ARTICLE II: On War

749. Definition. War is a public taking up of arms for the sake of protecting or vindicating the republic. - It differs from sedition, which is a tumult or conflict of a multitude against the political society to which it pertains.

Division. War is called offensive if it happens for avenging injury; defensive, if it is sustained for repelling force.

750. Principles. I. War is licit if just conditions are present. This is established both from Sacred Scripture, for example Gen., 14; Exod., 17; Deuter., 23, etc., and from the example of holy kings. And the reason is because

the prince cannot, as a private person can, pursue his right in the judgment of a superior, and therefore he is held to protect it by right of war (St. Thom., 2.2, q. 40, a. 1).

It was said: If just conditions are present, which are numbered as three: 1. Legitimate authority, that is, supreme. - 2. A just and grave cause, which would outweigh the evils about to follow from war: for example a province usurped by an adversary to be recovered, a grave injury to the republic to be driven off, rebellion of subjects to be repressed, religion to be protected from wicked aggressors, indeed the defense of another nation unjustly oppressed; cf. the 62nd proposition on the principle of non-intervention condemned in the Syllabus. - A just cause would not be: enlargement of the kingdom, diminishing the power of a neighboring prince. A war of this kind is rather great robbery, says St. Augustine (de Civit. Dei, l. 4, c. 6). - 3. Right intention, namely that it happen from love of the common good. Yet if this last condition is lacking, since the war in itself is not unjust, there is not given an obligation of restoring. Cf. III, 402; S. Off., 20 Jun. 1866 (A. S. S., vol. 28, p. 451).¹

Hence you will deduce: 1. The PRINCE, before he begins war, is held diligently to weigh the matter before God and with his counselors.

In doubt concerning the justice of war, or with only a probable right, one must distinguish: a) If the war is defensive, the prince can certainly defend his own kingdom, because it is in possession. Let him always be prepared to satisfy the equitable and certain demands of the adversary. - b) If the war is offensive, in doubt even broad doubt, it is not licit to begin it; both because a possessor of good faith cannot, in doubt, be despoiled, and because here there is question of a cause from which horrible consequences arise for a third party (III, 403). Therefore they are not to be heard who think that for offensive war either greater probability or equal doubt suffices. - Let the whole controversy be proposed to the judgment of another prince, especially of the Supreme Pontiff. If the adversary rejects even this, true injury, and a certain one, is present, and offensive war becomes licit.

2. A SOLDIER doubting concerning the justice of war, if he is a subject and hired or coerced by the prince, is held to obey; because subjects are held to obey where sin is not certain, and besides they must presume war to be just, whenever the contrary is not established. But a soldier not hired, in doubt concerning the justice of offensive war, cannot hire himself; because, since there is question of the harm of a third party, he cannot inflict it unless the injustice of the possessor is established (III, 408; H. Ap., VIII, 31).

But in an evidently unjust war, soldiers cannot licitly kill enemies, not even for the cause of defense. Hence, if they cannot flee, they must take care that they do not strike with their blows. For they themselves are unjust aggressors, and contrary rights cannot be given in the same thing. - Yet if they are in good faith and do not ask, the confessor ought not instruct them, lest the sin become formal from material. Cf. Bouvier, de Bello, § 3.

751. II. The mode of waging war must be consonant with the rules of justice and the right of nations. Recall what was said n. 136.

Therefore: 1. Before war, namely offensive war, satisfaction must be sought from the adverse party; and if worthy satisfaction is offered, the offended party is held from charity and justice to accept it.

2. During the course of war, all those things are licit which are permitted by the right of nations and are necessary for obtaining the end. Hence, it is licit to prepare ambushes, to despoil innocent persons of goods, if they themselves are parts of the hostile republic and victory cannot be had in another mode, to demolish churches if the enemies use them for defense, to inflict damages on the goods of adversaries, which are called reprisals, provided the precept of the prince is present, and the injury inflicted by enemies is established, and just compensation is not exceeded. Sometimes, but only from a most urgent cause, it will be licit for a leader to give a city to plundering. Yet this is already opposed to today's customs, except the case in which a tax justly imposed would be denied.

Frauds are illicit which by no prudence can be guarded against, for example to infect wells and fountains with poison; acts of cruelty toward envoys of the adverse party; acts of perfidy toward the leader of the army, for example to suborn assassins who may secretly butcher him; killing of captives and unarmed persons. But captives, unless scandal or their special promise stands in the way, can flee; and in a war unjust on the part of the enemies, they can take away their goods with them in compensation of harm inflicted (Laymann, l. 2, tr. 3, c. 12, n. 15).

3. War having ended, public faith made with the enemy, even if he waged an unjust war, must be preserved; unless the enemy himself first broke faith, or the treaty is objectively evil. Leaders of the army and soldiers must take the greatest care lest after victory they exceed in punishing the conquered; especially they must avoid whatever savors of cruelty or a mind of harming.

752. Of the greatest moment, especially as regards priests who give their name to military service, are the following decisions of the S. Poenitentiary, on 18 March 1912:

1. Any soldier whatsoever, from that moment when he is constituted in the state of mobilization, is equated with those who are in danger of death. Therefore he can be absolved by any priest at hand, according to the rules handed on by approved authors.

2. Priests serving as soldiers, other things being equal, can during military operations make the sacred rite, absolve others, notwithstanding irregularity which perhaps they have incurred. But when the war has been settled, let them have recourse to the competent authority. Clerics fighting can, although perhaps irregular, be admitted to the sacraments.

3. Priests and other clerics are dispensed from the divine office during war and its proximate preparation. It is the same whether they are actively occupied in war, or only in ministering to the wounded. Cf. Nouv. Rev. Theol., vol. 44, p. 499; Quest. actuell., t. 112, p. 570; Ami du Cl., 1913, p. 145.

On 18 Dec. 1914, the Sacred Poenitentiary enlarged the faculties of chaplains of soldiers, and indeed: a) Chaplains of soldiers, while they accompany the army, can, during war, receive the confessions of any faithful whatsoever, and in their favor use all faculties entrusted to them for the forum of conscience. b) If they are detained in captivity, they enjoy the same power in favor of all fellow captives (A. A. S., VI, p. 712).