Madam, - The circumstances in which war might be considered morally justified have within Christendom been decided by applying the arguments advanced in what is known as the "Just War" tradition or theory, which can be traced back to Augustine and underwent substantial refinement and development by the Canonists during the Medieval period. The classic expression of "Just War" theory is found in Thomas Aquinas and still forms the basis of current thinking.
Under the heading of the right to make war (jus ad bellum), the theory begins with a consideration of the circumstances where recourse to war is justified, and offers several criteria: there must be a just cause; war must be sanctioned by legitimate authority; there must exist a right intention; the good to be achieved must outweigh the harm done (the proportionality principle); war must only be undertaken as a last resort.
The "Just War" tradition also makes provision, under the heading jus in bello, for restraint in the conduct of war. Here it offers the criteria of discrimination and proportionality, which are usually understood as involving non-combatant immunity and restrictions on the type of weapons used.
In the current debate over conflict with Iraq, it is difficult to see how even if Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction, war against a potential aggressor could be considered to constitute a just cause. Such a notion would justify war with North Korea, China, between India and Pakistan, and goodness knows how many future wars.
In terms of the good to be achieved weighed against the harm done (proportionality), it must be borne in mind that if the Iraqi military remain loyal a war would risk regional instability and store up yet more of the kind of resentment that has fuelled international terrorism. Moreover, the likely consequences of such a war fought in a largely urban setting would be massive civilian casualties, which would also fail the test of "discrimination" and "proportionality" in the conduct of war.
On the question of "right intention", when the biggest oil consumer seeks yet more influence among the biggest oil producers, economic interests are clearly involved and it is difficult to deny that the motive for this war is in part economic.
With regard to the criterion of "last resort" this test fails too, since there are alternatives to war with Iraq. First, a policy of containment, whereby it is the use of weapons of mass destruction that would warrant action. Second, a policy to develop the jurisdiction of international law to bring Saddam Hussein to justice for his crimes against humanity.
It is regrettable that the Irish Government has not done more to oppose war with Iraq, not least through its stay in the Security Council of the United Nations. It would seem that although we are still ostensibly a Christian country, concern about US investment in Ireland has resulted in a disinclination to apply Christian principles to Mr Bush's foolhardy and dangerous policy. This indifference is lamentable and must not go unchallenged. - Yours, etc.,
Rev. JOHN MARSDEN, Newbridge, Co Kildare.