ARTICLES
OCTOBER 2004 ARTICLES
Contents © 2004
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.
There's An Ambiguity Here
The Catholic Church and Conscription
BY CHRISTOPHER ZEHNDER
What has the Catholic Church said about conscription?
Not much.
But there was an American priest, Father John Hugo in the 1930s and '40s who argued that conscription, if not specifically condemned by the Church, stands accused by her spirit. Hugo's thesis was that conscription arose in the decline of Christendom, when European nations were throwing over Christian principles for Enlightenment theories. Further, conscription, said Hugo, violates the sanctity of the family and mandatory military service corrupts youth, who should not be torn from the familial hearth. In support of this, Hugo quoted Pope Leo XIII, who in 1894 wrote: "We behold the condition of Europe. For many years past peace has been an appearance rather than a reality. Possessed with mutual suspicions, almost all the nations are vying with one another in equipping themselves with military armaments. Inexperienced youths are removed from parental direction and control, to be thrown amid the dangers of the soldier's life; robust young men are taken from agriculture or ennobling studies or trade or the arts to be put under arms. Hence the treasures of States are exhausted by the enormous expenditure, the national resources are frittered away, and private fortunes impaired and this, as it were, armed peace, which now prevails, cannot last much longer. Can this be the normal condition of human society?"
Though few in his day shared Father Hugo's concerns, he was certainly not alone. "There was a thrust in that direction before World War II," said Tom Cornell of the Catholic Peace Fellowship, an organization serves as a resource for conscientious objectors. "Among the bishops, there was a lot of opposition to universal or selective conscription on the grounds that it would take nice farm boys out of their healthy milieus and put them [in situations of temptation] -- 'well, how are we going to keep them down on the farm after they have seen Paris?'"
Cornell, since the 1950s, has been involved with the Catholic peace movement (he was an associate with Dorothy Day at the New York Catholic Worker and currently lives at the Worker's Peter Maurin farm on Staten Island). A link with the World War II period, Cornell said that, at the time, "the theologian of note" on conscription was Father George Barry O'Toole, at Catholic University in Washington, D.C. O'Toole, said Cornell, "was very much against conscription as a violation of conscience and of family, but not for specifically pacifist reasons, although that was part of the mix."
But whatever the American bishops said before World War II, the United States' declaration of war seemingly ended their opposition to conscription. Cornell, however, said he does not think it is much use "to go back to those days. I really think," he said, "we have to look at our situation today, take the most authoritative statements we have from the magisterium, and hold the Church to them."
The authoritative statement for Cornell is from Vatican II's "Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World," Gaudium et Spes. Gaudium et Spes, however, does not address conscription as such, but supports the right of some to immunity from it. "It seems just," said the council, "that laws should make humane provision for the case of conscientious objectors who refuse to carry arms, provided they accept some other form of community service."
But how does this square with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which says that "public authorities," in the case of a just war, "have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense"? [Emphasis in original.] Is this not conscription?
It certainly is, said Cornell. But, "there's an ambiguity there." For one, the Catechism, like the council, says allowance should be made for conscientious objection and says further that "those who renounce violence and bloodshed and, in order to safeguard human rights, make use of those means of defense available to the weakest. [These] bear witness to evangelical charity, provided they do so without harming the rights and obligations of other men and societies."
Then, the Catechism delineates just war principles -- and why bother to do so, asked Cornell, "unless it is to be used by somebody. And if you think it's going to be used by national leaders to declare that they're going to wage an unjust war, you got to have your head somewhere else than your shoulders."
The Church, Cornell said, has to harmonize what she says about citizen obligations during war and conscientious objection. "They might say," said Cornell, "something like, 'the overall obligation of participation applies with caveats, with exceptions....'"
Cornell further pointed out that the Church teaches a general obligation to obey law; "but law must be in harmony with natural law." If it isn't, one is not bound to obey it. Gaudium et Spes also says in its section, "Avoidance of War," that "any action which deliberately violates" the principles of natural law "and any order which commands such actions is criminal and blind obedience cannot excuse those who carry them out." So, it would seem, that the determination of the justice of a war not only belongs to "those who have responsibility for the common good," but to the personal conscience.
Cornell pointed out that the Church nowhere condemns military service; rather, as Gaudium et Spes says, "those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace." But, Cornell said, "you have to look at those adverbs, and ask: 'is a this [particular] war honest? Is this war honorable (in Iraq, for instance)? I do not mean to impugn the conscience of any individual soldier but to suggest that they are being violated. The patriotism of these men and women is being violated, not by the peaceniks, but by the government."
Since Gaudium et Spes, according to Cornell, the Church has not spoken authoritatively on conscientious objection; "there has simply been the refinement of the idea of war itself," he said, "with John Paul making it look like a possible just war is in league with a possible just capital punishment. The only kind of justifiable military action is really a police action, and what is that? Then you get into the problem what is a legitimate international authority and how is it exercised? All that kind of stuff."
Yet, despite the lack of clarity in the Church surrounding war, Cornell said he thinks "we're heading in the direction of becoming a real peace church."
Cornell distinguished a peace church from a pacifist church. The latter condemns war as such; the former affirms the right of conscientious objection to particular wars. An example of how the Church is moving in this direction, said Cornell, was the 1980 "Statement on Registration and Conscription for Military Service" issued by the Administration Board of the United States Catholic Conference -- for which Cornell served as a consultant. The statement, while affirming traditional teaching on war, supported "the right of conscientious objection as a valid moral position, derived from the Gospel and Catholic teaching, and recognized as well in U.S. civil law." It also supported the "right of selective conscientious objection as a moral conclusion which can be validly derived from the classical moral teaching of Just-War theory."
The statement also called upon schools and religious educators to include systematic formation of conscience on questions of war and peace in their curricula" and pledged "the assistance of appropriate diocesan agencies in counseling any of those who face questions of military service." Cornell said this meant that "the good offices of the Catholic Church would be made available to any who came forward for any reason with problems of any kind having to do with military service or draft registration; and it made no reference to their religious background. In other words, I hope that someday this will come about -- when people find themselves in difficulty and the draft, the first thing they're going to think of is the Catholic rectory, church, school, social service agency, the way they do Quakers now. It's going to be a little while, but history is long and the Holy Spirit is very funny."
But the "Statement on Registration and Conscription for Military Service" also addressed the question of the draft. While acknowledging "the right of the state to register citizens for the purpose of military conscription, both in peacetime and in times of national emergency," the statement opposed "any reinstitution of military conscription except in the case of a national defense emergency." It also opposed "a universal or national service corps" upon the grounds of "its compulsory character when a proportionate threat to the nation or need for it is not clearly evident."
And what of the conscription of women? "This is a complex question which touches several issues," said the statement. "It is our position that the past practice of making military service an option for women but not an obligation has served us well as a society. We do not see good reasons for changing this practice and so we oppose both the registration and conscription of women."
For information on the Catholic Peace Fellowship, see www.catholicpeacefellowship.org