%sU-iQS C(a K fctt ffefer . ZJ'V^Zf/'cW -<^ /^Sstcr& • &*? /%& (&/&/£* . , srf/ljn/7*5£4L Statement on The Catholic Conscientious Objector October 15, 1969 OINCE Apostolic times, the Church has ^ cherished and valued the spirit of non- violence based on the teaching of Jesus. This is one of the reasons Christians of the early Church did not participate in military service. There was even a strong tendency toward pacifism. The Church Fathers, St. Ambrose and St. Augustine, emphasized the primacy of love, going so far as to state that Christians as individuals had no right to self-defense. Christians, however, were allowed to take part in communal defense if the war was considered just. THE theory of the just war, beginning with * St. Augustine and later developed by Catholic theologians such as St. Thomas Aquinas and Francis Suarez, required that certain conditions be met: The war must be declared only as a last resort by a lawful authority, for a just cause, using just means, and with reasonable expectation of success. The military action cannot produce a greater evil than it seeks to correct. In applying an evolving just war theory to the contemporary world, the person who is sincerely trying to form his conscience must judge whether or not the end achieved by a particular war or all-out war is proportionate, in any degree, to the devastation wrought by that war. On the basis of this judgment, he would justify either participation in or abstention from war. IN abstaining, some might conclude that * just war in the modern world is not pos- sible, citing Pope John’s statement in Pacem in Terris: "Therefore, in this age of ours which prides itself on its atomic power, it is irra- tional to believe that war is still an apt means of vindicating violated rights." (n. 127) "No more war, war never again," were the words of Pope Paul VI to the Gen- eral Assembly of the United Nations. IN the continuing condemnation of total warfare by recent popes, the Second Vati- can Council declared that— every act of war directed to the indis- criminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man which merits firm and unequivocal condemna- tion. (Gaudium et Spes, n. 80) A Catholic viewing his tradition, the mes- '*$age of the Gospel statements, could val- idly question and abstain from participation in war or the preparations for war. THE Second Vatican Council, therefore, en- ’ dorsed laws that would — make human provision for the care of those who for reasons of conscience re- fuse to bear arms, provided, however, that they accept some other form of service to the human community. (GS, n. 79) FROM the previously stated documents and traditions, it is clear that a Catholic (either in-service or out-of-service) can be a con- scientious objector “because of religious training and belief.” We are, therefore, concerned when we hear that some boards and military tribunals do not recognize a Catholic claim for mili- tary exemption by reason of conscience. On the other hand, we are encouraged by re- cent court decisions and the actions of draft boards which uphold the primacy of con- science in this regard. DUT it is not enough merely to declare that a Catholic can be a conscientious objector. Christians must “make humane provisions” for the conscientious objector and aid him in his “service to the human community.” What he often lacks is basic information about the draft and its alterna- tives. He meets opposition from those who should, in fact, be counseling and aiding him. Once granted the status of a con- scientious objector, he often finds himself in a menial and degrading alternative serv- ice in order to “test his sincerity.” We there- fore recommend: 7. That each diocese initiate or cooper- ate in providing draft information and counseling ; 2. That Catholic Organizations which could qualify as alternative service agencies consider applying for that status , and support and provide mean- ingful employment for the concientous objector. \A/E are not only concerned about the sta- ” tus of the conscientious objector, but also concerned about that of the Selective Con- scientious Objector. His status is compli- cated by the fact that his claim for exemption is not upheld by law. The American bishops spoke at some length in their pastoral letter of November, 1968, Human Life in Our Day, of the Selective Conscientious Objec- tor, recommending — a modification of the Selective Service Act making it possible, although not easy, for so-called selective conscienti- ous objectors to refuse—without fear of imprisonment or loss of citizenship — to serve in wars which they consider unjust or in branches of service (e.g., the strategic nuclear forces) which would subject them to the performance of actions contrary to deeply held moral convictions about indiscriminate killing. IN reaffirming this recommendation, we are I reminded of the number of individuals who have suffered imprisonment or have left the country because they felt compelled to fol- low their conscience rather than the law. In a continuing pastoral concern for their wel- fare, we urge civil officials, as part of a re- vision of the law as regards to the Selective Conscientious Objector, to consider grant- ing amnesty to those who have suffered im- prisonment and give those who have left the country an opportunity to demonstrate that they are sincere objectors. IN conclusion, we encourage clergy and * laymen alike, especially parents, to be sympathetic and understanding to those who in good conscience are compelled to object to military service, even if one were not in total agreement with the objector. The Fathers of the Second Vatican Council wrote— We cannot fail to praise those who re- nounce the use of violence in the vin- dication of their rights and who resort to methods of defense which are other- wise available to weaker parties, pro- vided that this can be done without in- jury to the rights and duties of others or of the community itself. (GS, n. 78) \A/E should look upon conscientious objec- **tion not as a scandal, but rather as a healthy sign. War will still not be replaced by more humane institutions for regulating conflict until citizens insist on principles of non-violence. John F. Kennedy once said, ‘‘War will exist until the distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige as the warrior does today.” Division of World Justice and Peace United States Catholic Conference October 15, 1969 (Single copy: 15c Bulk rates on request) Dsacldfflsd © DIVISION OF WORLD JUSTICE AND PEACE UNITED STATES CATHOLIC CONFERENCE 1312 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005