Just War and Orthodoxy: a Response to the Catechism of the Russian Orthodox Church

war and christ

Just War and Orthodoxy: A Response to the Catechism of the Russian Orthodox Church

Nicholas Sooy

n the summer of 2017, the Russian is considered to be necessary,” so long 1 Proekt Katekhizisa IOrthodox Church released a draft as it is for the sake of restoring justice Russkoi Pravoslavnoi of the Catechism of the Russian Ortho- and protecting neighbors (IV.VIII.2). Tserkvi (Moscow: dox Church for church-wide discus- This statement is problematic insofar Synodal Biblical 2 and Theological sion and review. The document is as it claims that Christians sometimes Commission, 2017). quite controversial, both because it must commit evil actions. While it is a The draft Catechism has few predecessors—leading many testament to the normativity of peace may be read in to wonder whether the Church should in this document that engaging in full at theolcom. produce official catechisms—and, in warfare is considered to be evil (even ru/images/2017/ КатехизисСББК_ particular, because it endorses ecu- when such actions are obligatory), the Проект.pdf. menism. Unfortunately for its critics, claim seems nonetheless to be that the second half of the text, which in- Christians sometimes have a moral cludes the comments on ecumenism, duty to do something immoral. “Nec- 2 The Basis of the has already been approved and will essary evil” is a dangerous category Social Concept of the not be changed. The fixity of this part to codify in a catechism, and a more Russian Orthodox of the Catechism is also unfortunate nuanced ethical theory is required. Church, Chapter for another reason: it includes a sec- VIII (Moscow: tion on war plagued by several his- The Catechism continues immediately: Department of External Church torical and interpretive errors. This “The Holy Church has canonised Relations of section, which is reproduced from the many soldiers, taking into account the Moscow 2000 document The Basis of the Social their Christian virtues and applying Patriarchate, 2000). Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church, to them Christ’s word: ‘Greater love Available in English represents the most significant depar- hath no man but this, that a man lay at mospat.ru/en/ documents/social- ture from established church teaching down his life for his friends’” (IV. concepts/viii/. 2 within the entire Catechism. VII.2). While it is true that there are Translations in this many soldier-saints, no saint has ever essay are taken from The relevant section begins on a been canonized for military accom- the official English strong foundation, proclaiming: “War plishments. Unlike in pagan cultures, text. is evil. Just as the evil in man in gen- the Church has never considered eral, war is caused by the sinful abuse military valor a Christian virtue. The of the God-given freedom. . . . Killing, closest the Church has come to canon- without which wars cannot happen, izing someone for military valor was was regarded as a grave crime before the glorification in 2001 of the Russian God as far back as the dawn of the war hero Fyodor Ushakov, who never holy history” (IV.VIII.1). After this, lost a battle. But as Archpriest Maxim however, the document claims that, Maximov, a member of the Synodal “While recognising war as evil . . . war Commission on Canonization, com-

