-
Has Catholic Christianity become one of the many forms of pacifist utopianism? When it comes to the use of weapons, is Christian parrhesia still distinguishable from pacifist rhetoric?
-
Despite the clarity of the magisterium – the Catechism explicitly recognizes the right to self-defense – pacifism rises higher and higher in the ranks of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, to the detriment of rigorous discernment.
-
The paradox is striking: in the debates on the war in Ukraine, the realism of a lay Catholic, President Sergio Mattarella, revealed itself to be more demanding in terms of justice and the defense of law than the appeals launched by pastors.
By Luca Diotallevi. Original article published in the magazine Il Regno. Translation of Conflicts
Luca Diotallevi is professor of sociology at the University of Rome Tre
Let’s imagine that a group of tourists from Mars found themselves in St. Peter’s Square some time ago. Most likely, they would have heard of “l’Ukraine martyrized”. Fresh from an Italian course, these tourists would no doubt have understood that a very serious earthquake had occurred in Ukraine.
What impression would it make on these Martians to discover that there has been no earthquake in Ukraine, but that for four years an invasion led by Putin’s Russia has been underway and, what’s more, defenseless civilians living hundreds of kilometers from the front and not participating in any way in the clashes are also being taken to target systematically? What impression would it make on our hypothetical Martians to discover that, in doing so, the Putin regime violated the treaties to which it had adhered – from the founding treaties of the UN to that of Helsinki, including those which followed the separation between Ukraine and Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union?
And then, how would these Martians interpret the systematic use of the expression “Ukraine martyrized”which designates in a rather vague manner the seriousness of the effects while carefully ignoring the authors of these same effects?
For those, like us, who live on this planet, and perhaps even happen to be Catholics, the question that arises is different. Has Catholic Christianity perhaps become one of the many forms of pacifist utopianism? Whether it is the utopianism that puts most to sleep, or that which is a precious resource in the hands of those who give in to the temptations of clerical or paraclerical opportunism. In short, when it comes to the use of weapons, is Christian parrhesia still distinguishable from pacifist rhetoric?[1]
Le Catechisme
Certainly, until now, no one has abolished the official magisterium of the Catholic Church in matters of the use of weapons. In short, it suffices to recall that, among other assertions, number 2308 of Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “As long as there is a danger of war and there is no competent international authority with effective forces, once all possibilities for a peaceful settlement have been exhausted, governments cannot be denied the right to self-defense. HAS”[2]
The Catechism sets out four conditions for self-defense through the use of military force: “That the damage caused by the aggressor to the nation or the community of nations is lasting, serious and certain; that all other means of putting an end to it have proven impracticable or ineffective; that there are well-founded chances of success; that the use of weapons does not cause evils and disorders more serious than the evil to be eliminated.” (2309). Therefore, “those who dedicate themselves to the service of the homeland in military life are the servants of the security and freedom of peoples. If they fulfill their duty correctly, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and to the maintenance of peace.” (2310).
However, despite the clarity of the magisterium, pacifism is spreading among Catholics and, contrary to even the recent past, even goes very high in the echelons of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Perhaps a comparison can help us grasp the magnitude of what is happening in the Church and among Christians.
Read also: Just war, holy war: the return?
Another era…
Between the late 1970s and early 1980s, the Soviet Union aimed its missiles with multiple nuclear warheads towards Western Europe and in particular towards West Germany. In response to this very serious threat, perhaps Germany’s greatest social democratic chancellor, Helmut Schmidt, called on the United States to deploy missiles Pershing et Cruise as an adequate deterrent.
A major debate then opened, including within the Church and on a theological level, on the legality of deterrence and, more generally, of the military defense of freedom and rights. Italy and Italian Catholicism found themselves particularly involved in this affair, in particular because the response to the Soviet threat concerned certain bases located in our country, and in particular that of Comiso, in Sicily. The participation of Italian Catholics in the mobilizations against the response in terms of deterrence to the Soviet threat, demonstrations led by Berlinguer’s PCI, was not then marginal.[3]
What interests us most here is that at that time, several national episcopal conferences, starting with that of West Germany,[4] produced documents of great theological depth: not just exhortations and wishes, certainly not just quips, but precise discernment and well-defined arguments. The level at which reflection and discernment took place is for us, at this moment, even more important than the conclusions we reached. Hence the question: are we leading today an ecclesial reflection and discernment of a level at least comparable to that of then?
