In the brief run-up to the American Civil war between Abraham Lincoln’s inauguration and the start of hostilities, the new president was visited by a host of “peace committees,” urging him to let the rebellious states go in peace, forming two countries from one.
Lincoln believed such a peace would only be illusory, setting off the bitter Balkanization of America rather than launching an era of fraternal brotherhood. He had been an avid fan of the ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence since he was a young man in Springfield, Illinois.
Perfectly cognizant of the ills in the American Republic, Lincoln’s imagination was captured by the belief that it was the one nation on earth conceived in a manner in which it could progressively heal its own ills rather than be eventually torn asunder by them. If that nation were torn asunder, there was little hope for any of mankind. All were doomed to live in societies that progressively decayed and suffered periodic violent, existential convulsions every century or two. Lincoln was determined that that nation MUST be preserved that people might ultimately escape the cycle of institution, decay, and collapse.
To one of the final peace delegations, Lincoln wearily responded that he, too, was a man who deeply valued peace, but that sometimes the only path to real peace was through war. And the war came.
*********
I have been assiduously studying Just War theory and its history. I think it is still a work in progress. St. Augustine did not have a systematic approach to it, though his thoughts on what constitutes just war is a common thread running through much of his work, most insistently in City of God. It was not until St. Thomas Aquinas, writing some 800 years later, that a systematic, comprehensive approach was developed.
The concept of “Just War” has been a muddled one in Christian history. The first Christians were almost absolute pacifists, refusing to defend either themselves or those around them with physical force. It was primarily St. Ambrose, the Bishop of Milan who lived in the 4th Century (and who received and baptized St. Augustine into the Church), who began considering when the use of force was legitimate for Christians.
St. Ambrose concluded that Christians did not just have the right to use force to defend those under assault around them but, in fact, had a positive obligation to do so when they could. To do less risked grave sin, he believed. Even so, St. Ambrose did not believe individuals had any right to self-defense. They must submit to violence and suffering when it came, preferably without complaint.
St. Augustine refined his old teacher’s thoughts on the matter, establishing a clear right to self-defense among a host of other details. Again, Augustine did not lay down a systematic approach, but wrote as a man constantly thinking on the matter – and what was just and prudent. Augustine truly was the father of the concept of just war.
It was not fully developed, though. Further, the interpretation and analysis of it by Church authorities was usually sophomoric. This led to multitudes of people dying needlessly because of the lack of martial vigor in the Church. Islam launched its war of extermination against Christianity with the conquest of Spain and the Iberian Peninsula beginning in 711. By the time Christianity launched the Crusades to defend Christians almost 400 years later, fully a third of Europe was already under the Islamic yoke. The bulk of the Christian lives lost and quite a few of the Islamic ones lost can be accounted to the restraint of the Christian world. Had Christian nations acted with vigorous resolve, the Islamic invasion could have been checked by 750 A.D. and Muslims would not have felt encouraged to go further.
In the early 1200’s, St. Thomas Aquinas systematized the theory of just war in his massive Summa Theologiae. Masterful as it is, it is not defined doctrine. It is more like the mid-point in a contemplation that was begun with Sts. Ambrose and Augustine. It is important because, if it is not significantly more developed and refined, the Church will forever be dismissed in such matters as insufficiently grounded in reality to have anything practical or useful to say.
Some of the deficiencies merely have to do with continuing to impose 13th century standards on current realities. States can licitly respond to an “imminent threat.” But in the 13th Century you could tell when an imminent threat was posed by the massing of troops along a border. When you have missiles that can reach 6000 miles in a matter of minutes, imminent threat is in an entirely new context. If you have a state that has such missiles, already props up terror around the globe, and brags that it will use them on you as soon as it has the full nuclear capability, that is an imminent threat.
It irritates me enormously that even scholarly commentators I have relied on do not seem to know some of the basics of existing just war theory. The Church acknowledges that some matters are the primary prudential responsibility of the hierarchy – and others are the primary prudential responsibility of the laity. Setting up the general criteria for a just war lies in the primary responsibility of the Church. Applying those criteria to any specific conflict is the primary responsibility of lay leaders. In discussing this, I have talked to a few Priests and Bishops who understand that distinction, but I have yet to see a Catholic commentator, even those I most admire, who does. If they are going to talk knowledgably and usefully on this subject, they are going to have to up their game dramatically.
