If a man is unjustly attacked, he has a right to defend himself (or his family).
The Doctor of the Church, St. Robert Bellarmine, says:
In order to resist and defend oneself no authority is required .... Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order, or above all tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will; it is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior.
De Summo pontifice Book II, ch. 29 (emphasis added).
However, he may only harm his attacker if his defense is just (
i.e., if his cause is a just one).
When discussing the injustice of a man who resists a punishment justly inflicted upon him, St. Thomas draws the implicit analogy to a country waging war, when St. Thomas describes the guilty man’s resistance to punishment, as being an “unjust war” (“bellum injustum”). Summa, IIa IIae, Q.69, a.4, respondeo.
Thus,
e.g., you are not entitled to defend yourself when your neighbor attacks you to prevent
you from stealing
his property.
A man would be justified in defending against an attack and using lethal force if necessary, if he is defending justly against a proportionally grave threat. In this defense, he may use the weapon of his choice, as long as he uses that weapon while defending in a just cause. Thus, for example, when a man is justified using lethal force, he may use a gun against an attacker armed only with a club. He is not obliged to “fight fairly” by using the same type of weapon (a club) as his attacker uses, provided that the result (lethal force) is just.
Similarly, a man does not need to fight openly, provided his defense is a just cause. Thus, in a just defense against an attack, a man is permitted to use ambushes and similar tricks against his attacker.
Here is how St. Thomas explains this truth, following St. Augustine:
[Saint] Augustine says (QQ. in Hept. qu. x super Jos): “Provided the war be just, it is no concern of justice whether it be carried on openly or by ambushes”: and he proves this by the authority of the Lord, Who commanded Joshua to lay ambushes for the city of Hai (Joshua 8:2).
Summa, IIa IIae, Q.40, a.3, sed contra.
A man’s defense must be moderate and proportioned to the attack.
However, justice requires that a man use moderation when he defends himself (or his family).
Here is how St. Thomas explains this truth: “Not all self-defense is lawful, but only such as is accomplished with due moderation.” Summa, IIa IIae, Q. 69, a.4, ad 1.
Fr. Francisco Suarez, S.J., the greatest Jesuit theologian, who was called by Pope Paul V, “Doctor eximius et pius” (most exalted and pious doctor) teaches:
If [the Pope] lays down an order contrary to right customs one does not have to obey him; if he tries to do something manifestly opposed to justice and to the common good, it would be licit to resist him; if he attacks by force, he could be repelled by force, with the moderation characteristic of a good defense.
De Fide, disp. 10, sect. 6, n. 16, in Opera Omnia, Paris, Vives, vol 12 (emphasis added).
Thus, a man is not entitled to kill his neighbor even when the neighbor wrongly attempts to steal the man’s newspaper.
Another aspect of moderation in the defense, is that a man takes reasonable care to avoid injury to those not blamable for the attack against him. Thus, if an attacker was shooting at a man from inside a crowded stadium, that man may not kill his attacker by exploding the entire stadium and killing everyone in it.
In other words, even when a man is justified in using lethal force against an attacker, he may not kill the attacker by killing a stadium full of innocent people (non-combatants). The defense must be moderate and he must take reasonable care not to harm anyone besides the attacker.
In its defense, a country’s cause must be just, but its weapons and tactics do not need to resemble those of the enemy army.
This article concerns the Catholic teaching that particular weapons, such as nuclear ones, are not evil in themselves, although they can be misused. It is not our purpose to set out the boundaries to when a war is correctly called “defensive”, or properly called “just”.
Like the individual man discussed above, a country has the right to wage war to defend itself against unjust attack.
Pope Pius XII taught that:
War—for effective self-defense and with the hope of a favorable outcome against unjust attack—could not be considered unlawful.
Quoted from a broadcast to the world December 23, 1956, The Pope Speaks, The Teachings of Pope Pius XII, Michael Chinigo (editor) Pantheon Books, New York, © 1957, p. 327.
Pope Pius XII also taught the same thing in these words:
The only constraint to wage war is defense against an injustice of the utmost gravity which strikes the entire community and which cannot be coped with by any other means ....
