Professor George,

This piece strikes me as more than a little disingenuous. First, you explain virtually none of the scholarship that a reader is supposed to prefer to Bainton, nor do you describe why we should prefer it, other than the fact that you -- who refused to engage the the Pope's most recent encyclical, instead simply saying that the Pope was at best incompetent and at worst a liar -- say we should.

Why, in an era in which historians have shown themselves willing to engage in deep revisionism, should I take seriously newer claims about what early Christianity looked like rather than embrace the more traditional historical analysis?

Further, your analysis is full of non sequiturs: does the presence of pro-choice christians today suggest that Church teaching is more interesting and more complicated than it is? Does the presence of women claiming to be ordained priests do so? The existence of dissenting Christians does not change church teaching, now or then. You've provided no evidence that the Church taught differently than Bainton claims it did.

Finally, and I realize that it is not your point, but what was truly evident in the debate leading up to the Iraq war was not that Bainton's insidious influence had changed the tenor of things. Rather, what was clear was that virtually none of the other criteria for a just war were met -- killing non-combatants? check! Engaging in a first strike war? Check! No reasonable chance of success? Check!

What I see is this -- you strike me as someone who cannot fathom why people don't agree with you, so you create fictional ghosts behind their thought processes rather than engage them seriously. I think that Bainton is George Weigel's "guns and religion;" it is much easier to consider yourself right when you can dismiss your opponents legitimate claims by claiming to understand them better than they understand themselves.

Unfortunately, the pacifistic Stanley Hauerwas is the favorite theologian (not just the favorite *Protestant* theologian, but the the favorite theologian barre none) of Archbishop Charles Chaput, whose sonorously absurd writings regularly meet with much reader approval right here in the pages of this very magazine. Since I live in the Archdiocese of Denver, I have occasion to watch the bishop closely, and it's so heartwarming to see that, in between rushing to celebrate another illegal immigrant mass and lecturing his flock about the "universal right" to health care found in "Catholic social tradition," he still has the time to tout pacifism as a Christian ideal, in another pandering concession to the liberals who are handily destroying the Church.

Archbishop Chaput is nothing but a high-gloss heretic, like the rest of the American episcopate.

There is so much wrong with what Chris says, that it's hard to know where to begin.

So let's begin with his charge that GSW is "disingenuous". That's a smooth way of accusing someone of dishonesty. There is no basis for such an accusation. It is bad enough that discourse has becomes so vitriolic on the internet and other media in recent years, but it's saddening to see this kind of ad hominem attack posted on a religious blog. GSW did not say anything in the nature of an ad hominem attack, about Bainton, or about anyone else.

There are certainly reasonable grounds for questioning whether the invasion of Iraq met the criteria of just war doctrine. but two of the three that Chris lists as not being met being were. "No reasonable chance of success? Check!" One might have argued that BEFORE WE ACTUALLY SUCCEEDED! Have you read the newspapers? Not only is there success, but Pres. Obama and Vice Pres. Biden are claiming credit for it. There is now a stable government in Iraq that was democratically elected --- and what is more important, respects in the main the human rights of its citizens. They have a functioning judicial system. Not only have U.S. casualties dropped to very low levels, but casualties among Iraqi military, police, and civilians are way down. There is a stable government; the country seems at the moment in no danger of breaking apart, collapsing into civil war, or being invaded by its neighbors.

"killing non-combatants? Check!" That no non-combatants be killed is not a criterion of just war doctrine. Otherwise no war would be just, since in virtually every war in history there have been civilian deaths. That non-combatants not be deliberately targeted, and that the number of unintended civilian deaths not be disproportionate ARE criteria. Doubtless, a (very) few individual U.S. soldiers in Iraq have deliberately targeted civilians. But that does not mean that it is the policy of the government or military leaders. A war is not rendered unjust because of unavoidable criminality that occurs, unless perhaps it reaches a level where the evil is "disproportionate", any more than the police power of the state is invalidated by the criminality of some policemen.