As for me, I am slowly and steadily working up a set of propositions to refine the heart of what makes for a just war. Though I will publish it fully before I die (if I live long enough) I will discuss it in pieces here as we go. The first of these is: The only legitimate purpose of war is to secure a just peace. This does not invalidate any of the other existing criteria, but simply overtly states the purpose. You still have to exhaust all other reasonable avenues first. The second proposition is: Once you have decided that war is the only path to peace, you must prosecute it with vigorous resolve. Vigorous prosecution brings wars to the swiftest end. Ending them quickly saves the most lives.
Above all, at this early stage, men need to get it clear that advocating for the status quo when the status quo is wicked – and murderously violent for many – is NOT to advocate for peace. It is just to advocate for a wicked status quo. So quit dressing it up as refined morality.
It has been several centuries since nations (at least in the formerly free world) have gone to war for national glory. Thank God! But we need to do far more to ensure that we are guided by sound principles of Judeo-Christian ethics if we are not to descend back into barbarism. We cannot do that when the Church has reduced itself to the role of annoying kibitzer when such serious matters arise.
*********
Over the last decade, I have done a complete 180 in regard to Donald Trump. Ten years ago this month, I was a hair’s breadth away from being a “never Trumper.” Today, I think he is the sort of world historical figure we only see once every three or four hundred years.
Many are so obsessed by the trees of daily events that they can’t see the emerging forest around us. Trump is resetting the geopolitical globe faster than has ever been accomplished in history. Much faster. It is in a way that prepares the ground for a genuine, lasting peace of a scope never before seen in the world. Who could have foreseen, even a year ago, that in a war with Iran, almost all the Arab states would ally themselves with the U.S. and Israel? Yet here it is.
In his recent summit in China, Trump worked to secure the release of Christians there who are being held because they are Christians. In Nigeria, he took out the terrorist who has committed and masterminded the most atrocities against Christians. I wish the Vatican were half as vigorous in its defense of Christians around the globe.
This segment, though, is not a review of Trump’s triumphs – though I think he is clearing the ground in a way that will facilitate the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart, even if he is not consciously aware of it. Rather, I am acknowledging that when an historical figure achieves larger than life results, his blunders tend to be larger than life, as well. I don’t forget that Trump was the original impetus behind the disastrous Covid shots with his Warp Speed initiative. He then proceeded to get rolled consistently by the establishment media, public health authorities, and Democrats on the entire issue. I do not think he would have enacted the tyrannical mandates that Biden and company did, but it was a blunder of large proportions.
When the Islamic Republic that holds Iran captive is completely toppled, it will be a huge driver towards world peace and stability. It will also dramatically enhance global prosperity.
No one knows the art of the deal better than Trump. But he is dealing with an ideology which believes it is in its interest to trigger a global apocalypse. Those are the circumstances Shi’ites believe will bring about the return of the 12th Mahdi and the establishment of Islam as the only religion throughout the world.
I have learned never to underestimate Trump, but his approach to Iran at endgame is beginning to look feckless. The business of dire threat, followed by a decision to give them a couple more weeks has cycled about as far as it reasonably can. At some point very soon, say before this month ends, I think Trump needs to end it. Let’s get on with the reconstruction of a functioning society in Iran and the end of murderous terror exported from its shores. Again, Trump may be doing things behind the scenes that will facilitate this that I – and almost everyone else – are unaware of. But we need to get there soon.
*********
Marxism is an authoritarian ideology that falsely claims to be grounded in science. Islam is an authoritarian ideology that falsely claims to be grounded in God. Woke-ism is an authoritarian ideology that false claims to be grounded in compassion. Despite dramatically contradictory stated goals, these ideologies have made common cause with each other. When that happens, I always look for the common thread. It is authoritarian ideology. Just the will to power writ large. That is the great battle of our time – faith and freedom vs submission to authoritarian rule.
Just say no.
*********
I head off to the Eastern Seaboard today for several talks and visits. I will be going out in briefer spurts this year. If you would like to schedule a visit, contact my scheduler, Mary Lapchak, at lapchakma@gmail.com. My theme this year is preparing for the Triumph. I believe that how we behave this year will determine whether the Triumph is just a couple of years away – or several decades away. We all need to up our game.
If communication goes out for any length of time, meet outside your local Church at 9 a.m. on Saturday mornings. Tell friends at Church now in case you can’t then. CORAC teams will be out looking for people to gather in and work with.
Find me on X at @JohnstonPilgrim
The Corps of Renewal and Charity (CORAC)
18208 Preston Rd., Ste. D9-552
Dallas, Texas 75252
A Sign of Hope 
Amen!
LikeLike