GOD, WAR, AND CONSCIENCE

Many military officers believe that they morally ought to obey legal orders to fight even in unjust wars: they have a moral obligation to exercise indiscriminate obedience to legal orders to fight. I argue that officers should not be required to exercise indiscriminate obedience: certain theistic commitments to which many citizens and officers adhere prohibit indiscriminate obedience to legal orders to fight. This theistic argument constitutes adequate reason not to require officers to exercise indiscriminate obedience. However, this raises a further question: namely, whether it is appropriate to rely on such a theistic argument when shaping the moral requirements of military officership. I argue that citizens and officers have good reason to make public decisions solely on religious grounds and so are free to follow my theistic argument when shaping the requirements of military officership.     

Unjust Lies,Just Wars? A Christian Pacifist Conversation with Augustine

Pacifism is routinely criticized as sectarian, incoherent, and preoccupied with moral purity at the expense of responsibility. The author contends that the pacifism of John Howard Yoder is vulnerable to none of these charges and defends this claim by establishing parallels between Yoder's analysis of killing and Augustine's analysis of lying. Although, within the terms of his own argument, Augustine's rejection of all lying as unjust is consistent with his condoning of some killing as just, the author shows that given a different conception of the defining characteristic of God (noncoercive love instead of truth), Augustine's theological argument against lying would become an argument against violence. The author therefore suggests that Yoder's rejection of killing is no more sectarian, incoherent, or irresponsible that Augustine's rejection of lying.     

THOMAS AQUINAS BETWEEN JUST WAR AND PACIFISM

Some recent authors have argued that Aquinas deliberately integrated a pacifist outlook into his just war theory. Others, by contrast, have maintained that his rejection of pacifism was unequivocal. The present article attempts to set the historical record straight by an examination of Aquinas's writings on this topic. In addition to Q. 40, A. 1 of Summa theologiae II–II, the text usually cited in this connection, this article considers the biblical commentaries where Aquinas explains how the Gospel “precepts of patience,” especially Matthew 5:39, “Do not resist evil,” should be interpreted in light of the doctrine of just war. The article concludes that Aquinas formulated a two‐stage theory whereby pacifism was rejected as a suitable form of agency for the state (respublica), while it was affirmed as the appropriate response to evil for the agency of the church (ecclesia).     

Military Service in the Church Orders

The debate concerning the approach of the early Christians to the military can be advanced by paying attention to a genre of literature that scholars have largely ignored: the church orders. These documents—the Apostolic Tradition, Canons of Hippolytus, Testament of Our Lord, and Apostolic Constitutions—are illuminating in that they deal with ethics within comprehensive treatments of worship, catechesis and pastoral life. They also are useful in that they, as variations upon a common original, are means of monitoring change across the third and fourth centuries. This article uses the church orders to assess four elements of a “new consensus” (David Hunter) on Christians in the military. By and large it confirms these, but at times it alters emphases and adds nuances. It argues that: (1) the church orders viewed killing as the big problem for Christians in the legions, not idolatry; (2) the church orders confirm that the pre‐Christendom church was divided on Christian participation in the legions; (3) the church orders provide evidence for both discontinuity and continuity on the issue across the centuries, although the deepest continuity, based on John the Baptist's “rule” of Luke 3.14, is between the pre‐Constantinian laity and later theologians; (4) the church orders confirm a regional variation in attitude and practice. The church orders' authority in practice is never clear.     

UNJUST WAR AND THE CATHOLIC SOLDIER

Roman Catholic teaching holds both that wars must conform to certain criteria in order to be considered morally justifiable, and that individuals are accountable for the moral content of their actions. Are Catholics serving in the armed forces therefore required to refuse to serve in unjust wars? Are they entitled—or obligated—to defer to the judgments of others as to whether a war is just? If so, whose judgment? I suggest that there are exceptional characteristics of military service that may factor in the formation of conscience as it is described in Catholic teaching. Specifically, just as the Church sees the indispensable role of the armed forces in protecting society as reconciling the use of force with the Catholic injunction to seek peace, so too may the indispensable role of obedience and deference to authority in the armed forces—while never supplanting the responsibilities of individual discernment—reconcile fighting in an unjust war with the obligations of conscience.     

Posttraumatic stress and worry as mediators and moderators between political stressors and emotional and behavioral disorders in Palestinian children

This study was designed to assess whether the symptoms of posttraumatic stress mediate or moderate the relationship between political stressors and emotional and behavioral disorders in Palestinian children. It was hypothesized that (a) posttraumatic stress and worry mediate the effect of political stressors on behavioral and emotional disorders and (b) the relationship between political stressors and behavioral and emotional disorders should be attenuated for children with low levels of worry and posttraumatic stress and strengthened for children with high levels of worry and posttraumatic stress. The total sample was 1267 school age children of both sexes with a mean age of 11.97 years. Interviews were conducted with children at school. As hypothesized, the results indicated that posttraumatic stress and worry mediated and moderated the relationship between political stressors and emotional and behavioral disorders in children. Cognitive-behavioral therapy may be used to reduce the incidence of posttraumatic stress and decrease self-reported worry, somatic symptoms, general anxiety, and depression among children exposed to political trauma. Cognitive-behavioral treatment that exclusively targets excessive worry can lead to clinical change in the other interacting subsystems at the cognitive, physiological, affective and behavioral levels.     

Relationships Among Conflict Management Styles,Levels of Conflict,and Reactions to Work

Abstract

Relationships among (a) conflict management styles, (b) levels of conflict, (c) two general reactions to work, and (d) four types of individual outcomes experienced by employees in the United States were assessed in two studies. In Study 1, subordinates using a high-obliging style with supervisors experienced more intrapersonal conflict, supervisors using a high-integrating style with subordinates reported more intrapersonal and intragroup conflict, and low-dominating supervisors reported significantly greater intragroup conflict. In Study 2, high-integrating subordinates experienced less intrapersonal, intragroup, and intergroup conflict than low-integrating subordinates did. The results of analyses also indicated that there was a strong relationship between integrating and all six organizational outcomes. Lower job satisfaction and fewer interpersonal rewards were associated with a high-dominating style. Both integrating and compromising were positively related to interpersonal outcomes, and dominating and avoiding were negatively related to interpersonal outcomes. Finally, the more conflict individuals experienced on the job, the lower their job satisfaction and their outcomes were.     

Buddhism in war: A study of cause and effect from Sri Lanka

In this article, I explore two attitudes towards war present among Buddhists in contemporary Sri Lanka: support for an all‐out military victory over the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and support for a ceasefire followed by a negotiated settlement. After a phenomenological presentation of the two approaches, I turn to the factors that have conditioned them. I argue that canonical narrative is drawn on both to support the war and to reject it and then look at more recent colonial history to provide further data, particularly to the dynamic undergirding Buddhist support for war. In the nineteenth century, under British rule, one significant ‘other’ for Sri Lankan Buddhists was the Christian. A pattern of spirited defence developed in the face of what was seen as humiliation and betrayal at the hands of Christians. This pattern, the paper suggests, can throw light on responses in the present to the very different ‘other’, the LITE.