The Point of the Lance

In a world gone one hundred percent off its proverbial rocker, the question arises: Should Christians condone armed resistance to ISIS and its ilk? Most timely for the United States is the “gun issue”, on which all contenders in the current election cycle are weighing in. Democrats (as always) are using the San Bernardino jihadist massacre to tout more gun control; Republicans (as always) counter that a disarmed citizenry is a disaster waiting to happen. Should Christian citizens arm themselves to defend their homes and families against a new kind of warfare – a warfare without borders, against an enemy without a uniform?

Catholicism is not a pacifist faith. We have a tradition of just warfare. Our predecessors in the faith, Fathers and Doctors of the Church, have written extensively on this subject: when is war permissible – indeed, when is it obligatory?

In addition to these theological and ethical giants, we have the guidance of the great warrior saint, Joan of Arc (who probably would have been a Doctor of the Church had she been educated enough to produce any writings). Let’s see what they all have to say.

St. Thomas

In St. Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica II.2.i Q40, the great theologian examines the concept and principles of just warfare. He writes:

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...

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 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 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."[1]

One of the most fascinating things about these statements is that St. Thomas (in agreement with his predecessor, St. Augustine) states that war can be advanced for the sake of peace. In fact, Aquinas (mis-)quotes Augustine that there is such a thing as a “peaceful war:” a war in which the goal is to establish and maintain peace and to redress injustices.

St. Joan

I wonder if my patroness, St. Joan of Arc, had ever heard St. Thomas’s words – she certainly could not have read them, being illiterate her entire life with the exception of learning how to write her own name for the purpose of signing dictated letters when she embarked on her military career. When challenged that a true Christian would not desire war but strive to create peace, and that therefore the guidance that she claimed came directly from God to engage the English oppressors in battle could not be of divine origin, she replied, with the great intelligence that has not lost its power to astonish: “Peace cannot be had but at the point of the lance.”[2]

Saint Joan had seen genuine horrors in her brief life before taking up her banner and sword to drive invading English forces from French soil and begin the end of the Hundred Years’ War. In 1428, in Joan’s native village of Domrémy in the eastern province of Lorraine, marauding Burgundian troops – English sympathizers – had devastated the surrounding fields and villages. Joan’s family, with their neighbors, abandoned their homes for the relative safety of the nearby fortification at Neufchâtel; on their return home, Joan surely would have been shocked, saddened, and righteously infuriated at the devastation wrought on the livelihood of her family and neighbors. We can only imagine the devastation she must have felt when her eyes lighted on her beloved village church, the church where she had been baptized, now charred black by the enemy’s spiteful torching.[3] So it comes as no surprise that Joan herself would understand that this war, which had begun decades before her birth and showed no signs of ending as both French and English conducted a war of kidnap-ransom techniques and political badminton matches, could only be stopped by a strong, decisive campaign against English strongholds along the Loire river valley.

During her trial for heresy, Joan came under scrutiny for her methods, one of them being the strategy of direct assault she had advocated. This strategy, of its nature, resulted in massive loss of life – but it was equally massive in its success. Joan advanced to victory upon victory as she and her troops traveled along the Loire knocking down one English fortification after another. Joan took plenty of combat injuries herself in the process, as she was the kind of leader who never asked her comrades to do anything she was not herself willing to do and was in the front lines of every battle – with the exception of her final combat, Compiègne, where she remained with her force’s rear guard in a self-sacrificial decision that would bring about her capture.

Joan sensed that war could bring about peace, even without the benefit of an education that would have exposed her to the writings of theological colossi Augustine and Aquinas. So the question I’ve been asking myself lately, as ISIS rips through not only the Middle East but the rest of the world as well, by spreading its ideology through social media: Why isn’t anyone talking about St. Joan?

So many Catholics – too many – are advocating pacifism as a response to ISIS’s atrocities. Relying on a (mis)interpretation of Matthew 5:39 (cf. Lk. 6:29), where Jesus says “Offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on [your] right cheek, turn the other one to him as well” (NABRE), Catholics currently advise fasting, political negotiation, and prayer for ISIS members’ conversion of heart as the only acceptable course of action to stop these minions of Satan from sawing people’s heads off and selling toddlers into slavery. Don’t get me wrong – prayer and fasting are absolutely necessary to confront this and all other evils; but ISIS, Boko Haram, and other militant Islamist groups have made it abundantly clear that they don’t want to negotiate. They don’t want conversion of heart. And so where does that leave us?

Ours is not a faith of (or in) absolute pacifism. We should keep in mind that Joan of Arc, along with others who have participated in battles throughout the ages, was a saint.[4] She received direct orders from the King of Heaven to take up arms and lead an army into battle. These revelations are acknowledged as genuine by the Church. So why is this warrior a saint, and why did God send her these directions, if there are not times when our Lord approves – even commands – the conduct of military action?

