War and Peace

by Rev. Edward H. Flannery

originally published in THE PROVIDENCE JOURNAL-BULLETIN; April 13, 1991

Countless commentaries have been made on almost every aspect of the Gulf War in the last several months. There remains one, however, that has hardly been touched upon: the disappointing performance of the religious leadership on the morality of the war. No polls were taken on their stand, but by all accounts a large majority opposed the war while, interestingly, a larger majority of the population affirmed it.

Were the clerics right?

Well aware of the incompleteness of what follows, I shall contend that they were not, and this for two reasons; their confused and divided voice on the war and their questionable notion of peace.

First, the moral status of the war. Disunity carried the day. Positions ranged from pacifism through "just war" theologies to evangelical approaches. The National Council of Churches took something of a pacifist stance. The Catholic Bishops, espousing a "just war" theology, could not come up with a clear conclusion. Both, and others again, opposed the war or refused to affirm it as morally justifiable. It must be noted, on the other hand, that a majority of Jewish and a minority of Christian leaders gave the war solid backing.

How are we to understand this disunified leadership so egregiously ignored by a great majority of the people?

Some of it may have to do with ideology. More explicitly put, as one reads the various statements, the impression grows that it was the dogmas of the Left and the Right – the first with a tilt toward pacifism, the latter toward war – that were more in evidence than any theological dogmas. Views from the Center that draw from both extremes for a holistic solution were in scant supply.

I can think of two other explanations, which I offer tentatively. The first resides in the fact that the application of theological norms to any particular war requires a good grounding in social, political, and military factors that are involved in any impending conflict. Since these matters are outside their competence, most religionists are often weak in this respect. In the present instance, Saddam Hussein’s mental and moral make-up, the extent of the evils that would follow in the wake of appeasement, and the extent of good the war was calculated to bring in the long run were underestimated. The other possible reason is that spiritual leaders, widely considered as an elite, tend to feel compelled to take a high moral ground, to edify, in moral matters. Calling for peace or no-war does not frustrate such expectations.

Second, a flawed notion of peace. That religious leaders are confused as to the nature of peace is not too surprising when we realize that almost everybody else is too. The word is on everybody’s lips, but never defined. For most it means nothing more than absence of war, an absence that can be far from peace. Was, for example, August 2nd to January 15th a time of peace?

The mistake generally made consists in imagining that peace is a thing in itself, which it is not. Peace is an effect or result of something else than itself, something without which it cannot exist. Peace cannot exist without justice, freedom, and some degree of love, or, minimally, tolerance. When these virtues are present in sufficient measure, ipso facto there is peace. Without them there is no peace even when there is no war.

Possibly the best and still valid definition of peace was formulated in the fifth century by St. Augustine, originator of the just war doctrine: "Peace is the tranquillity of order." In sum, peace is the tranquillity that emerges from ordered societies or nations in which justice, freedom, and love prevail.

In these perspectives, one can see, independently of the theology used, how mistakes can be made in judging the moral status of war. Some of the concrete realities of the conflict, so crucial to a prudent judgment, were given too much attention by the moralists. One can also see better the futility of merely calling for peace, as so many did.

It is a troubling paradox indeed that war can lead to peace, and no-war to the triumph of evil.