Loyola University Maryland - Evergreen / Green and Gray Yearbook (Baltimore, MD)

Page 23 text:

a purely philosophical standpoint. It is an axiom of philoso- phers that a good end never justifies a bad means. Just as such an end never justifies such a m.eans, neither does such a motive; this is an accepted doctrine of philosophers. No mat- ter how good or beneficial the end to be attained, or how upright and holy the motive which actuates the deed, if the means we employ are bad, then we are prohibited from acting. Hence, as war is a means, no matter how good the motive which actuates it, or how uplifting the end to be attained, all that is necessary to show it offends against the teachings of philosophy is to prove that it is a bad means. But, ladies and gentlemen, from the arguments advanced already this evening, have we not done this? We have seen that it is against jus- tice, that it violates the moral law and disregards the teachings of Christ : and what greater proof could we ask to show that it is a bad means and hence unreasonable — for reason should be the very rock upon which philosophy is founded. There is one case, however, when war is not ethically wrong : namely, in the case of unjust aggression. When a man forci- bly enters our house we are allowed to use armed resistance, for the intruder is an unjust aggressor and our existence is threatened. However, as we have endeavored to show through- out, that the same law which binds men also applies to nations, we must remain consistent. The same law applies to nations ; hence if one nation finds itself the object of unjust aggression, it is allowed to use armed resistance. In this case alone it was justifiable. In conclusion let me say that lasting peace eventually de- pends upon the following conditions: INTERNATIONAL PEACE CANNOT BE HAD UNLESS THERE IS PEACE IN EACH NATION; NATIONAL PEACE IS IMPOSSI- BLE WITHOUT PEACE IN EACH STATE IN THAT NATION; PEACE IN THE STATE DEPENDS UPON PEACE IN EACH UNIT OF THE STATE, OR THE HOME AND FAMILY; PEACE IN THE HOME IS AB- SURD WITHOUT PEACE IN EACH INDIVIDUAL HEART— AND THIS, MY FRIENDS, SUPPOSES A SPIRIT OF TRUER CHARITY, GREATER LOVE, FOR OUR FELLOW MEN, AND A CLOSER APPROACH TO GOD. (21)

Page 22 text:

not right, — I say I need not dwell on these things, for they all have been ably pictured to you many times within these very walls. A fallacy extant at present, is that there is one moral law for men and another for nations. It does seem absurd on the very face of it. But, ladies and gentlemen, we cannot afford to laugh at it, for this is the principle upon which many of the rulers of nations are acting, in these days of boasted civili- zation. They force the nation to do things which they in their personal lives would discountenance ; they forget that the nation’s responsibility of making and keeping peace in its re- lation to other nations is the same as that of the individual to other men. The principles which govern the life and conduct of one are equally obligatory in the case of the other ; the moral law is as unbending, the conscience as imperative, when a man voluntarily compounds his deeds with those of other men, as when he acts alone. Whatever in principle is a crime for a man, a fortiori, would seem a crime for a nation; and we all know that battle and war, except in the case of un- just aggression, are wrong for the individual. The doctrine of the founder of Christianity, was one of eternal peace— the absolute antithesis of war. Hence what greater proof do we need to show the error of the accepted attitude of civilized nations with regard to war as a fitting weapon to settle disputes. Unless Christianity has altogether ceased to mean conformity to the principles of Christ, how can that attitude be called Christian? When we reflect on the life and teachings of Christ, the full violence of the contradiction between what He said and did, and what Christian nations say and do, strikes the hardest. FOR HERE OUR CRASS INDIFFERENCE IS NOT IN RESPECT TO CEREMONY, OR SYMBOLIC RIGHT, OR IN REGARD TO SOME TABLE OF MOSAIC REGULATIONS; OUR DERELICTION IS NOT EVEN ONLY FROM THE LIV- ING LAW DIVINELY TRACED ON THE TABLETS OF THE HUMAN HEART, BUT FROM THAT SOVEREIGN AND ETERNAL WORD WHICH ONCE AT LEAST HAD BREATH IN THE LOVELINESS OF THE LAW- GIVER’S OWN LIFE. But, ladies and gentlemen, let me treat this question from (20)

Page 24 text:

THE TRISTIC. v I n