People who have not been in the military or have not at least had close family members in the military in wartime since WWII, have no idea what they are talking about when they accuse the U.S. military of directly targeting non-combatants as policy. That happened in WWII (e.g. Dresden) , but not in Iraq.

The one criterion where Chris has a reasonable point concerns the pre-emptive nature of the war in Iraq. Much could be said about that, including the fact that the first gulf war ended in a cease fire the terms of which were violated by Saddam's regime. That has to be taken into account in any analysis of this criterion. One could also make a case that the harm outweighed the good accomplished. But on two of the three criteria that Chris lists as obviously not met ("check!") his case is weak --- in fact he simply makes assertions, after castigating GSW for just that.

As far as the early Church goes, the analogy with pro-choice Christians is a false one. There is a strong, explicit, and consistent teaching on abortion by the popes and bishops. There is no evidence that there was any teaching of absolute pacifism by the Catholic bishops before Constantine. The evidence of pacifism usually adduced does not involve that kind of teaching. Tertullian is often quoted, but he was not a bishop, was an outlier on many theological issues, and ended as a Montanist. There is at least as much reason to believe that Tertullian was a "dissenter" on this --- as on so many other things --- than that he was expressing settled doctrine. There were indeed expressions of disapproval of Christians serving in the Roman legions, but as GSW notes, that is largely explained by the fact that Roman legionaries were expected to engage in idolatrous ceremonies. --- And that is hardly a new observation. If there had been a clear magisterial witness in favor of absolute pacifism before Constantine, scholars would not have been debating this question at all.

As far as "embracing the traditional historical analysis" goes, is Chris aware that Catholic manuals of theology, catechisms, and so forth have explicitly rejected pacifism as inconsistent with Catholic teaching since time immemorial, and that such documents backed this up with historical analysis? I have the book my mother used as a teenager in Catholic school in the 1930's. It outright rejects pacifism. That pacifism was wrong was simply taken for granted in the Catholic Church until, as GSW correctly says, recent decades.

"Rather, what was clear was that virtually none of the other criteria for a just war were met --

"killing non-combatants? check!" Where in the Just War tradition is there the requirement of a guarantee that no non-combatants will be killed? You cannot intentionally kill non-combatants.

"Engaging in a first strike war? Check!" Lepanto in 1571? St. Pope Pius V was the driving force behind that first strike war. Do you think Pius XII would have condemned the Poles if they had attacked the Germans massing on the border prior to September 1, 1939?

"No reasonable chance of success? Check!" There was a strong chance of success, and once enough troops were sent, success was achieved.

Dear Matt Beck,

(1) Even if Abp. Chaput did everything you say he did, that would not make him a "heretic" as the Catholic Church understands that term. Heresy is the obstinate denial of a DOGMA of the faith by a person who is baptized. The bishop could tell people to go out rob banks, that would not make him a heretic --- it would just make him a very bad man. If the bishop were a heretic, he would incur automatic excommunication.

(2) If a bishop were to say "this war is immoral", that would express his prudential judgment and pastoral advice; it would not be a denial of the Church's doctrine on war, which is expressed in general terms. And even if a bishop were to deny the just war teaching, that would make him heterodox, but not a heretic. Even denying infallibly taught doctrine does not always involve heresy in the sense that canon law means. Only denying an infallibly taught doctrine that is taught as having to be believed with "divine and Catholic faith" is heresy. So: it is infallibly taught that Trent was an ecumenical Council. The eastern Orthodox deny it --- that makes them schismatic in the eyes of the Catholic Church, not "heretics".

(3) To make an accusation of heresy against a bishop is very grave. According to Vatican II, you have an obligation, if you think a bishop is doing wrong, to first approach the competent authorities in the Church. Did you write a letter to Abp Chaput explaining your concerns and citing specific acts he had done? Did you write to the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith? Until you have done so, you have no business publicly accusing him of heresy.

