Second Part: Ok to Kill?

When is it Ok to Kill?

Before we dive into just war theory we have to see the concept of killing throughout the Church's moral tradition and natural law reasoning to form our initial baseline from which we can formulate a good argument on Catholic Just War Doctrine. In this "Second Part" article I want to use the text of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (referred to as CCC, or simply "the Catechism") to explore Catholic teaching on killing, murder and self-defense. A later post can deal with the specific principles of just war in the Catechism, for now we will leave ourselves to understanding the important distinctions, backed up by Saint Thomas Aquinas and Scripture, on killing.

We start here because the Catechism presents her teaching on just war within the context of the Fifth Commandment: "You shall not kill" (Ex. 20:13; Deut 5:17). In Exodus 23:7 God further specifies whom we are not allowed to kill: "The innocent and the just you shall not put to death." It must be understood within the Catholic view that intentional killing is always wrong. It is an intrinsically evil moral object that can never be chosen as an end in itself or as a means to an end. "The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule, and to the holiness of the Creator. The law forbidding it is universally valid: it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere" (CCC 2261).

However, natural law reasoning presents the fact that while all murder is killing, not all killing is murder. Murder is a subcategory, if you will, of killing. But not all killing is murder, and the Church labors to lay out the careful distinctions between a justified, or licit, killing, and homicide, or "intentional killing." This is where the understanding of the principle of the double effect legitimizes the defensive engagement in war and self-defense. On this issue CCC 2263 states, "The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing" but rather, it is from the unintended effect that the aggressor is killed. The intended effect is not to kill, but to preserve one's own life or the lives of those in one's care. Note that this is not saying that in such a circumstance intentional killing is now okay. Murder is never allowed. The Church is saying this is not murder.

Distinguishing Types of Killing

Under the subsection on "Intentional Homicide" (CCC 2268-2269) the Church lays out her basic principles that ought to shape our later reflections on just war. In two paragraphs it lays down three basic forms of killing: direct and intentional killing, indirect and intentional killing, and unintentional killing. In the first form of killing, the Church states clearly that the "fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful." If your intention is to directly kill someone, and not to have that killing be an unintended side-effect of another worthy intention, then it is always wrong. Even if it is a means to a really good end, it remains sinful, illicit and grave evil.

The Catechism continues on to the second form of killing, indirect homicide, saying that that same commandment "forbids doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about a person's death. The moral law prohibits exposing someone to mortal danger without grave reason, as well as refusing assistance to a person in danger." This is an important point: not only are direct killings gravely sinful, but so are intentional indirect killings, where the intended death results using indirect means. To illustrate this point, the Catechism uses "murderous famines" as the example of such killing and says they are "a scandalous injustice and a grave offense" that "lead to the hunger and death of their brethren in the human family" and those who cause them "indirectly commit homicide, which is imputable to them." (Applying this principles, I think severe economic sanctions imposed upon a nation by another nation, or community of nations (i.e. the US or the UN), causing the death of the poor of that nation would clearly follow under this description of intentional indirect homicide.)

The final form of killing is unintentional killing, which is examined within the paragraph on indirect killing, but the Church declares that it "is not morally imputable." A death resulting from a chance happening is not sinful because it is not voluntary. "Hence chance happenings, strictly speaking, are neither intended nor voluntary," states Saint Thomas, and "since every sin is voluntary... it follows that chance happenings, as such, are not sins." But that is not all that matters here. The Catechism clarifies this point: "one is not exonerated from grave offense if, without proportionate reasons, he has acted in a way that brings about someone's death, even without the intention to do so." St. Thomas says on the topic of unintentional ("involuntary") homicide that a person is guilty in two circumstances, if he is engaged in an unlawful activity or in a lawful activity carelessly. "If he be occupied with something unlawful, or even with something lawful, but without due care, he does not escape being guilty of murder, if his action results in someone's death."

