catholic Church, § 2319. ↩︎
15. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, § 489 and 491. ↩︎
16. “The kingdom of the Messiah is precisely the kingdom of peace” See ibid, § 488 and 491. ↩︎
17. Catechism of the Catholic Church, § 2304. The Social Doctrine of the Church lists as well: “fruitfulness (Isaiah 48:19), well-being (Isaiah 48:18), prosperity (Isaiah 54:13), absence of fear (Leviathan 26:6) and profound joy (Proverbs 12:20)”; Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, § 489. ↩︎
18. Message of His Holiness Pope Francis for the celebration of the 52th world day of peace,01 January 2019, https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/messages/peace/documents/papa-francesco_20181208_messaggio-52giornatamondiale-pace2019.html, § 3. ↩︎
19. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Du contrat social ou Principes du droit politique (1762), https://www.rousseauonline.ch/pdf/rousseauonline-0004.pdf ↩︎
20. Pope Francis, Fratelli Tutti(Assisi: Vatican, 2020), § 17. ↩︎
21. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, § 516. ↩︎
22. Pope Francis, Ecumenical Prayer (Riga: Vatican, 2018), https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2018/september/documents/papafrancesco_20180924_incontroecumenicorigalettonia.html ↩︎
23. Over the past decades, the Church and theologians have been developing the just peacebuilding
    theory, see: World Council of Churches, “Ecumenical Call to Just Peace” (2011),
    http://www.overcomingviolence. org/en/resources-dov/wcc-resources/documents/declarations-on-just-peace/ecumenical-call-to-just-peace.html. ↩︎
24. “Peace is not merely the absence of war, and it is not limited to maintaining a balance of powers between adversaries.” Catechism of the Catholic Church, § 2304, https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P81.HTM. ↩︎
25. See also the analysis of the link between democracy and religion in: Harmut Rosa, Demokratie braucht Religion (Koesel, 2022). ↩︎
26. Catechism of the Catholic Church, § 2304. Furthermore, within just peace theory, peace is inextricably bound up with justice and the rule of law, see Lisa Sowle Cahill, Blessed Are the Peacemakers: Pacifism, Just War, and Peacebuilding (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2019); and Sara Gehlin, Pathways for Theology in Peacebuilding: Ecumenical approaches to Just Peace (Leiden: Brill, 2020)). ↩︎
27. Gaudium et Spes, §81. ↩︎
28. Pope Benedict XV, Pacem, Dei Munus Pulcherrimum, (Vatican: Vatican,1920), § 10. ↩︎
29. John Paul II, Centesimus Annus (Vatican: Vatican, 1991),) § 18. ↩︎
30. The best example being the failed WWI peace that led to WWII. ↩︎
31. These are peacekeeping and peace enforcement missions, generally conducted under UN or NATO mandates. For example, NATO-led mission Implementation Force, then named Stabilisation Force, to ensure to return to peace in Bosnia Herzegovina, see NATO,“Peace support operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina (1995-2004)” 11 April 2023, https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_52122.htm ; and U.S.