(4) Saying mass for illegal immigrants is not contrary to Catholic teaching. All Catholics (unless some Church penalty prevents them) have an obligation to attend mass every Sunday and Holy Day of Obligation. Even being a criminal or being in a state of mortal sin does not exempt one from this obligation. There is a corresponding obligation on the part of the Church to make Mass available to all Catholics --- even illegal immigrants --- even convicted criminals in prison. Doing things that suggest that one approves of illegal acts is certainly wrong. You'd have to explain exactly what Abp Chaput did with regard to illegal immigrants, and that would have been more constructive and informative than hurling unfounded charges of heresy.

(5) I don't like it when bishops get overly political and blur the distinction between their personal political views and church teaching. But it does terrible harm to the Church to make the kinds of accusations you do. This wounds the unity of the Church. Bishops, as we all sadly know, can do terrible things. But there is a right way and a wrong way to respond. (see (3) above).

CS Lewis noted that our Lord bestowed his highest praise on an active-duty Roman soldier.

Roland Bainton and Stanley Hauerwas both suffer from the sort of pious Protestant moralism that George Weigel addressed well in his recent First Things article, Through a Glass Clearly.

Clear-headed Christian men including Weigel himself, Reinhold Niebuhr, and James Turner Johnson understand that wars are necessary and best prevented through tough-minded deterrence as well as diplomacy. Donald Kagan's book, On the Origins of War and the Preservation of Peace, brilliantly explains how the Peloponnesian and Carthaginian wars along with WWI and II, and the Cuban Missile Crisis might have been avoided had the statesmen of the time been less vacillating and fearful of going to war.

In the long pull those who tend to pacifism and isolationism, including Bainton, Hauerwas, and probably Obama, often cause rather than prevent wars. Just now we need to give careful thought to seriously threaten Iran with war should it continue to develop nuclear weapons.

I was a student at Yale Divinity School when Bainton was very much still a feature. I read his book "Here I Stand" and loved it and was eager to meet him, although shy about it. I ran into him, almost literally, in the Sterling Library. Introduced myself, said how much his writing meant to me. He asked a bit about me, where I had gone to school, etc., and I told him Wheaton. He asked if I was an evangelical and I said yes, and then he said, "Well, I think about evangelicals in the same way as that old saying, eat sh_t, millions of flies do." I think I laughed a bit, but I was so stunned that I really didn't know what to do. Why would a man go out of his way to deeply insult someone who admired his writings and only wished him well? It gives me a little different take on Prof. Bainton's pacifism.

It's interesting that Prof. Weigel thinks that the legacy of Bainton is largely to have tipped the scales in favor of a primitivist pacifism. For when faced with three options on a sliding scale, many people, perhaps most, go for the comfortable middle. Bainton's three options—crusade, just war, pacifism—has arguably done much more to make the just-war tradition look like the reasonable position between unreasonable extremes.

Yet as John Howard Yoder repeatedly pointed out—and Yoder wrote a 400-page companion to Bainton in light of what he considered his book's major shortcomings—there are not simply three options. There's also the blank check type of reasoning—according to which whomever the sovereign says must be killed, I accept and support without limits—as well as the macho or Rambo type—according to which war is justified fundamentally as a sign of national virility and strength. When these other types are added to the spectrum, the reasonable middle is not so clear. The other types also help expose the ways in which just-war language is often used in the service of other types of moral reasoning, especially the blank check type.

It's quite something for a man like Weigel, who seems to champion every war that comes down the pike, to wring his hands about the perverse and pervasive influence of Bainton's alleged pacifism. I can think of American wars that, according to a serious reckoning with the just-war tradition, shouldn't have been fought at all (Iraq, Vietnam), or shouldn't have been prosecuted, at least in key part, the way they were (WWII). I'm having a hard time thinking of wars we should have fought but didn't, or wars in which American violence was insufficiently aggressive to meet the just-war criteria.