In summary, all intentional killing- whether directly or indirectly intended- is evil, unlawful and always a grave offense. Furthermore, unintended killing that comes about from doing something unlawful or from simply not exercising due care is also gravely evil. This is as bad a condemnation as the Church gets. In fact, direct and intended killing is described in the bible and quoted in the Catechism as one of the four sins that cries out to heaven for vengeance! This is serious stuff here and not to be taken lightly. Killing is not to be glorified, though it may be one's duty to engage in it.

From Nuance to Foundation: Love of Self

Now we need to discuss why unintended killing is lawful in specific circumstances. We can see how these nuances above narrow down when it ok to kill. But the Church goes even further according to her Natural Law reasoning: legit self-defense can become illegitimate when one lacks prudence. But I am rushing into the argument here. First things first! Why is it ok to kill an unjust aggressor coming after me or those in whose care I am in charge?

CCC 2264 lays the proper foundation: "Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow."

For the Church and her Bible, all creation is inherently good ("God looked at everything he had made, and he found it very good" - Gen 1:31). Everything is good. Insofar as a thing exists, that thing is good, because God is Existence itself ("I Am Who Am" - Exodus 3:13-15) and all things that exist participate in God's existence; thus, they are good. Now all living things having a basic natural inclination to preserve its life. Thomas continues more precisely than I could hope:

"Because in man there is first of all an inclination to good in accordance with the nature which he has in common with all substances: inasmuch as every substance seeks the preservation of its own being, according to its nature: and by reason of this inclination, whatever is a means of preserving human life, and of warding off its obstacles, belongs to the natural law."

I want to live. My act of existing is defined by my human nature and one of the most basic inclination of human nature is to keep on existing. I do not want to die! I want to live. I love my life because it is the only one God gave me! The Church tells us to insist on our own personal right to life, to safeguard this right. We are never permitted to just lay down and die, to give up on life. Life is a good in and of itself, the first grace given to us by God. Love for one's own life is the basis for the Golden Rule.

However, even this self-preservation has limits. St. Thomas Aquinas furthers this understanding in the Summa Theologica that the good intention of preserving one's own life against an unjust aggressor can be rendered immoral if one uses lethal force where nonlethal means would have been sufficient to deter the attacker. Knowing how to walk this line involves prudence. "Wherefore if a man, in self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense will be lawful," for "one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's" (STh II-II, 64,7, corp. art.).

Therefore, the imprudent use of force may render an act of defense illegitimate in the eyes of God. Prudence guides the individual in the proportionate about of violence that ought to be used in order to repel the aggressor. The justice of the issue may be settled- that is, the aggressor attacks unjustly and the victim is operating purely out of defense- but the prudential dimension can render this otherwise just act unjust by excessive violence.

In all such circumstances, however, the logic of the Church is that killing must be justified by careful criteria, by both the commands of justice and the precepts of prudence. If these criteria are not met, then killing is illicit, and the individual or the authorities are guilty of grave evil. However, one should see in this tradition of moral reasoning that the Catholic Church, unlike the Quakers, are not absolute pacifists, but do find some sort of limited lawfulness to engage in the act of killing, whether in war or self-defense. "Legitimate defenses can be not only a right" says CCC 2265, "but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others... For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility."

The large scale violence that war always brings is always a tragedy, even if the cause is just. The Church teaches that there are real cases where just wars and lethal self-defense can happen. In her natural law reasoning, especially in the doctrines of Thomas Aquinas and Augustine before him, the Church sees the love of self, the inclination to self-preservation, and the duty to defend oneself and those in one's care as legitimate reasons to use violence, even lethal violence, to stop the attack and repel the aggressor. To repel an unjust aggressor, the prudential use of force, and not just the fact that force is now allowed to be used, is required to remain a legit defender against evil and not a perpetrator of it. Just because I can use force in a given situation, it does not mean that it is a free-for-all, no-holds-barred throw down.

Hatred begets violence. It is no accident that Saint Thomas Aquinas, in his great Summa, treated the topic of war under the "Vices" of Charity. If peace, which we will treat next time, is the effect of charity and the work of justice, then war is a failure of both.

God love you.

gomer

AMDG

First Part: Just War Theory

I believe fully in the Catholic and Christian faith given to the world by Christ and his Apostles and passed down through sacred tradition and sacred scripture (sacra doctrina) and as protected by the Magisterium of his one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, headed by the Pope, the Bishop of Rome.