    Department of State, “The Role of IFOR in the Peace Process” (1996), https://1997-2001.state.gov/regions/eur/bosnia/iforrole.html. ↩︎
32. Catechism of the Catholic Church, § 2316. ↩︎
33. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, § 488. ↩︎
34. ibid, § 519; Pacem in Terris, § 171; and Gaudium et Spes, § 82. ↩︎
35. “Things bad begun make strong themselves by ill”, Macbeth, Act III, Scene II; “The continuance of their parents’ rage”, Romeo and Juliet, Act
    I, Prologue. From a more explicitly theological perspective, one might consider usefully: Miroslav Volf, The End of Memory: Remembering Rightly in a Violent World (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006). ↩︎
36. Patrick O’Callaghan, “Enlightened remembering and the paradox of forgetting: from Dante to data privacy” Law and Humanities 17, no.2 (2023): 210-227. ↩︎
37. This is the role of International Criminal Court. Ad hoc tribunals were also created for specific conflicts, such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. There are currently discussions to set up a special tribunal for the on-going Russian-Ukrainian war, Council of Europe, “Secretary General joins the summit of leaders for creation of Special Tribunal on the crime of aggression against Ukraine,” 9 May 2023, available at: https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/-/secretarygeneral-joins-the-summit-of-leaders-for-creation-of-special-tribunalon-the-crime-of-aggression-against-ukraine. ↩︎
38. See analysis on ius post bellum in Le Comité exécutif de Justice et Paix Europe, “Vérité et justice – les piliers de la justice d’après-guerre” Justice et Paix, 9 December 2022, https://justice-paix.cef.fr/justice-paix/veriteet-justice-les-piliers-de-la-justice-dapres-guerre/. ↩︎
39. Catechism of the Catholic Church, § 2307. ↩︎
40. Paolo Giordano, “Cognitive Warfare: Strengthening and Defending the Mind,” NATO’s ACT, April 5 2023, https://www.act.nato.int/article/cognitive-warfare-strengthening-and-defending-the-mind/. ↩︎
41. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, § 518. ↩︎
42. The Church however does not support peace enforcement, which refers to the use of force in order to impose peace to parties against their will, see Jon Fink, “From peacekeeping to peace enforcement: the blurring of the mandate for the use of force in maintaining international peace and security”, Maryland Journal of International Law 19, no. 1 (1995): 1-47. In
    addition, the specific case of Afghanistan is analysed in: Neil Shortland,
    Huseyin Sari and Elias Nader, “Recounting the dead: an analysis of ISAF
    caused civilian casualties in Afghanistan”, Armed Forces & Society 45, no. 1
    (2019):122-139. ↩︎
43. “To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some.” 1 Corinthians 9:20-22 (NIV). ↩︎
44. Daniel Marguerat, Paul de Tarse, L’enfant terrible du christianisme (Seuil, 2023). ↩︎
45. “Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honourably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.” Catechism of the Catholic Church, § 2310. ↩︎
46. “They are morally obliged to resist orders that call for perpetrating crimes against the law of nations and the universal principles of this law.” Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, § 503. ↩︎
47. ibid, § 503. ↩︎
48. Bundesministerium der Verteidigung, “Staatsbürger in Uniform” (undated), available at: https://www.bmvg.de/de/themen/verteidigung/innere-fuehrung/staatsbuerger-in-uniform, last accessed 19 October 2023. ↩︎
49. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, § 185-188. ↩︎
50. Admiral Pierre Vandier, “Comment s’adapter à un monde d’incertitudes?” Harvard Business Review (2023). ↩︎
51. There is however a very extensive literature on the moral values and ethics for officers, including in relation to theology and religion. See, for example: Pierre Gillet, Qui est comme Dieu ? – Essai sur les vertus chrétiennes au service du commandement (Editions Sainte- Madeleine:2020). ↩︎
52. Catechism of the Catholic Church, § 2312. ↩︎
53. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, § 502. ↩︎
54. For NATO roles and responsibilities, see: NATO, ‘North Atlantic Council’ and ‘Military Committee’ (undated), https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/68147.htm,last accessed 24 October 2023. For the definitions of strategy, operation and tactics, see: USAF College of Aerospace Doctrine, Research and Education, ‘Three Levels of War’ Air and Space Power Mentoring Guide, Vol. 1 (Maxwell AFB, AL: Air University Press, 1997), https://faculty.cc.gatech.edu/~tpilsch/INTA4803TP/Articles/Three%20Levels%20of%20War=CADRE-excerpt.pdf. ↩︎
55. Legitimacy and communication are now even more critical and have been deeply disrupted by the intensive use of social medias, see: Emily
