The response of Catholic moral theologians to the Russian invasion of Ukraine has been universally negative.
“The war in Ukraine is a spiritual, human and ecological catastrophe,” said Eli S. McCarthy, a peace activist at Georgetown University’s Justice and Peace Studies, in a recent email to me.
Where Catholic moralists begin to disagree is on what means are appropriate in responding to the invasion.
Peace advocates like McCarthy believe that a violent response will make matters worse. He bemoans the fact that “we have failed to adequately train people in nonviolent conflict, resistance and civilian-based defense.”
But he does see signs of hope. He wrote:
A variety of creative, courageous, nonviolent ways of resistance are being activated and could be scaled up by Ukrainians and others: blocking convoys and tanks … fraternization of Russian soldiers to lower morale and stimulate defections, humanitarian assistance and caring for refugees, evacuations, outpouring of public statements by key political leaders, reducing the flow of money to the aggressor (ex. via banks, media, trade, fossil fuels, etc.), supporting the anti-war protesters in Russia, disrupting the technology systems of the aggressor, interrupting disinformation, coalition building, activating key civil society leaders (ex. religious, athletes, business), ex. 100,000 Russians from a variety of sectors have signed petitions to end the war, Russians close to the military and foreign ministry, in the Russian oil industry and billionaires, have spoken out against the war.
….But pacifists aren’t the only ones questioning an armed response to the Russian invasion. The just war theory has never supported fighting a war, even a defensive war, if there is no chance of winning.
“Given the vastly greater strength of the Russian military, it seems inevitable that Russia will eventually take military control of Ukraine,” argued John Sniegocki, director of Peace and Justice Studies at Xavier University in Cincinnati.
“The use of violence may slightly delay the Russian takeover,” he added, “but it will not prevent it. It will cost many lives in the process, both the lives of Ukrainians who could have potentially played major roles in subsequent mass nonviolent civil resistance and the lives of Russian soldiers, most of whom are conscripts, don’t want to be there and are themselves victims of this unjust situation.”
Arming civilians in a fight to the death, just war advocates agreed, can’t be justified morally, as many will die without much hope of success.
“I think the alternative of civilian defense/resistance, combined with serious economic sanctions, needs to be considered as a realistic, ethical option,” said Ron Pagnucco, a self-proclaimed just war advocate and professor of peace studies at the College of St. Benedict and St. John’s University in Minnesota. “Costs can be imposed by nonviolent means, making Russian rule difficult.”
….David DeCosse of Santa Clara University’s Markkula Center for Applied Ethics is “moved by the examples of non-violence happening now in Ukraine and persuaded by the wisdom and promise of the just peace framework.”
But DeCosse hesitates to say “how far we take the assumption that violence breeds more violence.” He thinks “that is usually the case. But I wonder, too, if there are some situations in which the only way out of the cycle of the violence is violence for the sake of justice….”
The above comes from a March 7 story by Thomas Reese on the site of Religious News Service.
Pacifism is immoral and wrong because pacifism is the stance that the use of violence is always immoral, never justified. Pacifists, to be consistent, have to hold that being a police officer or a soldier is an immoral occupation because both lines of work use violence to prevent evil and maintain the good of a stable social order. You know what pacifism gets you? It gets us what we’ve seen in this country with riots and arson obliterating neighborhoods without a meaningful effort by police to stop it. It gets us widespread shoplifting, as is occurring in California.
Pacifists say that violent evildoers are wrong, but they aren’t willing to do what’s necessary to stop the evil. And they think that makes them morally superior.
Pacifists are fools and dangerous to a stable civil and global order.
That is not to say that violence is always the correct response to a particular evil. But violence is sometimes the correct response.
Ethicists has suggested fhat when violence is used to protecg, fhe besg term to use is ” force”. Police protect by somegimes using lethal force
You don’t get to invent the definition of something and then declare it immoral.
It is easy to criticize something when you misrepresent it to suit your own stance on morality.
The Church has never declared pacifism to be immoral.
If you are witnessing a woman being raped and you refuse to forcefully intervene to help her because you are a pacifist, then you are morally abhorrent.
Nobody says “I am a pacifist so I won’t help someone in danger.”
The topic of pacifism always brings comments like this.
Do actions speak louder than words?
To be clear, in the Catholic Church, violence is immoral. There are some circumstances, such as self defense and war, where guilt is not imputed to the one being violent as long as they use the least violence necessary for self-defense and defense of country.
You should still be sorry.
Does the State bear the sword in vain?
The concept of not resisting if there is no chance of winning has many problems. In the current situation, it is possible the russians will unleash an extermination war as a punishment to the Ukraine. Pufin has already said that it will no longer exist as a country when it is over. Many battles in
history were won against unbelievable odds…the battle of Lepanto, the war of 1812, the Polish defeat of Lenin’s army on the Vistula, to name a few. Sometimes faith requires resistance by battle ,proportionate if possible.