It's not the pacifists who produced Nagasaki or CIA black sites, where humans created in the image of God were incinerated or tortured in the name of the American national interest. Weigel should spend more time worrying about the blank check and Rambo types, the advocates of which are the ones actively engaged in torture and murder—which is what "moral clarity" demands we call "enhanced interrogations" and unjustified killing.

The question now is, where does one go from here on the just war issue and I'm glad Prof. Weigel admits that such a debate is healthy and necessary. While pacifism is clearly an untenable position, everything I read coming from Rome (and some on the right can spin it all you want) advocates multilateral diplomacy and negotiation over any preventive or precipitous war. My view, undoubtedly unpopular here, is that conservatives cannot , without risking an accusation of selective dissent ( or horror, cafeteria Catholicism), keep ignoring authoritative pronouncements on the preference for diplomacy and disarmament over war. Benedict and the Curia are simply not going to advocate for an interventionist or militant sabre rattling on Iran or anything else, beyond legitimate self-defense.

"My view, undoubtedly unpopular here, is that conservatives cannot , without risking an accusation of selective dissent ( or horror, cafeteria Catholicism), keep ignoring authoritative pronouncements on the preference for diplomacy and disarmament over war."

But Cardinal Ratzinger made clear in his 2004 letter to the US Bishops, and in a 2005 interview with Zenit, that Catholics could disagree with Rome on whether the Iraq war was just and still remain in good standing with the Church. His view, and the view of JP II, on the war were their personal opinions, not binding Church doctrine.

Progressive Catholics like to try to equate disagreement with the Pope on Iraq with disagreement on abortion and euthanasia, but that clearly is not the case.

"I can think of American wars that, according to a serious reckoning with the just-war tradition, shouldn't have been fought at all (Iraq, Vietnam), "

The claim that Iraq was obviously an unjust war is nonsense. B16 has expressly rejected such a view.

With regard to Vietnam, apparently you haven't been keeping up on what has happened to the Church in Vietnam since the communists took over. We can debate whether it was in the US' best interests to fight in Vietnam, but from a Just War perspective, fighting to defeat the communists was completely justified.

Shorter reply to Chris. If someone offered to explain to you in a sentence or two "what the Christian Church taught in the 20th C," you would not bother to listen, because it is so patently obvious that there was not sufficient unity of theology to make such a statement. The same applies for the 1st-3rd C's of the Church - just too much variety. Mr. Weigel does not list what should be easy to uncover on your own, in Wikipedia or some other general source.

As to the complaint of not meeting Just War criteria... There may be fair-minded people who actually wish to discuss this in give-and-take, but every live conversation and online conversation I have had on the issue - including professors at Catholic colleges - has quickly reduced to "But you didn't get the UN's permission, and the UN is the only legitimate authority, because transnationalism is clearly holier than nationalism." You have to be a bit rude sometimes, insisting people come back to their own justifications and statements and make them quite clear. But that is the unexamined and poorly-justified thought which underlies many of their arguments.

Brian English,

I said "according to a serious reckoning with the just-war tradition"—I did not say "obviously."

However, if you want obvious, I'll give you obvious—or as close to it as I can get.

There's very little serious debate among honest students of the just-war tradition that Hiroshima, Nagasaki, the fire-bombings of Dresden and Tokyo—that all of these acts of war violated the strictures of the just-war tradition—particularly the tradition's prohibition of targeting noncombatants—and that these therefore amounted to murderous and not lawful acts of war.

Yet many who think of themselves as just-war advocates when it comes to justifying whatever war is currently on the table are unwilling to face the ugly truth about murderous American behavior in the Second World War. I'm thus increasingly convinced that Americans' use of the just-war criteria is often self-serving and self-deceived. Not always, but often.

