Herald of Hope Column

• Current Herald of Hope online column • Past Herald of Hope online columns

	Archbishop Rembert G. Weakland
	Herald of Hope Herald of Hope is a weekly column by Milwaukee Archbishop Rembert G. Weakland and Bishop Richard J. Sklba. • Herald of Hope online archive

The events of Sept. 11 have forced us to think in new categories concerning war and peace and define again the concepts needed. Our traditional categories, without some clarification, will not work. I will attempt to point out but a few of these.

I consider myself a pacifist. This comes from my understanding of the Gospel and especially from what Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount. I believe this stance has ramifications beyond the personal and has something to say to all people in all times and places. I do not see war as an ultimate solution to conflicts that have as their roots deep-seated animosities and hatreds. This is a personal stance for an individual and one that, at least in recent decades, has become acceptable as a valid Catholic response to war. This is my personal conviction, and I desire a lifestyle that goes with it. In this sense I am a pacifist.

On the other hand, Catholic teaching also holds that the criteria for personal morality cannot be applied without qualification to the state. The state has the duty of protecting its people and their property, of keeping order in society, and of seeing that justice is equitably carried out. Only the state can raise a police force and an army. The state has the responsibility of being the "policeman," not the individual. I cannot then object if the state performs these duties and exercises the rights that flow from them. Included in these duties is the defense of the nation from outside aggressors.

War has also changed meaning. The classical definition of war included armed hostile conflict between politically constituted groups. Conventions on who could declare a war in the name of one state against another and how such conflicts should be regulated, especially with regard to the immunity of innocent civilians, were clear. Then we began to use the word in a transferred sense -- the war on poverty, the war on drugs. Does the war on terrorism fall into the traditional category or under the transferred meaning? Is the war on terrorism a policing action or a properly constituted and declared military conflict between clear political entities?

Since we in the United States are proceeding with the idea of military tribunals, I assume that we not using the term "war" in a transferred sense when we talk about the war on terrorism. Such a new concept of war is totally innovative in our day and does not meet the traditional criteria.

Will we also constitute military tribunals for the war on drugs and poverty?

Yet, as a Christian, I must be honest. The Crusades were a type of war against groups that were not always clearly constituted into "states." Blood and religion were the criteria for annihilation. On the way to the Holy Land, the Crusaders, we must remember, also wiped out many Jewish enclaves, especially in Fulda and parts of Germany. There were no real declarations of war; such declarations were only possible when nation-states were founded.

Are we regressing to some of these vaguer notions now, where definitions and criteria for war seem to have disappeared?

In this regard, it is also very important that a distinction be made between acts of aggression against our nation and its boundaries, on the one hand, and attacks on our economic interests wherever they may be on this globe, on the other. It is one thing to defend our lives and our property; it is another to be defending a way of life that has become dependent on objects supplied to us by other nations. I am always uneasy when people talk about these "strategic interests" all over the globe and our right to defend them, because, with their loss, our lifestyles would have to change.

Moreover, we must distinguish acts of aggression against us from attitudes of dislike or even hatred. For various reasons we are hated by many on this globe. Not all are terrorists. In fact, most are not. Some have valid reasons for such hatred, others do not. Some have been hurt by us; some are just jealous. All these motives for hate and dislike have to be calmly sorted out in a rational fashion, without threats and aggression.

For us Christians, Sept. 11 has forced us to rethink and redefine other terms. For example, what is martyrdom for us Christians and how have we historically treated this phenomenon? We Christians understand martyrdom as someone else taking the life of a Christian because of that Christian's religious belief. As we read the lives of the early martyrs, we see that often many craved martyrdom, asking those standing by not to interfere with their chance to be more Christ-like.

We have never had a concept of "self-immolation" for a cause. We watch in horror as those of other religions pour gas on themselves and ignite it. Such self-immolation we would consider morally wrong, whatever the cause might be. We fall back on our basic concept that taking one's own life is wrong.

We also have a concept of giving up one's life for others. We do not have a clear word for this act (perhaps "self-substitution") but recognize it as morally permissible. One thinks of two instances. In the life of Maximilian Kolbe we learn that he took the place in the gas chamber of a man who was father of a family because of the responsibilities that man had. This "substitution" is seen as an act of love. Pope Paul VI begged the Red Brigade to release Aldo Moro and take himself instead, even if it meant death, so that Moro could be saved. This is seen as heroic self-giving for another, just as Christ gave himself for us.

Finally, there is the most difficult case of all: those who destroy their own lives ("self-destruction") to bring destruction on the enemy, whether it be to property or persons or both. In some cultures this act is seen as heroic. As a boy, I was introduced to this concept when the Japanese first employed it. Today it has become the prime mode of action of terrorists.

This act preys on the vulnerability of all in a society. Self-destruction in order to kill others and do harm to them is totally contrary to Christian values, regardless of how heroic it may seem to others.

Our concept of martyrdom, even when found in its most exalted state, is not the same as any of these other manifestations. It would be helpful if the great religious leaders of the world could begin a dialogue on such matters. We certainly need to understand what reasoning and religious motivations lay underneath these self-destructive acts and where we differ concerning the taking of one's own life, however justified the cause may seem to be.