Pope Pius XII, Address to Military Doctors (Address to the World Medical Association), October 19, 1953, quoted in The Pope Speaks, The Teachings of Pope Pius XII, compiled and edited by Michael Chinigo, with the assistance of the Vatican Archives, Pantheon Books, New York, © 1957, pp.332-333.
That is, a country is not forbidden to wage war but is forbidden to do so unjustly.
Here is how St. Thomas explains this truth:
[Saint] Augustine says in a sermon on the son of the centurion [Ep. ad Marcel. cxxxviii]: “If the Christian Religion forbade war altogether, those who sought salutary advice in the Gospel would rather have been counselled to cast aside their arms, and to give up soldiering altogether. On the contrary, they were told: ‘Do violence to no man . . . and be content with your pay’ [*Luke 3:14]. If he commanded them to be content with their pay, he did not forbid soldiering.”
Summa, IIa IIae, Q.40, a.1, sed contra.
Here is St. Thomas’s more comprehensive explanation of the truth that a country has a right to wage war as long as its cause is just:
In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary. First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged. For it is not the business of a private individual to declare war, because he can seek for redress of his rights from the tribunal of his superior. Moreover, it is not the business of a private individual to summon together the people, which has to be done in wartime. And as the care of the common weal is committed to those who are in authority, it is their business to watch over the common weal of the city, kingdom or province subject to them. And just as it is lawful for them to have recourse to the sword in defending that common weal against internal disturbances, when they punish evil-doers, according to the words of the Apostle (Rom. 13:4): “He beareth not the sword in vain: for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil”; so too, it is their business to have recourse to the sword of war in defending the common weal against external enemies. Hence it is said to those who are in authority (Ps. 81:4): “Rescue the poor: and deliver the needy out of the hand of the sinner”; and for this reason Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 75): “The natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority.”
Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault. Wherefore [Saint] Augustine says (QQ. in Hept., qu. x, super Jos.): “A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly.”
Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil. Hence [Saint] Augustine says (De Verb. Dom.): “True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandizement, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good.” For it may happen that the war is declared by the legitimate authority, and for a just cause, and yet be rendered unlawful through a wicked intention. Hence [Saint] Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 74): “The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war.”
Summa, IIa IIae, Q.40, a.1, respondeo (emphasis added).
In fact, it is meritorious to wage a just war and to fight in one.
St. Thomas declares that “it is meritorious to wage a just war”. Summa, IIa IIae, Q.40, a.2, ad.4.
St. Thomas and St. Augustine also teach that it is a citizen’s duty to defend his country against attack. Here are St. Thomas’s words:
[Saint] Augustine says: “The fortitude which defends one’s country from barbarians, or at home defends the weak, or defends companions from robbers, is full justice.” And in this way the precept is for subjects [i.e., individual men] ....
St. Thomas Aquinas, Lectures on St. Matthew’s Gospel, ch.5, #542.
It is praiseworthy to defend oneself and one’s country.
Weapons of war are not evil, because a country must defend itself and prepare to wage a just war if necessary. This duty is like a father’s duty to defend his family.
We saw above that when a man is protecting his family from an attacker, he is bound to act justly but is not bound to use any particular type of weapon. If a father were to justly use deadly force because it was necessary to protect his family in the particular circumstances, that father could not be justly criticized because he used one type of weapon or defense tactic, rather than a different one. For example, a father could not be justly condemned because he used a gun and not a club to stop a determined attacker armed with a club.
Similarly, when defending against an unjust invading army, a country has no obligation to fight using one type of weapon or tactic rather than a different one, provided that the cause is just.
Here is how St. Thomas explains this truth, citing St. Augustine:
[Saint] Augustine says (QQ. in Hept. qu. x super Jos): “Provided the war be just, it is no concern of justice whether it be carried on openly or by ambushes”: and he proves this by the authority of the Lord, Who commanded Joshua to lay ambushes for the city of Hai (Joshua 8:2).
Summa, IIa IIae, Q.40, a.3, sed contra.
Thus, in
principle, a country may wage a just war using bombs to defend against unjust invaders who have no bombs,
provided that the defense is otherwise a just cause (and also is moderate, as discussed next).
A country’s defense must be moderate and proportioned to the attack.
As shown above, a country has a right to defend itself against unjust attack.
Pope Pius XII taught that:
War—for effective self-defense and with the hope of a favorable outcome against unjust attack—could not be considered unlawful.
