SINCE

INCE Apostolic times, the Church has cherished and valued the spirit of nonviolence 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

HE 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. Nabstaining, some might conclude that just war in the modern world is not possible, citing Pope John's statement in Pacem in Terris: "Therefore, in this age of ours which prides itself on its atomic power, it is irrational 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 General Assembly of the United Nations.

FROM

[ROM the previously stated documents and traditions, it is clear that a Catholic (either in-service or out-of-service) can be a conscientious 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 military exemption by reason of conscience. On the other hand, we are encouraged by recent court decisions and the actions of draft boards which uphold the primacy of conscience in this regard.

and aid him in his "service to the human community. What he often lacks is basic information about the draft and its alternatives. He meets opposition from those who should, in fact, be counseling and aiding him. Once granted the status of a conscientious objector, he often finds himself in a menial and degrading alternative service in order to test his sincerity." We therefore recommend:

1. That each diocese initiate or cooperate 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 meaningful employment for the concientous objector.

WE

E are not only concerned about the status of the conscientious objector, but also concerned about that of the Selective Conscientious Objector. His status is complicated 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 Objector, recommending

a modification of the Selective Service Act making it possible, although not easy, for so-called selective conscientious 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.

This is a critical moment in the history of the Vietnam war. Intensive efforts on the part of our government as well as other parties involved appear to be refining the final details of a settlement which will end the fighting. Recalling our exhortation a year ago to our nation's leaders and to leaders of all nations to "bring the war to an end with no further delay," we pray earnestly to Christ, the Prince of Peace, for a successful outcome of the present negotiations: that is, for a just and lasting peace with stability and freedom for all the nations and peoples of Southeast Asia. We couple this prayer with a plea to both sides for an end to bombing and terrorism which are causing such loss of civilian life and destruction of the land itself. Indeed, a particularly anguishing and, in many cases, immoral aspect of this war has been the suffering and death inflicted on non-combatants.

It is vitally important that Americans now turn their attention to the task of reconciliation not only in Southeast Asia but also in our country. This war can well leave a residue of bitterness which could poison our national life for years to come. This must not be allowed to happen. We must instead seek to resolve our differences in a spirit of mutual understanding and respect.

Special attention must be given to the young people of our nation whom the war has profoundly affected in so many ways, material, psychological, and spiritual. Our returning veterans and especially the wounded and the prisoners of war, must be given every possible consideration and assistance to enable them to reintegrate their personal and professional lives into civilian society. Our sincere compassion should be extended to the families of men killed in the fighting. The dead, the maimed, and the missing in action should have constant remembrance in our prayers. Those who continue to serve in the military should also receive the moral and material support of the nation.

In a spirit of reconciliation, all possible consideration must be given to those young men who, because of sincere conscientious

belief, refused to participate in the war. A year ago, we urged "that the civil authorities grant generous pardon of convictions incurred under the Selective Service Act, with the understanding that sincere conscientious objectors should remain open in principle to some form of service to the community." (Resolution on Southeast Asia, National Conference of Catholic Bishops, November, 1971). We again urge government officials and all Americans to respond in this spirit to the conspicuous need to find a solution to the problems of these men. Generosity represents the best of the American tradition and should characterize our response to this urgent challenge.

Generosity must also mark our participation in efforts to rebuild the war-torn nations and societies of Southeast Asia. There can be no doubt that the people of North and South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia have suffered a tragedy far greater than ours. The dramatic and successful programs of aid and reconstruction carried out by the United States following World War II provide a model for what is demanded of us now. We must be unstinting in the expending of our moral, material and technical resources and skills on behalf of the people of Southeast Asia who have suffered so grievously.

Finally, we believe that the imperatives of peace now demand intensive study of many complex and pressing moral issues. The return of peace should not cause a slackening of attention to these matters. The experience of recent years amply illustrates the fact that grave ethical and moral questions regarding warfare remain unresolved. While recognizing the right of self-defense, we are nevertheless convinced that war is not an apt means of settling disputes. The quest for viable means of preventing war and for effective alternative methods of resolving conflicts-through such agencies as the United Nations-is an urgent imperative. Technological skill in the science of war must not outstrip humane skill in the arts of peace. Church agencies, including the United States Catholic Conference, Cath