Pope Leo XIV recently declared in his encyclical Magnifica Humanitas (On Safeguarding the Human Person in the Time of Artificial Intelligence) that “‘just war’ theory, which has all too often been used to justify any kind of war, is now outdated.”
Just war theory is a style of moral reasoning intended to guide decisions about whether to engage in large-scale violence and how to do so ethically. Different proponents of the theory have enumerated its principles in slightly different ways, but it generally includes the following basic principles: that war must be waged for a just cause; that it must only be waged as a last resort; that the force used must be proportional to the desired end; and that civilians must be protected.
Just war theory developed in the church in the 300s, after Constantine made Christianity the religion of the Roman Empire. The Catechism of the Catholic Church names the following principles:
- The 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.
Since just war theory has been around for a long time, some Catholics may be wary about moving on from a framework with which they are familiar. But military tactics and technologies have changed considerably since the first centuries of the church, or even the Middle Ages. And the church’s moral teachings have also developed.
Here are seven reasons to support Pope Leo’s position about just war theory.
Just war theory doesn’t adequately prevent war
The Vatican II document Gaudium et Spes (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World) called us to “strain every muscle” to outlaw war. Yet the possibility of a “just war” which is implied by just war logic has made us more at risk of pursuing it rather than treating it as a last resort. Although some draw on the framework to try to prevent or limit war, just war theory has frequently been used—by political leaders, and sometimes even religious leaders—to justify wars. This is not merely an issue of misuse. Cardinal Robert McElroy has said the just war ethic has “become only a little bit less than a green light” for war and “increasingly ineffective at restraining war,” and this September he said, “Pope Leo declared categorically in Magnifica that just war thinking can no longer constitute an authentic pathway of moral guidance in the life of the church.”
Unlike many other moral ways of reasoning, when just war theory is used in this way, it has enormous and horrendous consequences for many people, generations, and the Earth, as we have seen in Gaza. Is it worth it to keep using a theory, when its pattern and fallout tend toward such massive destruction?
Even apparent ‘just wars’ take on a life of their own
Even when a situation meets some or all conditions for war to be just, we consistently get stuck in cycles of dehumanization and violence. We saw this with World War II leading to the Cold War and numerous proxy wars in Korea, Vietnam, Latin American nations, and Afghanistan in the 1980s. The war in Afghanistan yielded the conditions which gave birth to Al-Qaeda, and thus to the 9/11 attacks, the 20-year war in Afghanistan, the 2003 Iraq war, and the development of ISIS.Such cycles of violence also create massive flows of refugees, generational trauma, and increased violent social habits, such as domestic violence and sexual assault.
Just war theory fosters militarism
Someone must keep preparing to “win” a potential “just” war, and this requires an ongoing arms race, investment, and diversion of resources to military spending. This in turn fosters a corresponding cultural violence: that is, the development of cultural elements that are easilyused to justify both structural and direct violence. Such elements include the dehumanizing social habits generated by war training, media propaganda to support war, and generational trauma from the experience of war. The very language of “just war” too often functions, even if unintentionally, as a form of such cultural violence. Pope Francis clearly stated that “there was a time, even in our Churches, when people spoke of a holy war or a just war.” And, he added, “Today we cannot speak in this manner.”
Just war theory fails to look at root causes
It is difficult to prevent and limit war without moral guidance for transforming conflicts by addressing root causes. Just war theory might limit some actions in war, but if the causes of war are not addressed, the war will likely go on or reemerge in some other form. The structural and cultural violence associated with military preparation often exacerbate the root causes of violence and inhibit sustainable peace. For example, the structural violence of the arms trade often generates distrust among nations, as well as the potential for profiting from war.
Just war theory fails to adequately train peacemakers
To have a chance at using just war theory well, courageous peacemakers must be involved in leadership—people who have cultivated attention, imagination, virtues, and skills associated with nonviolence, and who are committed to defending human dignity, including the dignity of enemies. These peacemakers cultivate strategic nonviolent practices and build institutions for safeguarding sustainable peace. Leaders also need to be able to discern if we ever reach the moment of genuine last resort. Just war theory doesn’t really contribute to training such peacemakers. In fact, it can too often even undermine the conditions for being used well.
