Re-Imagining Catholic Ethics: Beyond ‘Justification’ of Violence and toward Accompaniment

Abstract

This paper will focus on one way of re-imagining Catholic ethics through the praxis of accompaniment, especially in situations that lend themselves to moral dilemmas and potential justifications of significant harm. The growing integration and shared discourse of scholars from the global south with those from the global north has given rise to deeper ethical insight about the praxis of accompaniment. In turn, I analyze some predominant ways of wrestling with justifications of significant harm or violence, particularly recent contributions by Lisa Sowle Cahill and Kate Jackson-Meyer on moral dilemmas. I build on their contributions by critically reflecting on the praxis of accompaniment in particularly difficult moral situations. I argue that accompaniment offers a way forward that is consistent with and illuminates our dignity as well as the Love of Christ. This approach may better meet needs, break cycles of violence, and lean us into a more sustainable just peace.

1. Introduction

How might we respond to difficult moral situations potentially or involving significant harm? In Catholic and Christian ethics, one prominent if not the predominant approach to such difficult moral situations has been to develop principles, criteria, or ways of reasoning that may justify significant harm or violence under certain constrained conditions. Such moral approaches have functioned in Christian tradition at different points to justify dueling, trials by ordeal, torture, lynching, slavery, the death penalty, killing, and war (Cochran 2015). Justifications of significant harm or violence have also impacted our immigration policies, the criminal justice system, and have been illuminated by the experience of moral injury.

Meanwhile, the growing integration and shared discourse of scholars from the global south with those from the global north has given rise to deeper ethical insight about the praxis of accompaniment. This paper will focus on a trajectory within Catholic ethics toward the praxis of accompaniment, especially in situations that lend themselves to moral dilemmas and potential justifications of significant harm. How might the praxis of accompaniment illuminate ethical analysis of such situations? Is there something more than solidarity to the Christian way of accompaniment?

The first part of the paper will situate this conversation in Christian tradition by describing some key Christian approaches to accompaniment that root it in the mission of the Church and an understanding of who God is. Second, I identify and analyze some predominant ways of wrestling with justifications of significant harm or violence, particularly recent contributions by Cahill and Jackson-Meyer on moral dilemmas. Third, I build on their contributions by critically reflecting on the praxis of accompaniment as a possible way forward in particularly difficult moral situations.

2. Christian Context and Catholic Perspectives on Accompaniment

Accompaniment is a term used in a broad range of sectors beyond the Christian theological tradition. For example, it is drawn on within social medicine, human rights, pastoral support, social psychology, animal rights, peace activism, and liberation psychology (Tomlinson and Lipsitz 2013). A leading voice in liberation psychology, Mary Watkins, explains how “the concept is used when speaking of accompanying the ill who are also poor, those caught in prison and detention systems, political dissidents, refugees, those suffering under occupation, victims of torture and other forms of violence, those forcibly displaced, those suffering violations of human rights, and those attempting to live peacefully in the face of paramilitary and military violence” (Watkins 2019, p. 2).

In a Christian context, accompaniment is rooted in the mission of the Church and an understanding of who God is. For instance, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America points to the Emmaus story as illuminating accompaniment as a theology of mission. They explain that “mission is a journey, and that this journey, taken with many companions, shows us the unexpected and sometimes unrecognized Christ who walks with us. In this journey, as we break bread together, we move toward Christ’s mission of reconciliation between us and God, between us and one another” (ELCA n.d., p. 2). They note how “Accompaniment helps us see mission differently: In reconciliation, we realize that my story and your story are not divided by boundaries but are both reconciled within God’s story” (ELCA n.d., p. 5).

In the Catholic Church, Pope Francis speaks of accompaniment as the way of God, by describing how “God trusts us and accompanies us with patience. He does not get discouraged, but always instills hope in us. … He does not keep track of your shortcomings but encourages your potential. … In this way God accompanies us: with closeness, mercy, and tenderness” (Francis 2022a).

Christian accompaniment shows up in a broad set of contexts in the tradition. This can include spiritual accompaniment, such as clergy, religious, or a spiritual director for an individual or a community. Such spiritual accompaniment is rooted in a sense of respect and recognition of our shared dignity. Accompaniment can also include the general theology of discipleship derived from Jesus calling the disciples, such that Jesus accompanies and as disciples we are called to accompany each other through the whole of human life.

Another core source of accompaniment in Catholic theology is the development of liberation theology in Latin America during the 1960s and 1970s. This is the contextual tradition Pope Francis draws on toward his prominent themes of encounter and accompaniment. In 1968, the Latin American Episcopal Conference of bishops met in Medellín, Colombia, and developed the basic structure of liberation theology. They pointed to Jesus’ lived priorities toward the outcast and the poor. They redirected the Catholic church’s “attention and support from elites involved in exploitative and repressive practices to those suffering under colonial regimes and practices” (Watkins 2019, p. 82).

