April 2002 Call to Action News

U.S. warmaking troubles justice lobbyists

Over 400 peace-justice leaders and social service staff from U.S. dioceses were on Capitol Hill Feb. 22-27 for the annual Social Ministry Gathering sponsored by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholic Charities USA, and other agencies. Participants boned up on select legislative issues, then paid lobbying visits to their U.S. senators and representatives. On some, like liberalizing the welfare law (see story, page 4), their shared positions were clear. But the fourth issue was much less clear: the U.S. war against terrorism. Is the U.S. respond- ing to the events of Sept. 11 in the right way? The USCCB to date has accepted the U.S. employment of military force in Afghanistan on grounds that it is restrained by “just war” criteria. But what about the non-violence of Jesus? Is it relevant at all to our national response to 9/11? The question was raised from the floor of the Capitol Hill conference by Barb Pott, director of the Campaign for Human Development and Catholic Relief Services for the diocese of Lansing, and a leader of CTA Michigan. Here is her report.

Can non-violence challenge just war theory?

by Barb Pott

Discussions about life after 9/11 in the U.S. and around the world permeated the annual Social Ministry Gathering of the USCCB Feb. 22-27 in Washington. One of the plenary sessions engaged a panel of social commentators: Rev. Bryan Hehir, a major contemporary contributor to just war theory and the pen behind the U.S. bishops’ 1983 pastoral on peace; Peggy Steinfels, editor of Commonweal; Robert Royal of the Washington-based Faith & Reason Institute; and Ray Suarez of National Public Radio fame. Each shared thoughts on just war theory, the U.S. response to terrorism, and whether life had fundamentally changed.

After the panelists spoke, the 400 of us in the audience had the opportunity to ask questions. I was the first to be called on. I asked: “Acknowledging that new contributions to just war theory will work from the church’s tradition on the subject, and recognizing that Jesus, our teacher, was a master of non-violent resistance, is it possible for the wisdom of non-violent resistance to be taken seriously so as to make a contribution to the discussion of just war theory?” Loud applause from the audience supported my question.

Impossible, asserted Steinfels. She said she would be willing to be lynched first. Non-violent resistance should be a personal witness but not a state response. Royal agreed that it could not be part of a state policy. Hehir also remarked that it could be a powerful personal witness, but was not appropriate as a state response. Yet he added that this did not close the door on the possibility that a contribution by non-violent resistance could be made to the discussion of just war theory. This, I thought, was progress.

All but two of the remaining questions and comments from the floor advocated in favor of non-violent resistance. They culminated in one member of the audience stating that there was an apparent and appalling lack of understanding among some panel members about what nonviolent resistance really is. Indeed, there seemed to be a confusion between pacifism and passivism.

Many of our diocesan social action directors, who teach about social justice and advocate in state legislatures on behalf of the church, challenge both society and church to seek a more humane and Jesus-like response to some very tough problems. I will not hold my breath to see the words “non-violent resistance” appear in a new text on just war theory. But Hehir’s leaving the door open is a first step, however small.