Weigel is always worried about his less-violent left, and not his more-violent right, as if the advocates of nonviolence are the ones to fear in a nation armed to the teeth and with the distinction of being the only nation in history to use nuclear weapons in war. Against civilians. Twice.

It's just hard to believe Weigel is actually interested in encouraging American Christians to keep faith with the just-war tradition. He seems to be more concerned to make sure we're pliant the next time Caesar comes calling.

From my reading of the tradition, Weigel totally misses the tradition's seriousness about the fact that warriors are always prone to unjust violence when they fixate on the greater evil of the other side and neglect their own tendencies to escalate and become indiscriminate with their violence. Yet just this complex of fixation and neglect seems to stalk Weigel's every move, including this latest effort to beat back the (imaginative) foe of a Bainton-inspired primitivist pacifist majority.

We supported both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars because we were under the false impression that our leaders were prepared and capable of devising and executing a plan. Christians will best engage in the morally-legitimate-use-of-armed-force debates if they wish to liberate themselves intellectually from the simplistic and inaccurate schema that the hawk, John Bolton, taught us over the past decade. And to think that I applauded W's appointment of Bolton to the UN.

As a Catholic just war theological ethicist, I agree wholeheartedly with what Charlie Collier has written here about George Weigel's position. In the US, as Patrick McCormick wrote in Theological Studies a few years ago, most Americans--including Catholics--do not have a "presumption against war" but rather a "presumption in favor of war" to solve their problems.

In addition, what Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger said--in public statements--are not considered merely "personal opinion" even though, at the same time, nor are they to be considered as authoritative doctrine or dogma. They are instead considered to be prudential admonitions that are informed (and formed virtuously) and thus ought to be given serious and prayerful study as one informs their conscience about the justice of a given war. Although they do not carry the same authoritative weight as some other doctrinal or dogmatic statements, those who disagree with them still bear a burden of proof to justify their position.

That said, however, there are some claims that have indeed been made by the magisterium--namely the Second Vatican Council--about some applications of just war criteria about which good Catholics and persons of good will ought not disagree, such as what Collier noted, the intentional and direct targetting of civilian population centers. Are there other examples like this latter? Perhaps.

Chris - I assume it is your position that the Allied war against Germany was unjust? The night bombing of residential areas in Dresden alone resulted in roughly 25,000 civilian casualties. Furthermore, it is fatuous (and bigoted?) to suggest that there was no reasonable chance of success in Iraq. The current state of affairs in Iraq suggests otherwise.

There is a presumption in favor of war? Where do people get off saying that? When GSW refers to some having a "presumption against war" he is merely quoting their own avowed principles. But when some people on this blog accuse GSW and others of having a "presumption in favor of war", they are making an uncharitable guess as to the inner thoughts of another person.

Among conservative Catholics I talked to or read, there was a lot of disagreement, discussion and soul-searching about whether the invasion of Iraq was justified or prudent. The idea that politically conservative (or neo-conservative, whatever that means --- I still have no idea) Catholics hanker for war is absurd.

Afghanistan? We were attacked by people who were located in Afghanistan and were protected by, sponsored by, and in league with the regime of that country. Countries are not even to defend themselves now? The first Gulf War was a war to liberate a country (Kuwait) that had been invaded and occupied in an act of aggression as blatant as any the world has seen for a long time. Virtually the whole world supported that effort as just. To accuse those who supported war in these two cases of war mongering (which what "presumption for war" means) would be absurd, unjust, and uncharitable.

That leaves basically Iraq. This is the war whose justice is really in contention. It seems that it is on the basis of this one war, and the the fact that some conservative Catholics came to the conscientious conclusion that they should support it, they are accused loving war.

(By the way, even in Catholic theology there is a presumption in favor of the decision of public authority to go to war. The Catechism states that it is the public authorities primary responsibility in making these judgments. The presumption can be overcome, of course.)