The deeper goal was liberation for both the oppressors and the oppressed. A key praxis was accompaniment via walking alongside, living together, and shared political work to transform unjust structures. This also entailed a sense of mutual accompaniment, such as the base ecclesial communities. Gustavo Gutiérrez explained that this praxis was a kind of solidarity with human beings of flesh and bone, not in the abstract. It entails love, affection, and tenderness (Griffin and Block 2013, pp. 75, 99, 104). Amid a civil war in El Salvador, Archbishop Oscar Romero urged his fellow priests to stand next to campesinos who were being attacked: “Accompany them. Take the same risks they do” (Watkins 2019, p. 84; Virgil 2000, p. 248).

Roberto Goizueta’s 1998 book Caminemos con Jesús: Toward a Hispanic/Latino Theology of Accompaniment offers a critical contribution. Cecilia González-Andrieu describes Goizueta’s approach to accompaniment as being:

“attentive to their cries [of the vulnerable], he calls us to give up our comfort and accompany Jesus, who is present in the vulnerable. Accompaniment means having our hearts repeatedly broken as we wipe their blood-stained faces… Accompaniment is sustained encuentro. While it may arise in suffering, because it creates community, it leads to hope.”

(González-Andrieu 2020)

Goizueta lifts up the praxis of the Posadas to illustrate the centrality of accompaniment. The Posadas is an annual communal and public re-enactment of Mary and Joseph searching for a place to stay in Bethlehem as the baby Jesus is to be born. The community literally accompanies Mary and Joseph to identify a physical space of increased safety which will illuminate the depth and intimacy of God’s love being released through the presence of Jesus. Entering what Ada Maria Isasi-Diaz describes as en la lucha or into the struggle, this accompaniment dynamic interrupts the cruelty or cycle of abandonment with liberation (Isasi-Diaz 1993; Goizueta 1995, pp. 183, 200, 204). Similar to en la lucha, Jim Keenan describes a central Christian virtue of mercy as “entering into the chaos of another so as to answer them in their need” (Keenan 2004, p. 12).

Goizueta explains that this accompaniment is a being with, feeling with, interacting with, and doing with, and thus, includes an ethical-political directionality toward a more just and loving society. Through this kind of walking with our “common personhood is affirmed: we become companeros and companeras”, that is, we lean toward or enter a process of becoming friends via a relationship of increasing mutuality and transformation (Goizueta 1995, pp. 206–7).

In turn, this transformative dynamic of “walking with” embodies a sacramental act. This style of walking with enables Jesus’ eucharistic presence to become more fully identified among the participants or the community. Thus, the eucharist or breaking of the bread arises in the streets and even in midst of intense conflict (Goizueta 1995, p. 209).

This praxis of accompaniment and liberation theology has developed and spread into black, Jewish, Islamic, and feminist forms of liberation theology, as well as other iterations. In turn, this theme has been applied to analyzing political power differentials, supporting economic development and even in the context of pedagogy, i.e., Paulo Freire’s work Pedagogy of the Oppressed (Freire 2000).

For instance, Dr. Paul Farmer of Partners in Health and “internationally renowned innovator of social medicine, uses the word ‘accompaniment’ to describe his approach to working at the intersection of global poverty and disease” (Watkins 2019, p. 87). Notably, Farmer and Gustavo Gutiérrez, a leading voice in liberation theology, have collaborated “to educate people about the necessity to shift to a paradigm of accompaniment in medicine”, and thus, centering the value of public health to understand accompaniment (Watkins 2019, p. 91).

Fr. Ignacio Martín-Baró, a Spanish-born Jesuit and social psychologist was one of six Jesuit fathers killed by U.S. trained Salvadoran soldiers. His writings indicate how the “accompanist works for peaceful social coexistence where the needs and desires of all are taken into account and where alternatives to violence are found. This also requires the exposure of corruption, lies, and deception” (Watkins 2019, p. 97). Notably, he also helps us unpack the links between trauma mitigation and accompaniment, which is critical to breaking cycles of violence. Martin-Baro explains the psychosocial trauma is the “concrete crystallization in individuals of aberrant and dehumanizing social relations” (Martín-Baró 1994, pp. 125, 135). Yet, the deeper problem is the “traumatogenic social relations that are part of an oppressive system that has led to war” (Watkins 2019, p. 97). In turn, accompaniment enables us to create conditions that form identities that minimize or can better overcome traumatizing and dehumanizing dilemmas. Especially in the face of collective trauma, such as large-scale violence, accompaniment is critical to generate opportunities for testimony that restore self-respect and a sense of one’s dignity (Watkins 2019, pp. 98–100).

