By Paul Schratz

Among the anti-war protests that took place around the world last weekend was Vancouver’s own rally, the largest in Canada, at the Vancouver Art Gallery.

A crowd estimated at anywhere from 5,000 to several times that turned out to hear speakers condemn war, its needlessness, and the claim that the concern with Iraq is completely about oil.

Presumably that’s for the politicians and generals to decide, but decision makers don’t make decisions in a vacuum, and rallies such as those on the weekend can help guide leaders by letting them know the public’s sentiment.

At the moment, the public’s sentiment appears decidedly against war. Only 15 per cent of Canadians support an attack led by the U.S. alone, says one poll.

Tracking the likelihood of war in each day’s headlines is like watching a roller coaster, but the one thing I don’t detect from very many people is this: we’ve completely exhausted our options.

That, according to our faith, means we’re not in a position to embark on a military campaign the likes of which is being considered for Iraq.

The Catholic Church is not a pacifist religion, and the Pope himself, it has been observed, is no pacifist. His personal experience with totalitarian regimes, and the teaching of the Church on just war doctrine, preclude that.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly defends the right of public authorities to use armed force in the defence of those they serve.

Just as clearly, however, the catechism emphasises that legitimate use of force must be for defensive purposes.

Would an attack under today’s scenario qualify as defensive? True, we remain in the aftermath of Sept. 11; Iraq’s oppressive regime inflicts undeniable brutality on its people; and there remains the possibility of Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction.

The catechism notes that it’s up to “the prudential judgement of those who have responsibility for the common good” to decide whether armed force is warranted. However, when one considers the political machinations still being played out in Baghdad, Washington, the United Nations, and other world capitals, and as the world continues its protesting and praying that a peaceful solution can be found, it’s difficult to conclude that “all peace efforts have failed,” as the catechism requires.

Pope John Paul II told Vatican-accredited diplomats Jan. 13 that military force must be “the very last option,” and that the future of humanity depends partly on the earth’s peoples and their leaders having the courage to say “no to war.”

The Pope said, “War is not always inevitable. It is always a defeat for humanity.”

In a statement last week from the KAIROS: Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives, the Justice and Peace Commission of the Canadian Council of Churches, and Project Ploughshares, and endorsed by Bishop Jacques Berthelet, president of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, the coalition rejected war on Iraq and called for diplomatic and political solutions as well as an end to economic sanctions against the country, a strategy of containment to prevent access to weapons of mass destruction, and consideration of legal and judicial measures against Saddam Hussein.

Vancouver Archbishop Adam Exner said he has “a lot of sympathy” for the joint statement. “I agree with the Pope, and strongly advocate his position, that war is the absolutely last option. Political and diplomatic dialogue should be pushed to their ultimate limits, while addressing the grave issues facing our world. We need to work on all aspects of peace.”

In the past, Archbishop Exner has used the example of a Table of the World with 10 place settings, at which three diners are consuming most of the food and resources while the other seven go hungry.

“It is easy to understand why peace at the table of the world cannot be expected as long as the inequity continues.” He suggests that the Pope may have had something along those lines in mind when he condemned “the irresponsible behaviour contributing to the depletion of the planet’s resources.”

Amid the peace protests, some people all too familiar with history may be concerned that society is constraining itself into a place where it instinctively rejects war, even if war might one day be warranted. C.S. Lewis concerned himself with that in the Screwtape Letters, where the devil Screwtape encourages his pupil Wormwood to motivate his victim to either of two extremes on peace and war, making patriotism or pacifism “part of his religion.”

Then, says Screwtape, let the man “come to regard it as the most important part,” with religion eventually becoming merely part of the cause and his faith valued “chiefly for the excellent arguments it can produce....”

It’s possible that many of today’s peace protesters do not agree with war under any circumstances. That isn’t the Catholic position, which asserts that “legitimate defence is a grave duty for whoever is responsible for the lives of others or the common good.”

God willing, however, may we one day reach the point where war is seen as something permitted in principle, but in practicality consigned to history. In these days of instant communications and travel, sophisticated global diplomacy, and a growing sense of international justice and responsibility, not to mention terrifying weapons of mass destruction, perhaps war will be one day rendered academic.