_____Dossier___________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Justice, Not Vengeance
The Vatican’s top diplomatic official dispelled some public confusion when he said that American strikes against terrorists could be morally justified, as long as they met the established criteria for just warfare.

Interview by Jean-Marie Guenois

In an interview published in Paris on October 12, Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran, the Vatican’s Secretary for Relations with States, told the Catholic newspaper La Croix that—contrary to some press reports—there was no split within the Vatican regarding the justice of American military plans. He said that the Holy See always hoped for a peaceful solution to the international crisis, but recognized the right and duty of every government to take military action to protect its own citizens.

Does the condemnation of the terrorist actions of September 11 imply justification for a military offensive of this scope?

Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran: I think it does, as long as the use of force has clearly defined objectives. Clearly an operation like the one that is underway must answer to some moral criteria: protecting the lives of the innocent, and not making civilians the object of direct attacks. The use of force must be proportionate to the harm that is being combated, and not simply in response to the means one’s adversaries are using. The use of weapons of mass destruction must always be excluded, because of their power to inflict devastation over an entire area.

In what sense are you disappointed by the American air strikes?

Tauran: Whenever men are forced to take up arms in order to defend their rights, the logic of violence takes over, and that is always dangerous for mankind. But we must recognize that Operation Enduring Freedom is a response to the terrorist acts of aggression against innocent civilians on September 11—acts that violated all international law and humanitarian norms. Today we all recognize that the American government, like any other government, has the right to legitimate defense, because it has a duty to guarantee the security of its citizens.

You mention humanitarian norms. In that regard, what do you think about the humanitarian aspect of the American offensive—the dropping of relief supplies for the population?

Tauran: We understand that the Ameican leadership wants to indicate that they do not intend to hold the people of Afghanistan responsible; the delivery of relief supplies is an expression of their intentions. But at the same time, there can be no doubt that running police operations in conjunction with humanitarian missions poses some risks, despite even the best intentions.

In response to this conflict, the Holy See has given the impression of being somewhat confused. On one hand, there was the statement by the director of the press office, pointing out the justification for legitimate defense and the limits of armed intervention, as set out in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. On the other hand the Pope condemned the acts of terrorism, but called for peace. Do you see a contradiction there? What is the position of the Holy See?

Tauran: The position of the Secretariat of State has always been that any response to the barbarous acts of September 11 should not be an act of vengeance, but an act of justice, with the goal of rectification for the grave injustice that was done. The intervention cannot be an occasion for a display of hatred, and the means chosen for the reparation of that injustice should be peaceful. It is only when one has exhausted all the political, diplomatic, and financial means that one can think about recourse to the use of force. We have been consistently reminding everyone with whom we speak that the work of justice should be accompanied by the education of men in pardon and charity. Justice and love for one’s neighbor go together.

Prior to the Gulf War, the Pope was adamantly opposed to a military reaction. In this case his position does not seem to be the same. What is the difference?

Tauran: The Pope said at the time, “war is an adventure from which there is no return.” In 1991, the choice of a military option was made first, and then negotiations followed. In this case, leaders took the time to evaluate the situation, so as not to strike back out of emotion.

Do you think that the American offer to pursue recognition for a Palestinian state could be an important factor in easing this crisis?

Tauran: It is certainly true that one of the causes for the crisis is the stalemate in the peace process in the Middle East—along with the frustrations of the Palestinian people, who are waiting for concrete results from a peace process which to date has given them nothing but trouble. It is essential to return to the negotiating table, and renew the dynamic of peace which could lead to the creation of a viable Palestinian state.

What other concrete steps do you think could end this crisis?

Tauran: I don’t want to get involved in “political fiction.” But I think that we have sufficient juridical means for resolving political problems and finding a just and peaceful solution to the conflicts surrounding the Holy Land and the other conflicts around the world. We don’t have to invent anything new; we just have to put to use the instruments and principles that have been set forth in past years, and which are well known by all the actors on the international scene.

Speaking in more general terms, some people argue that this crisis is an instance of “culture war,” between Islam and the West. Do you accept that analysis?

Tauran: I would say, first of all, that Islamic terrorism is a perversion of Islam. The Holy Father, during his recent pastoral visit to Kazakhstan, clearly indicated the esteem with which the Catholic Church regards true Islam—”the authentic Islam, the Islam that prays, and leads toward solidarity with those who are in need.” He did not hesitate to say that “hatred, fanaticism, and terrorism profane the name of God and disfigure the image of man.”

Clearly there are some people who use religion to serve political purposes. That is something that a Christian can absolutely never justify. Instead of a “culture war,” Christians offer “the dialogue between cultures,” with the confidence that God’s work is to form all humanity into one family.

The “weapon” recommended by the Church is prayer. But it may seem hopeless at the moment. How can we hope for peace, when all we see is violence?

Tauran: The Gospel invites us to examine our consciences. Terrorism, the poverty in which a great portion of humanity lives, the unresolved conflicts, the arsenals of extremely sophisticated and dangerous weapons—these all illustrate the state of our distress, and the sinfulness in which we find ourselves.

Through the light of the Gospel we know that peace is not simply the absence of war. It is also more than just a principle. It is a spirit; it involves a renewal of hearts; it requires the adoption of spiritual principles. So the Church sees the need for a process of education, as well as for prayers of supplication. There is no peace without truth, no peace without brotherhood, no peace without freedom, no peace without solidarity, no peace without finding—with God’s help—how men can live in harmony with himself, with others, and with the world which his Creator gave him.

Back to Catholic Infromation Center's Periodical Page