{"id":5879,"date":"2025-02-11T20:21:31","date_gmt":"2025-02-12T00:21:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/consistent-life.org\/blog\/?p=5879"},"modified":"2025-02-11T22:01:31","modified_gmt":"2025-02-12T02:01:31","slug":"preferential-for-nonviolence","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/consistent-life.org\/blog\/index.php\/2025\/02\/11\/preferential-for-nonviolence\/","title":{"rendered":"The Preferential Option for Nonviolence in Just War Theory: Opportunities for Just War & Pacifist Collaboration"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u00a0<\/strong>by Thad Crouch<\/p>\n

The Disagreements<\/strong><\/h3>\n

At the 25th<\/sup> anniversary conference of the Consistent Life Network in 2012, the new, young, rising star, Aimee Murphy \u2014 of the then one-year-old Life Matters Journal<\/em> \u2014 gave a speech.\u00a0 When it ended, a seasoned CLE activist aggressively laid into Murphy\u2019s opposition to \u201caggressive war\u201d rather than taking a pacifist position against all<\/em> war.<\/p>\n

A decade earlier, a year after the 9-11 terrorist attack and mere months before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the youngest member of Pax Christi Austin (a chapter of an international Catholic non-violence organization) urged fellow members to support a presentation using Just War Ethic arguments against the invasion at an interfaith peace event. The membership adamantly opposed him, despite his arguing that it would be faster, easier, and more practical than attempting to convert pro-war Austinites into nonviolence advocates within the available time frame to mobilize them against an impending war.<\/p>\n

Among life-long committed leaders of the CLE, debates over active nonviolence or pacifist positions vs ones allowing for wars described as just, defensive, or non-aggressive can become intensely heated. But there\u2019s at least one important criterion of just war theory that, when applied as rigorously as intended, points to significant common ground on which pacifists and just war theorists can work together to promote nonviolence in practice.<\/p>\n

Just War Doctrine<\/strong><\/h3>\n

The Christian version of Just War doctrine began with Augustine of Hippo, a philosopher who converted to Christianity shortly after it became the Roman Empire\u2019s official religion.\u00a0 Augustine saw war as a tragedy that occurred in a sinful world that, under certain circumstances, could be needed to protect life and restore order. As he pondered circumstances in which Christians might morally participate in war, he found criteria from Marcus Tullius Cicero, a first- century Roman senator and philosopher \u2013 though Augustine disagreed with Cicero\u2019s idea that impugned honor could justify war for Christians.<\/p>\n

The most important criterion of Just War for this discussion is:<\/p>\n

Last Resort:<\/em> To justify engaging in war, all other bloodless means to resolve the conflict must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective.<\/p>\n

The Opportunity: Just War\u2019s Preferential Option for Nonviolence<\/strong><\/h3>\n

The requirement that bloodless means must be found to be ineffective before \u201cjust war\u201d can apply means a preferential option for nonviolence.<\/strong><\/p>\n

That means that those who don\u2019t know about active nonviolence are unqualified to declare just war.<\/p>\n

In order to apply and implement just war doctrine, one must understand the power of nonviolence. To effectively apply the just war theory, persons, religious bodies, and governments must have acuity with understanding, applying, and implementing the power, the effectiveness, and the limits of nonviolence. Those who equate nonviolence with being passive are unqualified to discuss just war theory.<\/p>\n

They must also understand the limits of violence as a problem-solver.<\/p>\n

New Knowledge of Nonviolence<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Eons of history are filled with examples of nonviolence that have proven effective. For example, there\u2019s the overthrow of British rule in India\/Pakistan; the Solidarity Movement in Poland; and the Arab Spring in Tunisia and Egypt.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>Gene Sharp\u2019s three volume set, The Politics of Nonviolent Action<\/em>, 1973, lists 198 nonviolent tactics. In his 1992 book, Engaging the Powers<\/a>,<\/em> Walter Wink lists over ninety examples of effective nonviolent actions spanning from Before the Common Era to 1991. Peter Ackerman and Jack Duvall go into great detail about around 40 cases in A Force More Powerful<\/a>.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Yet something both newer and more convincing has happened than a list of nonviolent tactics that can work with a list of successful historic nonviolent examples: a study.<\/p>\n

In the award-winning Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict<\/a>, Erica Chenoweth & Maria J. Stephan go beyond listing nonviolent victories and tactics. They apply statistical analysis to 323 conflicts involving more than a thousand active participants that attempted both violent and nonviolent means to either overthrow an illegitimate dictator or oust a foreign military occupation between the years 1900 and 2006. Here are just a few of their findings:<\/p>\n