War & Christianity

The great Church of England, like the great nation to which it belongs, is famed for its ability to reconcile apparent irreconcilables. In 1946 the Archbishops of Canterbury and York appointed a commission to consider the great problem of our time--total war and the atom bomb. Last week their report was out--a fat, red-covered pamphlet titled The Church and the Atom. Its 130 pages of erudite and stilted prose will be presented in June to the Church Assembly for approval.

Is war ever justified? Yes, says the commission, when it is undertaken: 1) to redress a grave injury committed by another state; 2) to defend one's country against attack; 3) to help a belligerent "whose cause . . . [one] believes to be just." But, the report adds, war must be waged with a right intention--"the establishment of peace founded in justice."

Such an intention does not include overthrow of an enemy's political system unless the system is an obvious threat to international security. Says the commission: "No nation has the right forcibly to impose upon another the political system that it fancies, even if that system be dubbed 'democracy.'"

"Harmless" Civilians? If the war is just, does it matter what means are used to win it? Yes, says the commission: "A surgeon, driven to amputate a foot to save a patient's life, would be blameworthy if he unnecessarily cut off the whole leg." In the same way, a belligerent should seek to damage his enemy as lightly as possible and "shun all acts . . . calculated to breed hatred . . ."

Is the atom bomb, then, ever permissible? On this one, the commission made confused sounds. It agreed "that . . . [it] is inadmissible as a means of attack upon objectives in inhabited cities." But "there would be no objection to using it against a military target (if such were found)--which could be attacked without injury to human beings; but if human beings were involved, it would be necessary to take into account peculiar properties of the bomb that appear to sort ill with the object of warfare, which is to overpower the enemy without doing more harm than necessary."

But should Christian civilization leave itself at the mercy of an aggressor who does not care where his bombs fall? The commission bowed to the ancient doctrine of "military necessity." If a nation which renounced The Bomb would be helpless before an enemy that did not, "then retention of the atomic bomb in a nation's armory is justifiable on the ground of necessity and indeed . . . obligatory. We must add that it might well prove to be a powerful deterrent also."

If one nation began hostilities by launching an atom bomb attack against principal cities, the commission agreed that a reply in kind would be justified.

Christian Conscience. But a Christian at war must look sharply and often to his conscience. "The tendency of a conflict to change its character as it proceeds, and of a nation at war to deteriorate progressively in outlook and conduct, must always be of grave concern to Christians, on account of the ethical dilemmas that arise when what began as a 'just' war comes to assume a more dubious countenance . . . We would therefore emphasize the duty that is laid upon Christians of refusing to participate in any act of war which they are morally certain is wrong."

The commission contained one pacifist, the Venerable Percy Hartill, Archdeacon of Stoke-on-Trent, who registered his disapproval of any kind of modern war in a minority note. But the report itself gave short shrift to his view: "There are those who say that the solution is to counter aggression by love. Ultimately that may be true. But is it applicable to the problem that confronts us? ... A nation that by disarmament rendered itself defenseless would not be assisting in the prevention of aggression, which is the only way to preserve justice in the world."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.