"In the US, as Patrick McCormick wrote in Theological Studies a few years ago, most Americans--including Catholics--do not have a "presumption against war" but rather a "presumption in favor of war" to solve their problems."

Right. Remember the brutal invasion of Japan when it started exceeding US car manufacturers in sales? And who could forget the invasion of Saudi Arabia when oil prices skyrocketed? And while I will grant you that invading Mexico to deal with the illegal immigration and drug smuggling problems might have been a little excessive, you know us Americans, shoot first and ask questions later.

"In addition, what Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger said--in public statements--are not considered merely "personal opinion""

Cardinal Ratzinger used the words "personal opinion" in the Zenit interview.

"That said, however, there are some claims that have indeed been made by the magisterium--namely the Second Vatican Council--about some applications of just war criteria about which good Catholics and persons of good will ought not disagree, such as what Collier noted, the intentional and direct targetting of civilian population centers."

Who is arguing we should target civilian population centers?

"There's very little serious debate among honest students of the just-war tradition that Hiroshima, Nagasaki, the fire-bombings of Dresden and Tokyo—that all of these acts of war violated the strictures of the just-war tradition—particularly the tradition's prohibition of targeting noncombatants—and that these therefore amounted to murderous and not lawful acts of war. "

Did the Vatican condemn any of those acts at the time they occurred?

"Weigel totally misses the tradition's seriousness about the fact that warriors are always prone to unjust violence when they fixate on the greater evil of the other side and neglect their own tendencies to escalate and become indiscriminate with their violence. "

Right. You know those soldiers, crazy baby murderers, every last one of them.

I would like to thank the commenters who say they are using Just War criteria to condemn American involvement in Iraq for giving evidence for my point that they in fact, don't.

I just love the evasions - that the bombings were in "American interests," like some clothing manufacturer, rather than the death of soldiers in a legitimate war. And you might have even had a decent discussion afoot about all of those actions, had you not given away the game that you weren't interested in an honest discussion.

Changing one's political beliefs usually requires some rather painful self-knowledge about why you hold your current ones. The emotional leakage in the comments suggests folks haven't done that.

The "early Christians rejected military service only because of pagan religion" line of thinking is suspect. Not obviously wrong, but suspect.

The evidence is ambiguous. The martyrdom of St. Maximilian (from the 3rd C.), for instance, suggests that the early Christian "abhorrence of bloodshed" (not a technical term but rather a descriptive one for a moral attitude that manifests itself in a wide variety of early documents) may have been as much (or more) in operation as an unwillingness to recite the "sacramentum," or military oath.

Tertullian, meanwhile, lumped in military service with a wide variety of kinds of "idolatry" in his De Idolatria... But he also opens that work by saying that all sin is idolatry: adultery, murder, etc. So his identification of military service and idolatry is inconclusive, if you're trying to ferret out a distinction between bloodshed and idolatry.

There is also the example of St. Martin of Tours, who, upon his full conversion, refused to fight for the (now Christian) Roman Army. Venantius Fortunatus's Vita Sancti Martini represents an intriguing later (late 500's) perspective, in which fighting in war is not forbidden, but is depicted as grossly unsuitable for a holy man. (St. Martin averts the coming battle by prayer.)

Finally, St. Paulinus of Nola wrote an anti-military, pro-nonviolence (to use terms that have meanings almost totally anachronistic to the time period under discussion) letter to a young man named Crispinianus. Paulinus was, of course, a correspondent of St. Augustine... whose own thinking on war was not static or systematic, but shifted significantly between Contra Faustum and the City of God, while remaining firmly committed to the (possible) justice of warfare.

In any case, GW is write to emphasize that the early Church apparently compassed within it a variety of views on war and military service. The nonviolent strain of Catholicism, as well as the strain that seeks to understand those conditions under which wars are just, have likely been there from the beginning. They certainly persisted under Constantine (actually the big shift came under Theodosius, who banned pagans from the military) and after, up to the present day.