Christian Ethics

What could be more foolish than to blow up half of Europe and the Far East and then give billions to repair the damage? What is more inconsistent than the killing of soldiers and civilians followed by superhuman efforts to save the lives of the survivors?

When we bandy about “war crimes,” “assassination,” and other terms, we ought to consider what we are talking about and, if appropriate, what the available mechanisms for justice are.

Jus post bellum justice provides us with two criteria: holding aggressors responsible (punishment) and providing some form of restoration to victims (restitution). The reality of our time suggests a very limited justice.

Before taking a look at justice, let’s take a step back and consider the explicitly Christian foundations for thinking about political order.

The jus post bellum (the ethics of ending war and building peace) categories of order, justice, and conciliation can help us think through how the war in Ukraine should end.

Have we any hope and faith for export? In this time of apprehension and pessimism, here as well as over there, have we any hope and faith to spare?

Vladimir Putin’s recent announcement to place his nation’s nuclear deterrent forces on a state of heightened alert invites those of us in the free world—and surely the United States—to revisit the just war assumptions that served as a deterrence during the Cold War.

We are told that a policy of firmness must inevitably lead to war, while conciliation could guarantee peace. In the Nazi days this was called appeasement.

No amount of general exhortations about the fallacies of secular philosophies, or about the actual or potential contribution of the Church to the life of the world can be of much use in the long run unless men and women come into the Church, not primarily because the Church is good for the world, but primarily because its faith is for them the deepest truth about life, about their own lives, because in its worship they find their God.