… and today, on the other hand
We have heard something completely different lately: both in substance and in form. On February 27, 2022, while Ukrainians resisted the assault launched against the airport of the capital kyiv by Putin’s paratroopers and armored forces – an assault which would later be stopped and repelled – the Community of Sant’Egidio and sound leader Andrea Riccardi publicly presented to Putin and Zelensky the request to proclaim kyiv « open city ».[5]
Not only did the text make no distinction between the aggressor and the victim, not only did it not invite people of good will and the international community to rescue and support the victim, but it proposed to remove from Ukrainian legitimate political power the physical control of its own centers of government and to offer a kind of victory on the green carpet to Putin, who explicitly pledged to destroy the freedom and autonomy of kyiv.
Subsequently, we heard calls, including from very influential figures, inviting Ukrainians to raise the “white flag” facing the aggressor – even as it became clear that it was the aggressor who was missing most of the objectives he had set for himself and that, therefore, the Ukrainian resistance was working.
“At the same time, we have heard general condemnations of the arms trade, which amounts to giving absolute power to the most powerful states, those who produce their weapons at home and do not need to buy them. How could small countries defend themselves against aggression, if not by also purchasing weapons? HAS”
If it is true, as we can read in a document from the Italian Episcopal Conference (CEI), that “the use of violence for defensive purposes can only be qualified as legitimate in the presence of ongoing aggression.”it is then however inexplicable that this same document judges “Contradictory (…) proposals for massive investments in weapons and military technologies that followed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.”[6]
How could we use — « légitimement »says the CEI itself — a military force if we found ourselves under enemy fire, if this same force was not already available thanks, among other things, to a constant and significant flow of investments? Can we give the aggressors a greater gift than that which constitutes the preventive condemnation of preparation for defense?
Not to mention the number of times in recent years we have had to witness the amputation of Paul VI’s justly famous speech at the UN (October 4, 1965). How many times have we quoted from this speech only the passage “Never again war, never again war!” HAS” (n° 5) and have we systematically passed over in silence what Paul VI had said a few seconds and a few lines later: “As long as man remains a weak, fickle and even evil being, as he often shows himself, weapons of defense will unfortunately be necessary! HAS” (ibid.). What remains of the meaning of the first passage each time the second is passed over in silence?
Read also: The Greek-Catholic Church facing war
The institutional path and the individual path
On the contrary, almost never, during these recent, tormented years, have we heard the indissoluble link evoked by John XXIII between peace and law reaffirmed with the same force (peace is the work of justice), while, regarding the Peace on earthin which this was taught, we were often careful not to cite anything other than the title.
Never or almost never have we been able to hear again the teaching of Joy and hope (see for example no. 37), which warns that it is naive, even impious, to believe that before the last day a regime can be established which purifies social life of all forms of evil and which makes the availability of a military force superfluous for the protection of law in the form of a credible threat of sanction.[7]
We almost never had the opportunity to rehear the teaching of Benedict XVI who recalled that charity is achieved in two ways, both equally essential, and according to specific and distinct logics: the individual way and the institutional way (cf. enc. Love in truthn° 7); that charity does not exempt from justice; that institutions do not function like individuals; that we don’t love anyone if we don’t first protect their freedom and therefore their rights. It is extremely misleading, even in good faith, to suggest that social institutions would function better if we applied to them the logic that applies to individual behavior, starting with “Turn the other cheek”.[8]
Almost never, in recent years, have we been able to hear again all the magisterium and tradition which were the basis of the action of the Holy See of Paul VI and Cardinal Agostino Casaroli, which led to the elaboration and ratification of the Treaties of Helsinki,[9] nor what inspired Pope WojtyÅ‚a’s famous expression that the Church is peacemaker and not pacifist.
“What effect would it have had to hear again at least a few times over the last four years words such as those with which Joseph Ratzinger recalled the Allied landing in Normandy by saying: “If ever there was a bellum iustum in history, it is here that we find it, in the commitment of Allies. » »
The voice of the COMECE bishops turned out to be isolated; his presidency thanked those who “provided unprecedented humanitarian, political, economic, financial and military support to Ukraine and its people in recent years.”[10] How is it that words like these have not resonated, not instead, but alongside others, if only very rarely in the Church today?
Read also: Just war among the Romans
Peace and demagoguery
It is certainly not easy to provide an exhaustive answer to this question, even though it is becoming more pressing every day. There has certainly been no shortage of texts in which one can find a reference to the strong link between peace and law. It is therefore absolutely not possible to say that the magisterium has been silenced or that it has changed. What is easy to see, however, is that statements such as those we have just mentioned are always surrounded by a much greater quantity of statements that could be classified as expressions of emotions or wishes.
