|
The terrorist threat has brought the world to the brink of collapse, such as was not since the times of the “cold war,” when the two superpowers were armed in an unbridled race to see who could destroy the enemy first. But it has also served to revive the debate over the use of violence, the legitimacy of war, the scope of the pacifism and the commitment of Christians to peace. |
| Terrorism is not a novelty. The world has for many years been suffering from this scourge, in one way or another. While for some it is a legitimate form of revolutionary violence, the only one that remains to the peoples oppressed by powerful nations, for others it is the worst of violence, because it is directed against the innocent civilian population, thus breaking all the rules of war, if in war one can speak of war standards.
The terrorist threat has evolved to become a State terrorism, more or less hidden, as proceeds in Iran or carried out by al-Qaeda, although this Islamic group does not have a state with a territorial base. The danger is enormous, not only by the attacks of terrorists, but by the reply the countries affected by these attacks may give. Recently, nothing less than the president of France made it clear that his country was even willing to use nuclear weapons to defend themselves against such violence. If Iran persists in its threats and in the path of atomic energy, we could be faced with an apocalyptic scenario due to the response that Israel would give to those who threaten her and to the reaction that this response – possibly atomic- would be among the Muslim masses and between their rulers. As I write this article, the embassy of Denmark in Beirut is burning and yesterday were burned those from this same country, Norway, Sweden and Finland and in Damascus. And all for the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed. What would happen if the outbreak of a war with Iran would be of the same caliber as the war in Iraq? In the face of these serious threats with force the peace movement resurges with force, which preaches disarmament and non-violence. But is pacifism an appropriate response? The attitude of many pacifists in the recent past, similar to that of many environmentalists, has discredited the whole movement. There are many who look with suspicion, as an instrument in the hands of the extreme left which is used only when it suits their partisan interests and that, on the other hand, does not employ peaceful means precisely in its manifestations. In the memory of all is the rejection of the NATO membership expressed by the Spaniard pacifists with such virulence while it ruled the UCD, that quickly changed to an acceptance of the same income when it began to rule the PSOE. Or, for example, the major demonstrations against the Spanish humanitarian collaborative — in the Iraq war and the silence that occurred when it was learned that, as with the socialist government, it had participated in military naval maneuvers. These cases are two examples of the many that can serve to discredit peace organizations. Others, of international character, we find each time there is a great world meeting of any kind. There the members of these organizations appear converted into extremely violent urban guerrillas. The pacifism, therefore, does not seem to be an adequate response to the serious situation in the world, at least for a Christian. It would be appropriate, therefore, to look to what the Church teaches in the Catechism to find the right way. The subject is dealt with in the context of the fifth commandment: “Thou shalt not kill.” First is a presentation of what is considered “peace,” of which it is said that “it is not only the absence of war and not limited to ensure the balance of opposing forces. Peace cannot be attained on earth without safeguarding the goods of persons, free communication among men, respect for the dignity of persons and peoples, and the assiduous practice of fraternity” (N° 2304). Then it insists on the need to avoid war, a duty for “all citizens and all governments.” But, here are the keys to discern when a war is just and therefore acceptable for a Christian: “As long as the danger of war exists and there is no competent international authority, once all means of peaceful settlement are exhausted, governments cannot be denied the right to self-defense” (N° 2308). “They have to consider the strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force. The gravity of such a decision is subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. It is necessary at the same time: – the damage inflicted by the aggressor of the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain. – All other means of putting an end to the aggression have been shown to be impractical or ineffective. – There must be serious prospects of success. -The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition” (N° 2309). Then the Catechism devotes a few words in support of the military, which are presented as servants of peace: “Those who are dedicated to the service of their country in the military life, are servants of the security and freedom of peoples. If your task is done correctly, truly work together for the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace” (N° 2310). Unfortunately, terrorism only gets a passing mention in the Catechism, proof that at the time I had no extension or the seriousness that it has acquired since: “terrorism that threatens, wounds and kills indiscriminately; is gravely against justice and charity.” (N° 2297). Look in the abundant and magnificent magisterium of John Paul II to find more direct allusions to terrorism and teachings that tell the Catholic what to do in these situations. For example, in the message for the World Day of Peace 2002, written shortly after the attacks on the twin towers in New York, stated: “On that day was committed a terribly grave crime: in a few minutes, thousands of innocent people, of different ethnic origin, were horribly murdered. Since then, all the world has realized with new intensity of personal vulnerability and has begun to look to the future with a deep feeling of fear, until now unknown.” Later he added: “In recent years, especially after the cold war, terrorism has been transformed into a sophisticated network of political, technical and economic collusion that exceeds the national borders and expands to encompass the entire world. This is true of organizations, often of enormous financial resources, strategies of large-scale aggression attacking innocent people and without any implication of the claimed perspectives of the terrorists… There is therefore a right to defend itself against terrorism. It is a right which, as always, must be exercised with respect for moral and legal limits in the choice of ends as well as in means… However, it is necessary to state clearly that the injustices existing in the world can never be used as a pretext to justify the terrorist attacks.” |
