From Robert Hook. (Letters to the Editor).

Edward J. McBride (April, 2003, pp. 12-15) claims that the Catechism of the Catholic Church "distorts" the just war doctrine and finds some of its statements "problematic", despite the fact that in the Pope's apostolic constitution Fidei Depositum, he declares the Catechism to be "a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion" (#3). Is Professor McBride saying that the Catechism contains errors in faith and morals? And even if it could be argued that the Pope is not making an ex cathedra pronouncement, what about the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium, which states: "This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme Magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will" (#25).

Perhaps, however, there is a simpler and better explanation for the additions to the just war doctrine that we find in the Catechism. What we may have here is a development of doctrine, as described in Dei Verbum, again from Vatican II: "This tradition which comes from the Apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down" (#8).

Thus, when the Catechism states that "all citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war", it is simply applying the just war principles to the new realities of modern warfare, when whole civilizations can become caught up in global conflicts and a single bomb can obliterate a good-sized city. Under these circumstances, surely the above admonition from the Catechism is nothing but good common sense. That, at least, is how I see it.

Saskatoon, SK

Professor McBride replies

Regarding Paul Kokoski's letter on "Presumptuous Catholics and a Just War," it is always good form to address the strong points of an argument made against one's own. Mr. Kokoski's missive however presents some severe restrictions in this respect.

First, its strong point is not logical reasoning since it draws the entirely wrong conclusion from the Thomistic conception of a soldier's duty as set forth in the original article.

Second, its strong point is not political philosophy, since it discounts "the common good" as the moral determinant of political decision-making.

Third, its strong point is not moral theology, since it misunderstands prudential judgment, in the exercise of the virtue of prudence, as the particular charism of political leadership.

Fourth, its strong point is not international relations analysis, since it makes the astonishing claim that "international law and institutions render reasons for war in our day almost nonexistent."

Fifth, its strong point is not even empirical inquiry, given its gratuitous assertion that the present author "created" the division in Catholic thought on the subject of a just war. It betrays ignorance, for instance, of the support for the Iraq war, based on traditional just war grounds, voiced by such leading Catholic intellectuals as George Weigel, Michael Novak, and Father Richard Neuhaus.

Sixth, mental telepathy, though, does seem its strong suit. It ascertains my position on the Iraq war as the raison d'etre of my article, notwithstanding that never once did I express my personal view on the conflict.

Seventh, Mr. Kokoski's insinuation that I "likely perceive the Cross of Christ as folly" is beneath comment.

Mr. Paul Smith correctly regards the CCCB statement of January 17, 2003, as an exercise in functional pacificism. Since the Church neither proscribes nor prescribes pacificism, the CCCB has not transgressed Catholic teaching. By the same token, neither has it expressed anything that resembles the Church's just war doctrine. One can only concede that this constitutes a curious omission on the part of the CCCB.

Mr. Robert Hook asks, "Is Professor McBride saying that the Catechism contains errors in faith and morals?" The conclusive answer is NO! A critical distinction supports this answer. The Church distinguishes between matters that are De Fide (of faith) and matters that involve prudential judgment. The Catechism itself, in Section 2309, as quoted in my article, makes it clear that the war-waging decisions are in the prudential judgment category.

Perhaps the following illustration may be of assistance to Mr. Hook. Jean Chretien supports the abortion licence in Canada; he has opposed the war in Iraq. The first is a De Fide violation; the second is a prudential judgment.

Halifax, NS