The Wheel 12 | Winter 2018 51 3 Interview with mented during a radio interview with ten in one law, who will be its best re- Maxim Maximov, the Voice of Russia: “Admiral Ushakov specter—the one who obeys only one Voice of Russia, June was not canonized for his military commandment or the one who obeys 1, 2007. heroism—this isn’t enough in itself for both?” When the Hagerenes said that canonization.”3 the best respecter of law is the one who obeys both commandments, the holy By speaking of the canonization of preacher continued: “Christ is our God soldiers immediately after implicitly Who ordered us to pray for our offend- endorsing the notion of “necessary ers and to do good to them. He also evil,” the Catechism gives the impres- said that no one of us can show greater sion that glorification should follow love in life than he who gives his life after soldiery rather than repentance. for his friends (Jn. 15:3). That is why we This contradicts Basil’s thirteeneth generously endure offences caused us Canon, which requires returning sol- as private people. But in company we diers to refrain from Communion for defend one another and give our lives three years as a means of repentance. in battle for our neighbours, so that Furthermore, the Catechism’s quota- you, having taken our fellows pris- tion from the Gospel of John is mis- oners, could not imprison their souls used as a proof-text in this context. together with their bodies by forcing Christ was speaking of himself when them into renouncing their faith and commenting on laying down one’s into godless deeds. Our Christ-loving life. The interpretive context of this soldiers protect our Holy Church with pericope has always been the cruci- arms in their hands. They safeguard fixion: it describes martyrdom rather the sovereign in whose sacred person than warfare. To paraphrase General they respect the image of the rule of the Patton, in war you do not aim to lay Heavenly King. They safeguard their down your life, but to make your en- land because with its fall the home au- emy lay down his. thority will inevitably fall too and the evangelical faith will be shaken. These Next, the Catechism quotes at length are precious pledges for which soldiers from the Life of St. Cyril the Philoso- should fight to the last. And if they give pher: their lives in battlefield, the Church will include them in the community of the When St. Cyril Equal-to-the-Apostles holy martyrs and call them intercessors was sent by the Patriarch of Constan- before God.” (IV.VII.2) tinople to preach the gospel among the Saracens, in their capital city he This appeal to the life of St. Cyril lacks had to enter into a dispute about faith nuance and is potentially misleading with Muhammadan scholars. Among in a number of ways. First, we must others, they asked him: “Your God is recognize that, while this quota- Christ. He commanded you to pray for tion claims that the saint was sent to enemies, to do good to those who hate “preach the gospel” and therefore im- and persecute you and to offer the other plies that he was active as a Christian cheek to those who hit you, but what missionary without imperial concerns, do you actually do? If anyone offends other historical sources confirm that you, you sharpen your sword and go Cyril was sent on a diplomatic mission, into battle and kill. Why do you not to engage in peace negotiations on obey your Christ?” Having heard this, behalf of the Roman Empire with the St. Cyril asked his fellow-polemists: Abbasid Caliphate. According to one “If there are two commandments writ- scholar, “The discussions [between

52 Cyril and the Abbasids] took place other scholars on a range of issues, but 4 Anthony-Emil in the course of lengthy symposia, it does not record everything that is Tachiaos, Cyril around a table laden with provender. quoted in the Catechism. Cyril’s reply and Methodius of . . . The Arabs cross-examined Cyril is simply, “God said: ‘Pray for them Thessalonica: The Acculturation of the and were stunned by the extent of his which despitefully use you.’ And He Slavs (Crestwood, knowledge. . . . The Byzantine mis- also said: ‘Greater love hath no man NY: St Vladimir’s sion’s visit ended with a guided tour than this, that a man lay down his life Seminary Press, of Samarra’s magnificent palaces and for his friends.’ We do this for the sake 2001), 32. 4 splendid gardens.” Thus, far from a of friends, lest their souls be captured 5 5 “The Life of combative dispute with hostile “Sar- together with their bodies.” Thus, Constantine,” trans. acens,” Cyril’s work was as a peace- the Catechism quotes from a later and Marvin Kantor, maker and diplomat among intellec- evidently embellished version of Cyr- in Medieval Slavic tuals, who were sharing in a cultural il’s life, one that appears to support Lives of Saints and the Catechism’s arguments, but fails to Princes (Ann Arbor: flourishing which included the trans- University of lation of many works by Aristotle, acknowledge the earlier tradition that Michigan, 1983), 39 Galen, Plato, and the Neoplatonists gives an altogether different picture of into Arabic by Christian scholars, and the saint’s achievements. the work of Byzantine artists on the decoration of the new capital of Sa- In any case, the context provided by marra. the Vita suggests that the best way to interpret Cyril’s remarks is not as an Second, the work of interpreting ha- apodictic statement on the ethics of giography is complicated by the exis- war, as it is taken in the Catechism. tence of multiple traditions. The ninth- Rather, the Vita Constantini presents century Vita Constantini—the oldest Cyril engaging in rhetorical exhibition. extant life of Cyril—records a lengthy As any reader of Plato knows, sympo- back-and-forth between Cyril and the sia traditionally involved participants Bishop Cornelius of Volgodonsk and Salsk blesses Russian war planes (August 2015)

