ENDS AND MEANS
of action. Speaking on November 2Oth, 1936, Mr. Eden
stated that 'our armaments may be used in bringing help
to a victim of aggression in any case where, in our judgment,
it would be proper under the provision of the Covenant to
do so. I use the word "may" deliberately, since in such
an instance there is no automatic obligation to take military
action. It is, moreover, right that this should be so, for
nations cannot be expected to incur automatic military
obligations save for areas where their vital interests are
concerned/ Upholding the League Covenant- is not
regarded as a vital interest by any nation. Nor, so far as
Article XVI is concerned, ought it to be so regarded.
Justice, like charity, begins at home, and no government
has the moral right gratuitously to involve its subjects in
war. War is so radically wrong that any international
agreement which provides for the extension of hostilities
from a limited .area to the whole world is manifestly based
upon unsound principles. Modern war destroys with the
maximum of efficiency and the maximum of indiscrimina-
tion, and therefore entails the commission of injustices far
more numerous and far worse than any it is intended to
redress. It is worth remarking in this context that it is
now possible to be an orthodox Catholic and a complete
pacifist. To condemn war as such and to refuse, as the
Quakers and other Protestant sects have done, to participate
in any war whatsoever, is heretical. St. Thomas has laid
it down that war is justified when waged in defence of
the vital interests of a community. Starting from the
Thomist position, certain Catholic thinkers, notably in
Holland and England, have reached the conclusion that,
though it may be heretical to condemn war as war, one
can be a complete pacifist in relation to war in its con-
temporary form and still remain orthodox. "War is justified
when it is waged in defence of the vital interests of the
community. But the nature of modern war is such that
no