Just war theory has not normalized a respect for human dignity
A desire to protect can be a good thing. But in practice, just war theory does not seem to have cultivated the normalizationof acting in accord with human dignity. Militaries intentionally train soldiers to de-humanize the adversary and suppress empathy. Does just war counter that in any adequate way? How is dignity being illuminated when even supposedly just wars generate persistent trauma, mental health issues, and even moral injury? How can an outlook that sees the other as an enemy to be destroyed be aligned with human dignity? Even some of the supporters of just war theory recognize that violence harms human dignity. Just war theory may insist on rules about what one can or cannot do, but it does not adequately form a respect for the dignity of the person. And recent popes have been crystal clear that violence is inconsistent with human dignity.
Just war theory undermines ecological care
While some have tried to make accommodations for environmental impact, when looking at the criteria for just war, this is quite difficult in practice. The preparation and training for war take a massive toll on the environment. Military drills, weapons testing, and the building of bases often do grave environmental damage—as Pope Francis has reminded us in Fratelli Tutti (On Fraternity and Social Friendship).. This includes damage to air and water quality, destruction of forests, contamination of land, plundering of natural resources, exorbitant use of fossil fuels, harm to biodiversity, killing of animals, and damage to human infrastructure that supports the environment.
Just war theory in Christian thought is usually attributed to Augustine, but its roots are older. Augustine drew on Roman philosopher Cicero who was one of the originators of just war theory. While the Christian tradition has latched onto and built on just war theory, it’s hard to see how it fits with Jesus’ way of nonviolent love or helps Christians draw closer to Christ.
Jesus taught us that we should love our enemies, do good to those who do evil, and turn the other cheek—that is, to assert our dignity. These are some transforming initiatives that actually function to break us out of cycles of violence. This is a call to go beyond “an eye for an eye” or proportional violence as a form of defense.
Such drawbacks of “proportional defense” proposals include generating tit-for-tat bombings or killings and cycles of violence, if not ongoing war. The recent war in Iran illustrates this dynamic. Another significant drawback is how it violates human dignity through cultivating social trauma, lowering empathy and a sense of the gift of each person.
Some may say that we simply need to update just war theory. Others may point out that Pope Leo used principles in his encyclical like “last resort” or “civilian protection,” which are traditionally parts of just war reasoning, and thus, they argue that the “ethic” behind just war theory remains legitimate. Yet, some of these can serve as stand-alone principles or in an alternative moral framework, such as just peace. As long as the concept of a “just war” remains, we are less likely to address war’s root causes or focus our energies on nonviolent strategies—especially once war has broken out. A just war framing means that wars, once started, are more likely to continue.
There is still work to do regarding the principle of legitimate defense, which Pope Leo does identify. In order to do this well, I encourage us to reflect on what is most critical to defend, such as human dignity, and the various types of defense that may be consistent with that and practically possible, such as nonviolent civilian-based defense, nonviolent resistance, and unarmed civilian protection. Then build out a moral framework from these realities of nonviolent force, rather than assuming legitimate defense must mean armed force. Cardinal Charles Maung Bo of Myanmar recently proclaimed, “We need a new paradigm. Nonviolent strategies are not a lack of defence; they are a more effective form of defence. We operationalize legitimate defence today through civilian-based defence, unarmed civilian protection, and active nonviolent resistance.”
It is time to explore other styles of moral reasoning rooted in empirical evidence and the active nonviolence of the gospels, such as just peace. Scripture calls Christians to put on the mind of Christ. We are redeemed through the cross that exposes injustice and violence rather than utilizing violence. The mission of the Christian church is to be a sacrament of our ultimate unity as children of God and with all creation. Just war theory does not seem to support this.
Image: Unsplash