Quoted from a broadcast to the world December 23, 1956, The Pope Speaks, The Teachings of Pope Pius XII, Michael Chinigo (editor) Pantheon Books, New York, © 1957, p. 327.
However, justice requires a country to defend itself only with appropriate moderation.
Here is how St. Thomas explains this truth:
Not all self-defense is lawful, but only such as is accomplished with due moderation.
Summa, IIa IIae, Q. 69, a.4, ad 1.
Fr. Francisco Suarez, S.J., the greatest Jesuit theologian, who was called by Pope Paul V, “Doctor eximius et pius” (most exalted and pious doctor) teaches:
If [the Pope] lays down an order contrary to right customs one does not have to obey him; if he tries to do something manifestly opposed to justice and to the common good, it would be licit to resist him; if he attacks by force, he could be repelled by force, with the moderation characteristic of a good defense.
De Fide, disp. 10, sect. 6, n. 16, in Opera Omnia, Paris, Vives, vol 12 (emphasis added).
Thus,
e.g., a country is not justified in obliterating a neighboring country for an inconsequential incursion into its territorial waters.
Another aspect of moderation in a country’s defense is that justice requires reasonable care to avoid injury to those not blamable for the attack. Thus, e.g., a country cannot justly kill everyone in a large city because there are some enemy soldiers there.
In other words, even when a country is justified using lethal force against an enemy army, it cannot kill the innocent non-combatants in that enemy’s country or city as a means of killing the soldiers there.
Pope Pius XII applies this consistent Catholic teaching to the use of nuclear weapons, viz., a country may only use nuclear weapons as long as their use is just and moderate.
As shown above, a country may only wage war in a just cause. Further, a country’s just war must be moderate and not inflict large losses on the other country, in return for a small wrong it suffered.
Here is how Pope Pius XII explained this truth:
Defending oneself against any kind of injustice, however, is not sufficient reason to resort to war. When the losses that it brings are not comparable to those of the “injustice tolerated”, one may have the obligation of “submitting to the injustice.”
Pope Pius XII, Address to Military Doctors (Address to the World Medical Association), October 19, 1953, quoted in The Pope Speaks, The Teachings of Pope Pius XII, compiled and edited by Michael Chinigo, with the assistance of the Vatican Archives, Pantheon Books, New York, © 1957, pp.332-333 (quotation marks and parenthetical words in the original).
Further, a country’s just war must be only against warriors, not against innocent civilians, i.e., non-combatants. But although a country’s defense must be moderate, there is no obligation to only use certain types of weapons and not others. Thus, for example, there is no absolute moral prohibition against nuclear weapons.
Emphasizing that a just war must be proportional to the injustice which the country suffered, Pope Pius XII declared this principle of proportionality to especially apply to nuclear war:
This [principle] is particularly applicable to the A.B.C. war (atomic, biological, chemical). It suffices now to ask ourselves if war may become necessary as a defense against an A.B.C. war. The answer will derive from
the same principles which are decisive in determining the justification of war in general.
Pope Pius XII, Address to Military Doctors (Address to the World Medical Association), October 19, 1953, quoted in The Pope Speaks, The Teachings of Pope Pius XII, compiled and edited by Michael Chinigo, with the assistance of the Vatican Archives, Pantheon Books, New York, © 1957, pp.332-333 (quotation marks and parenthetical words in the original; emphasis added).
Although all war, including nuclear war, should be avoided whenever possible, Pope Pius XII then told his audience (military doctors) that they must never participate in any war including a nuclear war, unless the war was a just one. Here are the pope’s words:
May the doctor place his science and activity in the service of A.B.C. war (atomic, biological, chemical)? He must never give support to an “injustice,” even in the service of his own country; and
when this type of war [viz., A.B.C. war, including atomic war] constitutes an injustice, the doctor cannot take part in it.
Here is the longer quote from Pope Pius XII:
Let there be punishment on an international scale for every war not called for by absolute necessity. The only constraint to wage war is defense against an injustice of the utmost gravity which strikes the entire community and which cannot be coped with by any other means—for otherwise one would give free course, in international relations, to brutal violence and irresponsibility. Defending oneself against any kind of injustice, however, is not sufficient reason to resort to war. When the losses that it brings are not comparable to those of the “injustice tolerated”, one may have the obligation of “submitting to the injustice.”