The Wheel 12 | Winter 2018 53 St. Cyril, Equal-to- at a great feast standing and giving the-Apostles, by speeches to demonstrate their rhetor- Mikhail Vasilyevich ical skill. Thus, when challenged with Nesterov (1890–94), a difficult conundrum, it was expected in St. Vladimir’s Cathedral, Kiev. that Cyril would reply with rhetorical elegance and answer the objection— which is precisely what he does. He begins with a rhetorical question, asking if it is better to fulfill one or two commandments. He then quotes two commandments, and claims that Christians fulfill both in warfare. The point made by the Vita is that Cyril excelled in rhetoric and dialectic. To have done anything less would have sabotaged the diplomatic negotiations and cultural exchange. Moreover, had Cyril denied Christian participation in warfare, he would have sabotaged the peace effort. It is important to acknowledge the difference which potentially exists between the rhetorical demonstration preserved in the hagi- ography and what might have been the considered theological statement of the historical Cyril. to become a soldier. . . . If he has shed By failing to contextualize the words blood, he is not to partake of the mys- attributed to Cyril adequately, theCat - teries, unless he is purified by punish- echism presents a misleading picture ment, tears, and wailing.” of the Christian attitude towards warfare. The most problematic part is the Immediately after the section quoted saying attributed to Cyril that, “if [sol- above on Cyril, the Catechism contin- diers] give their lives in battlefield, the ues: “‘They that take the sword shall Church will include them in the com- perish with the sword.’ These words munity of the holy martyrs.” With- of the Saviour justify the idea of just out question, this demands further war” (IV.VII.3). This is the most bla- comment. Not only is this part of the tant misuse of scripture in the entire speech absent in the earliest sources, Catechism. The pericope quoted has but it contradicts established church never in the Orthodox tradition been teaching. In the tenth century, Em- understood as justifying warfare, but peror Nikephoros II Phokas requested precisely the opposite. In context, that soldiers who die on the battlefield Jesus was telling Peter to put away be glorified as martyrs. The Church his sword and not to fight. Christ soundly rejected this appeal, with Pa- went on to say that if he wanted to, triarch Polyeuktos appealing to Basil’s he could have called down an army of thirteenth Canon, which excommuni- angels to fight, but that this was not cated soldiers, as demonstrating that the right way. In commenting on this warfare is a sin. Similarly, Canon 14 of passage, Tertullian writes: “How will Hippolytus states: “A Christian is not [a Christian man] war . . . without a

54 sword, which the Lord has taken away? the notion of Just War may be traced 6 Tertullian, . . .The Lord afterward, in disarming back to Cicero and ideas in natural On Idolatry, in Peter, unbelted every soldier.”6 The law. Without explaining those origins, The Writings of Catechism, in contrast with scripture JWT makes little sense. One is left won- Quintus Sept. Flor. Tertullianus, and tradition, interprets this verse as dering how much of the philosophical vol. 1, trans. justifying war—in the sense that if our underpinnings of natural law and Cic- Sydney Thelwall enemies take up swords, they will die ero are here endorsed. Secondly, the (Edinburgh, T. & T. by our swords, since we will kill them. exposition follows certain elements of Clark, 1869) 171. contemporary JWT but leaves out oth- 7 Stanley Harakas, Following this dubious line of argu- ers. It excludes jus post bellum require- “No Just War in ment, the Catechism next introduces ments—that is, conditions concerning the Fathers,” In “Just War Theory” (JWT). The Cate- the proper ending of a war—as well Communion (2003), chism’s exposition of JWT should be as a host of other obligations spelled incommunion. org/2005/08/02/ commended for recognizing that it out in the Roman Catholic catechism, no-just-war-in-the- developed in the West rather than including an unequivocal condemna- fathers/. the East, in order to “curb the ele- tion of nuclear weapons, a mandate to ments of military violence” (IV.VII.3). work for peace through international- 8 John McGuckin, The theory was originally intended ism and disarmament, a recommenda- “A Conflicted Heritage: The to promote peace, and not to justify tion of nonviolence, and an elevation Byzantine Religious war, which was already occurring of the vocation of conscientious objec- Establishment and was viewed as a good by many in tion.9 By contrast, though the Russian of a War Ethic,” the West. War needed no justification: Catechism endorses working for peace, Dumbarton Oaks rather, it needed to be held account- it condemns those who practice “non Papers 65/66 (Washington: able to justice. -resistance to evil by force,” which Dumbarton Oaks, would possibly include conscientious 2012): 39. Still, the Catechism would represent objectors, instead claiming the “Chris- the first time that the Eastern Church tian moral law deplores not . . . taking 9 Catechism of the had endorsed JWT. While certain another’s life . . . but rather malice in Catholic Church (Vatican City: Western authors such as Augustine the human heart” (IV.VII.4). So long Libreria Editrice did approach something like the mod- as one does not hate one’s enemy, Vaticana, 1993), ern idea of just war, it took several killing can be moral. Not only does §§2302–2317. centuries before these reflections were this implicit condemnation of consci- known outside the Latin-speaking entious objection break with both ca- world, and even then they did not be- nonical and Just War traditions, it also come authoritative. Stanley Harakas contradicts the earlier statements of notes that it is not present in the Greek the Catechism itself. Fathers and that “no case can be made for the existence of an Orthodox just- One of the ironies of the Catechism’s war theory.”7 Or as John McGuckin endorsement of JWT is that there ac- states in his commentary on Basil’s tually is a historical relation between Canon 13, “What this Basilian canon JWT and Orthodoxy, but not one that does most effectively is to set a No En- endorses war. The Just War tradi- try sign to any potential theory of Just tion was influential in tenth-century War within Christian theology.”8 It is France, when the pre-Schism Church both significant and dubious that the held a series of “Peace Councils.” The Catechism breaks with established Or- first such council occurred in 975, thodox teaching in this way. when Bishop Guy of Le Puy threatened excommunication unless soldiers took The exposition of JWT in the Catechism an oath of peace. The ensuing Pax Dei is weak for a number of reasons. First, or “Peace of God” movement can be

