From Paul Kokoski re"' presumptuous Catholics and a 'just war'". (Letters to the Editor).

Edward McBride posits the idea of a "presumption against all war" (C.I., April 2003, pp. 12-15), and suggests that the new Catholic Catechism sanctions such a theory while past theologians like Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Augustine were opposed to it. McBride concludes from this that Catholics are now in the position of having to choose between two separate views of a Just War theory that "yield different results" - one that supports the American effort in Iraq and one that opposes it. This is wishful thinking on McBride's part; he seems to have created the distinction in order to justify his own support for the American initiative.

The essence of Catholic teaching is this: other than for self-defence, it is a contradiction to suggest that it is permissible to kill in order to prevent killing. Self-defence is justifiable only because, as Aquinas points out, the killing of the aggressor is not intended. This theory is not some logical afterthought of Aquinas' "just cause" theory, as McBride suggests, but is that principled logic which underpins it.

McBride proposes that Aquinas entertained no presumption against war. He fails to mention, however, that the Catechism (2263) concurs with this same theory of justifiable self-defence with regard to both "persons and societies." So both Aquinas and the Church must be in agreement on the basic principle which underscores the conditions for a Just War as it is compatible with the ''common good.''

If war were permissible in a broad sense merely for the sake of peace, merely to avenge injuries, and merely to restrain evildoers - as McBride suggests of Aquinas and Augustine - every nation could justifiably be at war with each other. One can scarcely believe that this is what Aquinas and Augustine had in mind.

As the Catechism (2309) rightly maintains, in order to invoke self-defence, a nation must be able to show that an aggressor has already inflicted upon it some "grave, lasting, and certain" damage. This would seem a necessary condition in keeping with the gravity of war and its consequences. It would eliminate as far as possible any false motives for retaliation such as a desire to kill, revenge, etc. It is, in fact, presumptuous of McBride to here deride the Catechism's strong injunction against war as a "formula for defeat". Perhaps by "defeat" he is referring only to the "body". In this case he likely perceives the Cross of Christ as mere folly.

We are living in a time and situation that is much different from that of Aquinas and Augustine. We now have a vast and rich patrimony of international law and institutions that have been created to find peaceful solutions to disagreements. This makes reasons for war in our day almost non-existent. As a result, there have been organic developments in the Just War theory that are not, as McBride suggests, incompatible with the "traditional" thought o Aquinas and Augustine.

As for the U.S. initiative in Iraq, it represents yet another impediment to the pilgrimage of humanity in our time. I commend with sincere personal gratitude the North American bishops for their correct discernment and stated opposition to the war.

Hamilton, ON