This is particularly applicable to the A.B.C. war (atomic, biological, chemical). It suffices now to ask ourselves if war may become necessary as a defense against an A.B.C. war. The answer will derive from the same principles which are decisive in determining the justification of war in general. In any case, another question poses itself first of all: Is it not possible, through international agreement, to outlaw and efficaciously avoid A.B.C. warfare? ...
What We have said indicated the right direction in which to find the answer to this other question: May the doctor place his science and activity in the service of A.B.C. war? He must never give support to an “injustice,” even in the service of his own country; and when this type of war constitutes an injustice, the doctor cannot take part in it.
Pope Pius XII, Address to Military Doctors (Address to the World Medical Association), October 19, 1953, quoted in The Pope Speaks, The Teachings of Pope Pius XII, compiled and edited by Michael Chinigo, with the assistance of the Vatican Archives, Pantheon Books, New York, © 1957, pp.332-333 (quotation marks and parenthetical words in the original; bold emphasis added and words in square brackets are added).
Pope Pius XII is faithfully teaching Catholic doctrine that
when an atomic war is unjust, military doctors (and all others) cannot take part in it. So,
e.g., when a country detonates a nuclear bomb in a civilian setting (such as Nagasaki and Hiroshima
) that is unjust because this bomb targeted a city full of innocent non-combatants.
However, bombings which targeted (and killed) large civilian populations have occurred using conventional bombs also,
e.g., in Tokyo
, Hamburg
, and Dresden
during World War II.
The crucial issue is not what type of bomb was used (nuclear or conventional) but whether the bombing was moderate and just regarding who was targeted. The answer (in all five examples above) is that the bombing was unjust, because cities of civilian non-combatants were targeted.
Conclusion of this section
All war should be avoided where possible. This includes nuclear war. The particular weapons used are only important because the defense must be just and moderate (i.e., proportional). Nuclear weapons may be used only where their use is just and moderate.
Just and Moderate use of Nuclear Weapons
If we were to suppose that nuclear weapon development has not advanced technologically to the point where they can be sufficiently limited and controlled to allow their use to be moderate, then that is not a condemnation of nuclear weapons in principle, but only in our current technological state. Thus, even now, if nuclear weapons could be used against an unjust attacking army while avoiding the collateral harm to civilian non-combatants, then this would be permitted.
Thus, regardless of our current technological capabilities, it remains clear that nuclear weapons are not sinful in principle, just as non-nuclear, incendiary bombs are not sinful in principle (but were sinful when used against the innocent non-combatants who lived in Tokyo, Hamburg, and Dresden, during World War II).
However, not only are nuclear weapons not sinful in principle, it appears that despite the shroud of military secrecy (concerning U.S. weapons capability), the technology now exists to use limited nuclear weapons as part of a moderate and just war.
For example, the U.S. government apparently knows how to make targeted, tactical nuclear weapons which could be used to destroy deeply buried, hardened bunkers, such as terrorists’ caves deep in the isolated mountains of Afghanistan, with very few or no innocent non-combatants killed.
For example, one anti-nuclear group noted the feasibility of small nuclear weapons and their uses:
A string of calls to consider the use of TNWs [Tactical Nuclear Weapons] in Afghanistan following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against the United States focused attention on proposals, many of which had been publicized years earlier, to develop new, low-yield nuclear weapons for a limited range of military contingencies--in particular, to destroy deeply buried, hardened bunkers (caves, in the case of Afghanistan).
Here is another anti-nuclear group’s discussion of small nuclear weapons which apparently are feasible technologically:
Post September 11, in addition to the concerns over the terrorist use of nuclear weapons and nuclear materials, there have been discussions and debates, in public and in private, on the potential use by States [viz., countries] of small, low yield nuclear weapons to attack underground hideouts of terrorist leaders or terrorists' weapons manufacturing facilities. In addition, the use of nuclear weapons as a response to chemical and biological weapons attacks is also being debated. None of these debates has led to official policy changes, but with the increasing concerns over the long-term adherence to the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that new small, short-range and “useable” nuclear weapons could be on the horizon.
Tactical Nuclear Weapons: Time for Control, By Taina Susiluoto
(bracketed comment and emphasis added).
