This essay responds to James Turner Johnson's critiques of my argument in “‘Never Again War’: Recent Shifts in the Roman Catholic Just War Tradition and the Question of ‘Functional Pacifism.’” . It attends specifically to three of Johnson's objections and offers accounts of the meaning and use of the term “functional pacifism,” an understanding of classic just war thought as a tradition, and the concepts of peace and authority within just war and pacifist thought. It argues that my analysis of (...) the Catholic Church's movement toward pacifism but ultimate theological inability to embrace a functional pacifism still stands in spite of Johnson's critiques. In addition, it suggests that Johnson offers a thin pacifistic conception of peace and promotes a restricted notion of ecclesial authority and democratic government. (shrink)

Should we as religious ethicists seek to understand what traditions other than our own or our own area of scholarship have to say about particular ethical issues as knowledge parallel to our own, or can we allow what we learn to make a difference in our own ethical positions? Writing from the perspective of Christian ethics, the author argues that we can indeed allow what we learn to inform Christian ethical evaluations and to shape ethical conclusions, with neighbor love and (...) concern for the common good as grounds for doing this. Using forms of commitments to political nonviolence as a test case, the author first reviews major positions on war and peace ethics within Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, and then explores how Jewish and Muslim ethical assessments can inform a choice between Christian absolute pacifism and practical pacifism. (shrink)