The problem is rather the imbalance between the respective quantities and, in some cases, a certain parsimony in the addition of clarifying details. Under these conditions, the inevitable and easily verifiable effect is that emotional accents and wishes, which should serve to awaken minds and open hearts to the content of the magisterium, risk directly assuming the role and weight of doctrinal affirmations or moral prescriptions – role and weight that it is nevertheless not legitimate for them to have.
There is nothing wrong with wanting peace, quite the contrary! How many times does the psalmist do it! The risk, however, is that, by leaving other delicate and essential details implicit, the expression of this desire is perceived as the promise of something – peace – that can actually come true before the last day. Thus, prophecy and parresia fall into demagoguery.
The silence pà ̈se
It is difficult to understand why, in matters of war and the use of military force, we are witnessing today this unequal distribution of spaces, which strongly penalizes the ordinary reception of strictly magisterial elements.[11] It is difficult to understand the reason behind this parsimony in the precision of absolutely irreproachable doctrinal declarations which, if they are devoid of essential and therefore indispensable precisions, are inevitably exposed to the risk of misunderstandings and exploitation.
Are we perhaps doing it out of fear? We are certainly living in terrible times and it is completely reasonable to be afraid. However, as believers and also as pastors, can we allow ourselves to give in to fear? After decades, as the Catholic Church, we are still forced to heal the wounds caused by certain silences on the Shoah which took place between the 1930s and 1940s. Is it wise, rather than learning from it, to soothe our conscience in the hope that in a few years, the Church, looking at our times, will still have the chance to be able to boast other van Galen, Bonhoeffer, young people like those of the White Rose?
Do we not see the risk that, in the ecclesial exercise of the task of teachingwhat could be taken for pacifist rhetoric obscures and unintentionally silences Christian parrhesia, the essential realism of Christianity?
Le lay Mattarella
Another Catholic, Sergio Mattarella, was also confronted with the same historical events that we looked at. In the exercise of his lay apostolate, he found himself occupying the office of President of the Italian Republic. Let us therefore try to reread some of his interventions addressed to the whole of public opinion,[12] to university listeners,[13] to a diplomatic audience.[14]
In Mattarella’s interventions, we first read a precise denunciation of who is primarily responsible for the invasion of Ukraine and the heinous crimes that were perpetrated there, including against defenseless civilians. Furthermore, Mattarella does not hesitate to equate Putin’s invasion of Ukraine with the criminal enterprises of Adolf Hitler. The president does not hesitate to highlight the violation by Putin’s Russia of the signed treaties, starting with those which constitute the United Nations and that of Helsinki. Mattarella is also not afraid to describe as fruitful the sacrifice of the Ukrainians who resisted the invader.
Mattarella shows no scandal at the decision taken by the democracies of the European Union to significantly increase their military spending. Instead of inviting people to hoist the “white flag” facing the aggressor, Mattarella urges us to refuse even the prospect of “happy vassalate”.
“If we compare almost all of the texts emanating from the Church and the Catholic world with the texts of the President of the lay Catholic Republic pro tempore, it is not at all the difference between the ones and the others that is surprising. What is surprising is rather that we might have expected another difference, or even the opposite difference. HAS”
In this text by Ratzinger which spoke of «principles non négociables» (n° 3)[15] — the Doctrinal note on certain questions concerning the commitment and behavior of Catholics in political lifedated November 24, 2002 and signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger – we can also read that among the tasks of pastors is that of recalling the principles, while among the tasks of the laity is that of seeking, as far as possible, to reconcile the principles in the given conditions. We would therefore expect, on the one hand, that pastors recall the duty to support, including militarily, the Ukrainian resistance and, on the other hand, that Catholic politicians only retain the realistically practicable part. This is, however, not what we have been confronted with in recent years. in matters of justice and the defense of law, the realism of a Catholic politician – Sergio Mattarella – proved more demanding than the appeals launched by the pastors.
What we can add, while waiting for someone to go further in analysis and discernment, is that, on closer inspection, this is not the first time that such a reversal has occurred, even in recent Italian political history. It is enough to recall that the meticulous studies of Pietro Scoppola, then of the Jesuit Giovanni Sale, have abundantly documented with what courage and determination Alcide De Gasperi carried out the inscription in the Italian Constitution of the principle of religious freedom, even resisting the strong pressures which came to him not only from the Catholic world but also from Pius XII himself. However, it should be noted that, a little less than twenty years after these events, the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council promulgated the declaration on religious freedom Human dignitywhich made the principle tenaciously defended by De Gasperi both a turning point and a pivot in the reform of the Church launched by Vatican II.[16]
Read also: War in Ukraine: the tragedy of prophecies of doom