Here is a summary of possible uses of small nuclear weapons:
A tactical nuclear weapon (TNW) or non-strategic nuclear weapon is a nuclear weapon, generally smaller in its explosive power, which is designed to be used on a battlefield in military situations, mostly with friendly forces in proximity and perhaps even on contested friendly territory. This is [in] contrast to strategic nuclear weapons which are designed to be mostly targeted in the enemy interior away from the war front against military bases, cities, towns, arms industries, and other hardened or larger-area targets to damage the enemy's ability to wage war. Tactical nuclear weapons were a large part of the peak nuclear weapons stockpile levels during the Cold War.
A limited use against isolated, unjust enemy combatants, which does not endanger innocent non-combatants, could be a just and moderate use of nuclear weapons.
Pope Francis teaches that it is a sin for a country to even possess any type of nuclear weapon
In contrast to Catholic teaching, Pope Francis condemns as evil, even possession of any nuclear weapons. Here are his words:
Nor can we fail to be genuinely concerned by the catastrophic humanitarian and environmental effects of any employment of nuclear devices. If we also take into account the risk of an accidental detonation as a result of error of any kind, the threat of their use, as well as their
very possession, is to be firmly condemned.
Not only is Pope Francis’ position against reason and Catholic teaching, it is tantamount to demanding unilateral nuclear disarmament because, if Pope Francis were correct that even possession of any nuclear weapons is wrong, then every country would have a duty to unilaterally disarm itself of its nuclear weapons regardless of what other nations do, because God requires us to immediately stop doing whatever justly deserves condemnation.
Further, Pope Francis’ condemnation is a politically-correct, radical position held by only the most extreme left-wing groups which are enemies of the Traditional Catholic Faith. For example, Greenpeace and the Green Party of England seek unilateral nuclear disarmament.
The “New” SSPX Falsifies Pope Pius XII’s Teaching on Nuclear Weapons to Make Pope Francis Look Traditional
Last November, the “new” SSPX published an article entitled: Pope Upholds the Church's Stance on the Immorality of Nuclear Weapons.
Indeed, Pope Francis does hold that all nuclear weapons are immoral (even to possess). However, as shown above, this is not Catholic teaching and never has been. The Catholic Church does not forbid any particular kind of weapon but requires the use of every weapon to be moderate and just, including not targeting civilian non-combatants.
Because both sides during World War II deliberately killed millions of civilian non-combatants (by nuclear and non-nuclear weapons), Pope Pius XII reminded the world that countries may only defend themselves and may never target the innocent.
Falsely saying that Pope Pius XII was condemning nuclear weapons as such, the “new” SSPX quotes Pope Pius XII’s reminder (which we quoted above and quote again here):
When the harm wrought by war is not comparable to that caused by tolerating injustice, we may be obliged to suffer injustice.
Giving its own false spin on these words of Pope Pius XII, the N-SSPX then says:
In other words, Pius XII held that the human and natural damage wrought by a nuclear strike was out of proportion with any aggression whatsoever.
Pope Pius XII does not really say what the N-SSPX twists his words to “say”. The N-SSPX then fabricates the supposed position of Pope Pius XII more plainly, by falsely claiming that:
Pius XII took the position that nuclear weapons were considered an immoral military means responsible for human and natural damage that are out of proportion with any aggression whatsoever.
Conclusion of the entire article
The Catholic Church does not condemn any type of weapon, including nuclear weapons. However, powerful weapons (like all weapons) must be used justly and moderately.
Pope Francis breaks with reason and with Catholic teaching by condemning the possession of a particular type of weapon (a nuclear weapon) rather than focusing on the use of nuclear weapons which must be only in accordance with justice (as is true of all weapons). This condemnation of a type of weapon (rather than its wrongful use), is like left-wing politicians condemning guns as the root of society’s problem of violence against the innocent, rather than the immorality which results in the unjust use of those guns.
The “new” SSPX jumps on Pope Francis’ “weapons control” bandwagon (blaming the weapons) and claims that Pope Francis’ (and the N-SSPX’s own) far-left position is Catholic teaching.
Don’t expect the truth when you read N-SSPX’s articles! They are conditioning you to feel comfortable with the coming N-SSPX submission to modernist Rome.