Mother Church

Where have we lost the basic principle that in the interest of preservation of life, we must come to the armed defense of those who cannot defend themselves? Consider the following, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (§2308-2310):

“All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war. (2266) However, ‘as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed.’ The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time: (2243, 1897)

—the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

—all other means of putting an end to it must 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.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the ‘just war’ doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense. (2239, 1909)

Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.”[5]

We are facing a radically different world than the one in which Sts. Augustine and Aquinas lived and wrote. They could not possibly have foreseen the advent of ISIS and its ilk. ISIS is not an actual nation; and its members, thanks to the spread of ISIS’s ideology through social media, can appear next door. So what do we do when marauding groups (and individuals) that are not defined as legitimate nations decide to start their own war? What do we do when Aquinas’s “tribunal of superiors” is unwilling to provide “redress of wrongs” for the sake of its own political face-saving? To date, the United Nations Security Council is AWOL in this matter, apparently more concerned with enforcing international acceptance of alternative sexual lifestyles (and branding as torturers those who refuse to accept the same) than in stopping the most blatant evil of the contemporary world. The United States president and his administration are convinced that the greatest danger facing our nation is a lack of tolerance.[6] So must we stick to the letter of traditional “just-war theory”, or must we adapt that theory to face the evils of a new world?

Surely, the atrocities perpetrated by ISIS, Boko Haram, and others fit the bill for just warfare to a proverbial T:

• the issue of just cause is beyond question;
• the goal and motivation of military force taken against ISIS et. al. would be the redress of grave wrongs against humanity and the restoration of peace and security, as well as the freeing of slaves;
• combatants would have right intention in advancing good and avoiding evil;
• given Islamist militants’ unwillingness to negotiate, it may be accurately stated that diplomatic peace efforts have already been shown to be ineffective, leaving armed confrontation the only truly effective recourse remaining;
• it is highly doubtful that any damage inflicted in armed combat against ISIS could possibly bring about greater evils than the evil to be eliminated;
• In taking it upon themselves, out of necessity due to the absence of a strong central government authority, to organize military units for their own legitimate self-defense and the defense of their loved ones and fellow countrymen, the counter-ISIS military units that have formed in Iraq and Syria (such as the Nineveh Plain Protection Units), have shown prudential judgment;
• “Serious prospects of success” look better every day due to increase in recruiting, and would improve further if the international community would open its eyes and offer some help.In St. Joan’s medieval French, the “point” would refer only to the lance’s tip, the part of the weapon that actually thrusts the enemy through. In English, we have the advantage of turning this into a pun. The “point” refers also to the “idea” or “purpose”: the “point,” the purpose, of the lance is to defend the defenseless, to free the oppressed and enslaved, to ensure the rule of law, to secure a lasting peace and security, to establish a stable society in which justice is allowed to exist. That’s the whole “point” of warfare – the absolutely sole reason why any group or nation should ever take the dreadful step of engaging in force of arms, whether or not an unjust aggressor possesses the trappings of a legitimate government. St. Joan of Arc, who wept over the dead on the field of battle – even the dead among her bitter enemies – knew this better than anyone.Should individual citizens ensure that we are armed against terrorist attacks against our homes and families? Given the nature of the enemy, we’d be fools not to. San Bernardino – and Paris not too long before – proves you can never know the mind of the person working next to you, whom you’ve known for years, whom you’d never suspect of being a jihadist, for whom you’ve given a baby shower. We have absolutely no way of knowing what is in people’s heads anymore. The enemy disguises himself – or herself – so successfully that we no longer have any way of knowing who the enemy is, and he will be on our doorstep before we know what’s happening.So maybe what the Church needs at this moment in its history is a little more St. Joan.

Notes

[1] New Advent, http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3040.htm (accessed 1/14/15).

[2] Quoted in Etienne Robo, “The Holiness of Saint Joan of Arc.” London: Incorporated Catholic Truth Society, http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/JOAN1.HTM (accessed 1/14/15).

[3] “Saint Joan of Arc – Virgin – 1412-1431. EWTN, http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/JOAN.htm (accessed 3/25/15).

[4] As were St. George, St. Mercurius, St. Demetrius, and others.

[5] http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm# (accessed 1/14/15).

[6] http://www.inquisitr.com/2610590/attacks-against-muslims-greatest-fear-of-attorney-general-loretta-lynch/ [accessed 12/10/15]; http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000004078082/obama-deliveres-speech-on-terrorism.html [accessed 12/10/15].