And the American Revolution.
And the American Revolution.
ct’s statement that”in the Catholic Church, violence is immoral” is not correct. His comment that guilt is not imputed implies that you can do evil to accomplish good. This is not true.
I suggest reading what the Church has to say about war in the Catholic Catechism, starting at 2307.
It is never permissible to do evil hoping good will come of it.
Sin is always immoral.
It is not evil to defend oneself or one’s family or one’s country.
God is the judge.
Start at 2305.
Catholics cannot be pacifists. Pacifists essentially say that evil wins when evil decides to use violent means.
Never heard of the martyrs?
Like Akash Bashir?
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/250275/akash-bashir-who-died-protecting-catholic-worshippers-in-pakistan-named-a-servant-of-god
God is not a pacifist. Witness the 10 plagues in Egypt, Sodom and Gomorrah, and the flood during the time of Noah. Case closed. Pacifism is unbiblical and indefensible. God uses violence to stop evil when necessary, and so may we.
What about all those who advocate for “spiritual warfare”? Should we be pacifists in response to the demonic? I read and hear conservative and trad Catholics gleefully referring to using weapons of spiritual warfare and arming for spiritual battle and waging spiritual war.
It is fine to pray. Prayer is not violence. Spiritual warfare is not violence at all.
“1
When he had finished all his words to the people, he entered Capernaum.
2
A centurion there had a slave who was ill and about to die, and he was valuable to him.
3
When he heard about Jesus, he sent elders of the Jews to him, asking him to come and save the life of his slave.
4
They approached Jesus and strongly urged him to come, saying, ‘He deserves to have you do this for him,
5
for he loves our nation and he built the synagogue for us.’
6
And Jesus went with them, but when he was only a short distance from the house, the centurion sent friends to tell him, ‘Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you enter under my roof.
7
Therefore, I did not consider myself worthy to come to you; but say the word and let my servant be healed.
8
For I too am a person subject to authority, with soldiers subject to me. And I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and to another, ‘Come here,’ and he comes; and to my slave, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.’
9
When Jesus heard this he was amazed at him and, turning, said to the crowd following him, “I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.”
10
When the messengers returned to the house, they found the slave in good health.”—Luke 7:1-10
The writer is Thomas Reese, Jesuit, SJW, all-around subversive.
The Amish, who are exempt from military service, are an interesting Christian group that firmly believes in “non-resistance,” a term which they prefer to “pacifism.” They also do not resist any attacks, they simply abandon their farms and move on, if attacked. They also do not resist any law enforcement or legal actions. The Amish do not participate in any national, state, or local politics. Amish babies are born at home, and do not get birth certificates or Social Security cards and numbers. The Amish reject government programs like Social Security– and take care of their own. They also reject insurance. They do visit doctors, dentists, opticians, and other medical practitioners. They have their own religious-based society, secluded from the rest of the world. They have no courts or legal system, and just follow their religious rules and way of life, as set forth in their unwritten, centuries-old tradition, called the “Ordnung.”
The Quakers, who do not live apart from society, also traditionally believe in pacifism. However, a church member must make their own decision, on how far they will go with pacifism, in any situation of conflict which they may face.
Those groups depend on a surrounding society that is willing to use force on their behalf for their existence. How many Amish are in Russia? African nations? Nope. Only in America where they rely on police and military and the rule of law backed by use of force. Kind of like teenagers who think they don’t depend on their parents for their housing and food.
The Amish feel that they do not depend on anyone for so-called “protection” by use of force against attacks or wars, in the way that we would think. They feel they are self-sufficient, and just live by God’s grace and non-resistance. In the case of an attack or a war, they believe in just abandoning their property and going elsewhere to live. They do not live by the rules of our society, nor anyone else’s. They do not resist force of police or military, either. It is a completely different concept. We are not used to that way of thinking.
It is just weird and has always amazed me how hostile and angry pacifism makes certain people. They seem almost threatened by it. And some actually threaten the pacifists.
Kevin T.’s first response may hold a clue. He writes “They think that makes them morally superior.”
There could be many reasons but a presumed arrogance could factor in. Some people just cannot abide anybody who thinks differently than they do. American society is very violent so pacifists may threaten the social order. In movies, the heroes are usually whoever uses violence in clever ways or says something funny while they do violence.
If you saw the movie Hacksaw Ridge by Mel Gibson, that is the true story of a pacifist. Mel Gibson made that movie. It is excellent, even if you don’t like pacifism.
“My pacifism is not based on any intellectual theory but on a deep antipathy to every form of cruelty and hatred.” Albert Einstein