As such, I believe that it is the moral duty of all Catholics to try and understand their faith and heritage of Christianity, especially in the saints and theologians of years past. To uncover the lives of the saints is discover the gospel writ large in the world with flesh and blood. Their witness transforms the possibilities of this world. Heroic virtue, miraculous self-donation, humility, repentance- all of it mixes and mingles with the reality of the fallen human nature that has been redeemed by the blood of the Lamb.

Christian morality has always interested me and as such it has caused me to radically alter my political views from time to time. As a conservative Catholic, I had to come to terms with the Church's teaching on the death penalty as expressed through Pope John Paul II's Evangelium Vitae. As the years have unrolled, I fear I have entered into my most distressing portion of my Catholic evolution. I have become a libertarian.

I became a libertarian (or maybe we can stretch the term 'Old Right' or paleo-conservative) because of my views on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. To be more accurate, I became more convinced that Christ wanted peace and not war, that war was a grave undertaking that is wholly defensive, and that American foreign policy had rejected the basic tenants of the Just War doctrine of the Church's patrimony. This rejection of Just War Theory was made known to me not by Catholic theologians- they seemed all too silent, or all too leftist- but by an honest politician, Ron Paul, Republican Representative for the state of Texas and former Republican primary presidential nominee.

I previously thought peace among the nations was a naive ideal, until I read the rigorous and principled thought of libertarians and paleoconservatives (true conservatives, if you ask me) on wars of aggression and I saw how much they lined up with Augustine and Aquinas on the just war doctrine. I discovered that many of the Founding Fathers had a strong non-interventionist view of foreign relations, which consisted in mainly encouraging free trade among the nations. Let the nations engage in their own self-determination.

Then I compared that with our current government interventions and saw war increase abroad and freedom curtailed at home. Many crafters of our Constitution believed that treaties and alliances would entangle the young nation in European problems, so they cautioned against all treaties or alliances. These alliances were rejected because of their ability to drag us into wars and bloodshed that in no way concern the United States.

Furthermore, the Framers of the Constitution broke apart the War Powers, giving the power to declare war and fund it wholly to the Congress, while allowing the executive branch to run the war once engaged. This was a solution that would hold true as long as the legislative branch was not in league with the executive. However, today's party politics seems to override the separation of powers. As James Madison observed:

In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department. Beside the objection to such a mixture to heterogeneous powers, the trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man; not such as nature may offer as the prodigy of many centuries, but such as may be expected in the ordinary successions of magistracy.

War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement. In war, a physical force is to be created; and it is the executive will, which is to direct it. In war, the public treasures are to be unlocked; and it is the executive hand which is to dispense them. In war, the honours and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed. It is in war, finally, that laurels are to be gathered, and it is the executive brow they are to encircle. The strongest passions and most dangerous weaknesses of the human breast; ambition, avarice, vanity, the honourable or venial love of fame, are all in conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace.

Another classic James Madison quote on war furthers my hatred of it:

Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds are added to those of subduing the force of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes and the opportunities of fraud growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could reserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

The reason why I said this is the most distressing part for my ongoing conversion is because it is very alienating, especially from my friends who are conservatives on the neoconservative side. It pains me to talk about this, but if I didn't, I would be a liar, inauthentic.

So, here it all goes, my opus to defend my Catholic convictions that led me to my libertarian political views in order to reshape American politics back to pro-life, pro-peace and non-interventionist principles...

gomer

AMDG

A Man for All Seasons excerpt!

Lady Alice More: Arrest him!

St. Thomas More: For what?

Lady Alice More: He's dangerous!

William Roper: For all we know he's a spy!

Margaret More: Father, that man's bad!

St. Thomas More: There's no law against that.

William Roper: There is—God's law!

St. Thomas More: Then let God arrest him.

Lady Alice More: While you talk he's gone!

St. Thomas More: And go he should, if he were the Devil himself, until he broke the law.

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down—and you're just the man to do it!—do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!