Thomas Aquinas on Recent Wars (Essay Sample)

Thomas Aquinas on Recent Wars
Student’s Name
Religion and Politics
Instructor’s Name
Date
Introduction
Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq wars are among the many wars that the United States of America has spearheaded. However, these three wars are significant because they symbolize America’s reinvention of ethical decision making about warfare. Although the causes of each of these wars are distinct, the wars evoke fundamental questions about the relevance of the theory of Just War and Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica in contemporary society. Moreover, these wars also provoke a critical analysis of the role of religion, especially Christianity in legitimizing or endorsing civil authorities to engage in warfare. Interestingly, although the causes of these three wars are very different, the criteria use to authorize them do not deviate at all. For example, American involvement in the Vietnam War was America’s attempt to contain communism, its involvement in Afghanistan was to wage a war on terror post-September 9/11 while it ventured into Iraq on the pretext of a pre-emptive war on the axis of evil countries. Nevertheless, all these wars were violations of the classical Just War tradition that are symbolic of an emergent trend that has recently been evident in Libya, Syria, and could be applied in Ukraine. This paper is an analysis of Thomas Aquinas’ Just War Theory influence in these three cases of wars, and whether the successive US administrations are justified in their actions. Although there is a temptation to delve into the causes of these wars, this paper limits itself to the analysis of whether these wars satisfactorily met the three criteria for a just war: Sovereign authority, Just Cause, and Right Intention.
Moreover, the paper avoids plunging into the debate about ethics of war as this topic has been done by countless authors that include Averroes E. Estrella, Endre Begby and Gregory M. Reichberg, Keith Pavlischek among others. Discussion about the ethics of wars will warrant comprehensive coverage of concepts like realism and pacifism that are beyond the scope of this paper. Instead, the paper uses the works of such authors and others to deduce relevant evidence that substantiates the claim that countless world rulers, to justify their tyrannical policies and actions, have exploited the Thomas Aquinas’ theory of Just War. In this context, the US wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq present the best-case scenarios to evaluate this paper’s claim that the Sovereign Authority declaration of war makes it a just war irrespective of the fact that these wars fall short of meeting all the three requirements of a “just war.”
The paper will sequentially evaluate each of the three requirements to ascertain where violations exist. Sovereign authority will be the first requirement evaluated because its presence facilitates the abuse of the other two requirements. Moreover, much emphases will be on sovereign authority because it has got massive religious backing, especially in regions predominated by Abrahamic religions – Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
The Three Requirements of a “Just War”
It is widely known that the American Constitution has customarily been executed under the traditional Christian reflections on morality. Since wars involve the use of force, which is central in this paper, a brief examination of classical Christian teachings on the subject is necessary. According to Keith Pavlischek, Thomas Aquinas laid down three conditions needed for “Just War” to exist. These pre-war conditions are known as jus ad bellum, and they include the right authority, which relates to civil authority; just cause, which relates to justice; and right intention, which relates to political good of peace2. Therefore, any call to war must meet all the three requirements to be considered legitimate. The progression of time saw the addition of other criteria that are measures to ensure that war is beneficial to society. These include the questions as to whether there are reasonable chances of success, if the war’s overall good exceed the harm done, if war is the only last resort, and if peace between the warring parties is achievable. Therefore, these three wars had to meet all the requirements to qualify as legitimate wars according to Christian philosophers that include Saint Thomas Aquinas and Hugo Grotius. However, contrary to these requirements, none of these wars qualified but were nonetheless declared as “just wars” by the perpetrators. Here is why.
Sovereign Authority
American administration went to war in Vietnam in the pretext that they are protecting the liberties of free democratic societies against the onslaught of communism. However, the question of the legitimacy of the US government to assume a world overseer status is subject to scrutiny. Who gave the US government this right, and under what circumstances are their actions considered as morally right? The above question finds answers in the long held traditions of Christianity espoused in biblical scriptures. However, just because the scriptures mention civil authorities does not mean that the civil authorities have a moral right to wage war in the name religious obligations. In fact, the Catholic Church was a fierce critic of the US government in regards to this Vietnam War, but the government got significant support back at home from protestant church heads who affirmed the war as a religious duty.
Romans 13:1-7 is the clearest text from the New Testament that explicitly defines the relationship between the civil government and the Christian community. The verse articulates Paul’s premise that God’s control is firmly inherent in human history and that all forms of civil leadership in the world are in place because of God’s will. Of course, this verse provokes many controversies and debates because many despots in the world’s history have found it valuable in justifying their tyrannical actions. This abuse of the verse is especially true in predominantly Christian countries where Christians have been obliged to obey directives from their rulers irrespective of the rational results. For example, Germany’s Third Reich and South Africa’s apartheid regime had significant support from the public who ascribed to the tenets of this verse.
Nevertheless, a brief and concise analysis of the verse, Paul, and its context is warranted. Presuming that the real author is Paul, the verses are considered as parts of the paraenesis – a collection of advice, counsel, and exhortations that initiates at Romans chapter 12 and ends in chapter 15. Therefore, Paul appears to command the whole of humanity to submit to civil authority as a fulfillment of religious duty. Although the definition of the word “authority” remains ambiguous, the suggestion that it possibly alludes to spiritual authority is negated by Paul’s omission of the words “powers,” which he often uses in describing spiritual perspectives. Moreover, Paul never mentions redemption nor conversion as the consequences of submitting to this authority. Therefore, the term “authority” in its purest sense refers to a civil power.
However, a predicament exists. The precondition to submitting to this authority is never expounded thus leaving many questions about the rationale for electing a particular authority as legitimate and just. The line “… there is no authority except which God has established…” eliminates any argument that obedience to civil authority is dependent on its legitimacy or justice. Moreover, the explicit use of the word “submit,” which is essentially cognizance that one is under the control and direction of certain organizations or people, mandates the compliance to be free of any conditions. In fact, to reiterate his command that submission is mandatory, Paul claims that the opposition to any authority, even if it is secular, is analogous to opposing God’s authority, and consequently invites punishment. This statement gives a valid excuse for the proponents of a just war as they claim the State has the right to use coercive powers to punish evildoers. It is imperative to note that the concept of dual ethics emerges at this point to further complicate the dilemma of the legitimacy of civil authority.
First, the interpretation of this verse cannot be complete without the contextual analysis of the times when Paul was authoring the book of Romans. Reading the book of Acts, which precedes Romans; reveal that Paul had a positive experience on his evangelical escapades about the Roman Empire that was relatively stable under Emperor Nero. Therefore, is highly unlikely that he would have envisioned tyrannical regimes that would abuse the verse. This situation brings out the concern that Paul’s command was applicable to the immediate situation in that era, and it would be very erroneous to generalize the command and apply it in today’s world. In fact, there is a general acceptance that Romans 13 was written under a non-democratic situation. Therefore, it will be irrational to interpret its meaning in modern day America that has particular democratic prepositions. According to Noriaki Iwasa, these prepositions assume that sovereign people elect their leaders who are subject to the people’s scrutiny. It is evident that the inclusion of democratic institutions is a game changer in the usage of Romans 13, in contemporary times because citizens have the right to demand explanations from their leaders. For example, the decision of George W. Bush’s administration to go to war in Iraq could have been questioned by the citizens beforehand, and appropriate policies considered.
Second, the criteri...