The Wheel 12 | Winter 2018 55 10 See Thomas Head properly called the first peace move- history, when the Catholic Church has and Richard Landes, ment in history, since the bishops who begun to say that “just wars” are now eds., The Peace of God: led it used relics and the cults of saints impossible due to technology, comes Social Violence and Religious Response in to draw large crowds that marched for off as a step endorsing war rather than France around the Year peace. The bishops then issued several limit it, which has always been the 1000 (Ithaca: Cornell canons which anathematized those point of JWT. University Press, who acted unethically during war. 1992), 4. These canons formed the basis for all The Catechism should either endorse 11 George T. Dennis, subsequent “laws of war” in the West. all of the Just War tradition, with its Timothy S. Miller, In 994, at one of the Peace Councils, emphasis on peacemaking and its John W. Nesbitt, the bishops released the following privileging of conscientious objection, eds., Peace and statement: “Since we know that with- or it should refrain altogether from War in Byzantium: out peace no man may see God, we doing so. A superior position would Essays in Honor of George T. Dennis, adjure you, in the name of the Lord, be the traditional Byzantine attitude, 10 S.J. (Washington: to be men of peace.” The Pax Dei which viewed war as evil, full stop, Catholic University movement eventually led to interna- and always something of which we of America Press, tional laws outlawing warfare on cer- must repent. Consider, for example, 1992), 52. tain days and restricting the weapons the recorded statement of Emperor that could be used. The foundations of Justin II after returning victoriously JWT thus lie in a pre-Schism Christian from a military campaign: “Do not de- peace movement. The trajectory that light in deeds of blood, have no part originated with Pax Dei culminated in in murders, do not repay evil with the Hague Conventions of 1899 and evil, and do not imitate me in my en- 1907, which saw the passage of the mity.”11 It is striking that an emperor, first international laws restricting war at his moment of triumph, would still in the modern era and were the result show repentance and chastise people of the strong peace movement at the not to glorify war. Even when engag- time. The Hague Conventions were ing in warfare, Emperor Justin ac- originally proposed and spearheaded knowledged that it was not just. by St. Tsar Nicholas II—the only Or- thodox saint who has been nominated In endorsing Just War theory, the for a Nobel Peace Prize. new Catechism of the Russian Orthodox Church abuses scriptural, canonical, The Orthodox Church, while never and hagiographic tradition, departing endorsing JWT, has thus influenced substantially from the received Ortho- the development of the Just War tra- dox view. At the very least, it would dition, which, throughout its history, be preferable for the Catechism to get has primarily been a peace tradition the sources right and show historical concerned with placing legal restric- and philosophical nuance. But above tions on warfare. None of this com- all, it should be revised to proclaim © 2018 The Wheel. May be distributed for plex history is reflected in the Cate- Christ’s message of peace, rather than noncommercial use. chism. Furthermore, the introduction distorting his words to serve the ends www.wheeljournal.com of JWT to Orthodoxy at this point in of worldly power and war.

Nicholas Sooy is a doctoral student in the Philosophy Depart- ment at Fordham University. He is co-director of the Orthodox Peace Fellowship and chief editor of In Communion.