    Harding, Harshana Ghoorhoo and Julia Dickson, ‘Seeking Legitimacy: Considerations for Strategic Communications in the Digital Age’, NATO Strategic Communications Centre for Excellence,28 July 2023, https://stratcomcoe.org/publications/seeking-legitimacyconsiderationsfor-strategic-communications-in-the-digital-age/289; and Alex Aiken, ‘The power of information to build resilience in a volatile world’, NATO Review,24 May 2023, https://www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/2023/05/24/the-power-of-information-to-build-resilience-ina-volatile-world/index.html. ↩︎
56. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, § 504. ↩︎
57. ibid, § 505 and 506 ↩︎
58. Catechism of the Catholic Church, § 2306. ↩︎
59. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, § 504. ↩︎
60. Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. ↩︎
61. International Committee of the Red Cross, “Practice relating to Rule 6. Civilians’ Loss of Protection from Attack”, International Humanitarian Law Databases (undated), https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v2/rule6 last accessed 24 October 2023. ↩︎
62. See International Committee of the Red Cross, “Self-defence” Case Book of the International Committee of the Red Cross (undated),
    https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/self-defence and Doctors without Borders, “Self-defence” The Practical Guide to Humanitarian Law (undated), https://guide-humanitarian-law.org/content/article/3/self-defense/. In addition, collective self-defence is a NATO specificity:
    NATO, “Collective defence and Article 5” (04 July 2023), https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm. ↩︎
63. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, § 500. ↩︎
64. Pope Francis, Fratelli Tutti, § 258. ↩︎
65. “All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.” Catechism of the Catholic Church, § 2308. ↩︎
66. ibid, § 2308. ↩︎
67. “[T]he damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain; all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; there must be serious prospects of success; – the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. the power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.” ibid, § 2309. ↩︎
68. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, § 502. ↩︎
69. “The principle of sufficiency, by virtue of which each State may possess only the means necessary for its legitimate defence, must be applied both by States that buy arms and by those that produce and furnish them” ibid, § 508. ↩︎
70. ibid, § 510. ↩︎
71. ibid, § 509. The Church called for the end of arms race and disarmament in: Pope John XXIII, Pacem in Terris, § 109 to 113. ↩︎
72. Pope Paul VI, Gaudium et Spes, § 80. ↩︎
73. “The principle of sufficiency, by virtue of which each State may possess only the means necessary for its legitimate defence […].” Gaudium et Spes, §a 48. See also Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, § 508, and Fratelli Tutti, § 262. ↩︎
74. Catechism of the Catholic Church, § 2315 and 2316, and Gaudium et Spes, § 81. ↩︎
75. Gaudium et Spes, § 81. This encyclical was promulgated during the Cold War (1965), and was therefore particularly sensible to the armament and deterrence question, as nations, notably the USA and the USSR, were involved in the so-called “arms race”. ↩︎
76. This non-exhaustive list has overlaps and adds-on with the numerous lists of military virtues. As per current doctrines: for Ireland, “respect, loyalty, selflessness, integrity, moral courage and physical courage”, Irish Defence Forces, “Defence Forces Leadership Doctrine” (2016), https://www.military.ie/en/public-information/publications/df_leadership_doctrine.pdf, for the United Kingdom, “courage, discipline, respect for others, integrity, loyalty and selfless commitment”, British Army “Values and standards of the British Army” (undated); https://www.army.mod.uk/media/5219/20180910-values_standards_2018_final.pdf,last accessed20 October 2023. Lists of moral virtues have been developed through time, built on each other. Literature echoes ancient lists, such as William Shakespeare in Macbeth: “justice, verity, temperance, stableness/Bounty, perseverance, mercy, lowliness/Devotion, patience, courage, fortitude” (Macbeth, Act 4, Scene 3). ↩︎
77. As proclaimed in Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” Full text available at: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights. ↩︎
78. Kevin Cutright, The Empathetic Soldier (Abingdon: Routledge, 2022). ↩︎
79. As exemplified by the prayer “Agnus dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, dona nobis pacem.” ↩︎
80. Charles Baudelaire, The Denial of Saint Peter. English translation of William Aggeler, The Flowers of Evil (Fresno, CA: Academy Library Guild,
    1954); available at: https://fleursdumal.org/poem/189. Original book: Charles Baudelaire, Les Fleurs du Mal (1857). ↩︎

Share on Facebook

Tweet