‘STAND FAST IN THE FAITH'

New Zealand Tablet, 11 March 1915, Page 7

‘STAND FAST IN THE FAITH'

(A Weekly Instruction Especially t written for the ; N.Z. Tablet by GhimelA v ■ • j I Y-i -■ - Y v..£ ; WHEN WAR IS LAWFUL. ~ ;; If it is easy enough to see that war is' at times lawful, nay, a solemn -dutyit is not •so easy; to give an answer to the practical question what kind of war is lawful; in other words, what are the; objects and conditions justifying strife between nations? -• One or two observations may tend to clearness of view : ' •' •Y' - (1) • There is a vast difference between the justice of a war and its ultimate, issue. Truth prevails and justice, but not always, some think seldom, in the immediate present. If God’s mills grind surely, yet they do so slowly. Hence a nation unjustly assailed, the Belgium nation for example in the present struggle, is perfectly justified in resisting unto death and in offering more than a feint resistance. A nation has rights, which, if it values its place in the eyes of men, it will take care to defend, even in presence of a vastly superior opponent. ‘lt is sweet to die for one’s country.’ (2) But what is right ? Father Slater, in his Manual of Moral Theology , gives this definition : ‘That which is in justice due to me is my right. I have a right to my life, to my good . name, to my property and anyone who deprives me of these rights is guilty of injustice. In its strict sense, a right may be defined a moral power of having, doing, or exacting something. It is said to be a moral power, to distinguish it from the mere physical capacity of brute force, which confers no rights of itself. It is a moral power, which may not without injustice be interfered with’ (1., p. 343). (3) When two nations go to war, both cannot in the sight of God, Who cannot be deceived, be objectively right. Justice lies on one side or the other. But both may be in the best of good faith, and think that right and justice are on their side. Here,, of course, lam not referring to rulers and diplomatists, for some of them at least in every war must surely know their cause to be unjust; I have in mind rather the bulk of the nation who in these days are allowed to know little of the inner workings, and whose patriotism readily believes what their governments choose to tell them. (4) Soldiers actually in military service, or liable to such service by the law of conscription are bound to obey the call of the authorities and, if needs be, give their life for their country. 1 Greater love than this no man hath.’ ‘I was asked lately by a staff officer,’ writes Cardinal Mercier in his now famous Pastoral, ‘ whether a soldier falling in a righteous cause . . . is not veritably a martyr. Well, he is not a martyr in the rigorous theological meaning of the word, inasmuch as he dies in arms, whereas the martyr delivers himself, undefended and unarmed, into the hands of the executioner. But if lam asked what I think of the eternal salvation of a brave man who has consciously given his life in defence of his country’s honor, and in vindication of violated justice, I shall not hesitate to reply that without any doubt whatever Christ crowns his military valor, and that death, accepted in this Christian spirit, assures the safety of that man’s soul. And the soldier who dies to save his brothers, and to defend the hearths and altars of his country, reaches this highest of all degrees of charity. He may not have made a close analysis of the value of his sacrifice; but must we suppose that God requires of the plain soldier .in the excitement of battle the methodical precision of the moralist or the theologian? Can we, who revere his heroism, doubt that his God welcomes him with love?’ (5) War brings such tremendous evils in its train that, it must be entered upon by a nation only after all other means have been tried and failed.

(6) 'A mere war of conquest, in. which, a nation or its ruler fights simply for material aggrandisement, is obviously unjust: it is an offence against humanity, and as such deserves the censure both -of God and man. Nor can it be objected that the chosen people of God .acted in this fashion, for ‘the exercise of His supreme sovereignty by God as between the Israelites and other nations was altogether a special dispensation, which has no existing parallel under the natural or international laws.’ (7) On the other • hand, a war in which a nation defends its fatherland, or its legitimate possessions, is altogether just and righteous. ‘lt is sweet and glorious to die for one’s country ’ has always - been the thought of the noblest, and to their judgment God Himelf does not refuse His sanction. (8) Taking these two instances into consideration it might seem safe to draw a broad distinction between defensive and offensive warfare, and to insist that the former is always, the latter never, justifiable. And there would be a certain element of truth in this position. But the statement needs to be qualified. In the first place not all defensive war can be said straightway to be justifiable. There must be some proportion between the rights threatened or actually violated and the damages likely to be caused by the war. It would be wrong for a nation to fight absolutely without hope of success, or to maintain a hopeless conflict. It is not easy of course to say in every case when a nation is altogether outclassed by a more powerful enemy, and a brave people might quite lawfully fight, for honor’s sake, on the off-chance of winning. ‘ Analogously a woman to defend her chastity may risk her life to any extent so long as the barest chance of escape discriminates her action from suicide.’ Two illustrations may make, this point clearer. When the City of the Popes was invaded in 1870 by the ‘ Italians,’ it soon became evident that the defenders could not possibly hold out for any length of time. Pope Pius IX. thereupon surrendered. His action was in every way correct. His armed defence of his lawful possessions showed the world that he was the victim-of unjust aggression, while his surrender to vastly superior forces was prompted by a noble feeling on the part of a ruler to spare the useless shedding of blood. Belgium at the present moment is fighting for its independence, and it is admitted on all sides that it is engaged in a perfectly just war, for the neutrality of the country had been guaranteed even by the invading nation. But what hope of success could Belgium have in face of so powerful a nation as Germany? None at all, and Belgium’s ruler would not have been justified in offering any resistance, did he not know that he could count on the effective aid of equally powerful nations who were bound by treaty to preserve the integrity of the State. Neither in the second place can it be said that every offensive war is unjustifiable. A nation need not always wait until it is attacked; it might easily happen that a nation, certain of an approaching unjust attack, could hope to find safety only in taking the offensive. In the FrancoPrussian War of ’69-’7O, the French struck the first blow, but they always maintained that the situation was forced by their opponents.