In turn, although solidarity and accompaniment may overlap in some ways, I am drawing a distinction between these themes for this argument. In Catholic theology, solidarity is often described as a “firm and persevering commitment to the common good” (John Paul II 1987). Solidarity is defined as a recognition of our interdependence, our responsibility to one another (Hollenbach 2002, 2017), and even as a virtue, with particular attention to the poor and marginalized (Clark 2014). Marcus Mescher explains how Pope Francis has been developing the understanding of solidarity through the theme of encounter, which builds a more inclusive belonging and moves one toward accompaniment (Mescher 2020, p. 62). Meghan Clark explains how Pope Francis has been pointing toward an “incarnational solidarity” (Clark 2019). I think the theme of accompaniment supports and crystalizes this trajectory. Accompaniment includes the previous aspects of solidarity and offers a clearer, concrete gesture toward physical proximity and journey; as well as the characteristic and focus on breaking dynamics of violence, particularly through the praxis of active nonviolence. Although the Catholic understanding and practice of solidarity can function to break dynamics of violence, it has and may also function to enable some dynamics of violence with some groups and under certain conditions. Accompaniment helps to better illuminate this aspect and draw practices of solidarity in the direction of breaking cycles of violence through active nonviolence.

In sum, I am describing accompaniment here as rooted in the mission of the Church and an understanding of who God is, particularly as an expression of mercy. In this paper, I am focusing on how accompaniment also entails entering en la lucha, as a concrete eucharistic risk-taking process seeking to break the dynamic of abandonment and violence, as well as liberate both the oppressed and the oppressor. To be more precise for the purposes of this paper, I would define accompaniment as being with, feeling with, and taking risks with, as one nonviolently enters the chaos of others to better meet their needs. What might be the relevance of such accompaniment for difficult moral situations?

3. Wrestling over Justifications of Significant Harm and Violence

In Christian ethics, one prominent if not the predominant approach to difficult moral situations related to potential significant harm has been to develop principles, criteria, or ways of reasoning that may justify harm or violence under certain constrained conditions. Some examples that might come to mind are the principle of double-effect, a focus on good intent, choosing the lesser evil, an eye for an eye, deterrence through suffering, or just war reasoning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy n.d.). Such moral approaches have functioned in Christian tradition at different points to justify dueling, torture, lynching, slavery, the death penalty, killing, and war. These and related logics also show up at times in relation to immigration policy with militarized borders; our criminal justice system and mass incarceration; guns in our homes for protection and gun violence in the streets; massive military investment; and even some ways of thinking about abortion.

In the tradition, there have been various attempts to promote ethical approaches other than justifying violence. Lisa Sowle Cahill delineates two major strands: obediential and compassionate. The former leans toward imitating the qualities of God disclosed in Jesus—mercy, forgiveness, inclusiveness—since this is commanded by the Lord. She points toward Tertullian, Origen, H. Richard Niebuhr, and Stanley Hauerwas. The latter leans toward a nonviolent response rooted in a sense of compassion for fellow humanity, those for whom Christ died. She points to Erasmus, Walter Rauschenbusch, Dorothy Day, and Thomas Merton (Sowle Cahill 2019, p. 248). Meanwhile, Myles Werntz and David Cramer identify eight streams of nonviolence (Cramer and Werntz 2022).1

Notably, Cahill and Kate Jackson-Meyer have explored an approach to difficult ethical decisions through the lens of “irreducible moral dilemmas” or “tragic dilemmas”, respectively.

In her book, Blessed are the Peacemakers, Cahill explores the role of the Church and “sees peacebuilding as an alternative to more traditional forms of just war theory and pacifism and as an effective way to transform conditions of violence and lead to just and sustainable peace” (Sowle Cahill 2019, p. vii). Cahill proposes that “peacebuilding best represents the Christian commitment to both nonviolence and political responsibility” (Sowle Cahill 2019, p. ix) Cahill calls “Christian theologians to take gospel nonviolence seriously” (Sowle Cahill 2019, p. x). She suggests that the focus on “the positive and nonviolent cultivation of peace” is the most “realistic, responsible, and sustainable mode of conflict transformation” (Sowle Cahill 2019, pp. 1, 25).2

On the one hand, Cahill maintains, “killing is never unambiguously right because, even in self-defense, killing violates the inalienable dignity of another human being” (Sowle Cahill 2019, p. viii). On the other hand, she contends, “renunciations of the use of (violent) force are also morally ambiguous, insofar as an agent declines to rescue another” (Sowle Cahill 2019, p. viii). Cahill claims that “some moral decisions engage agents in irreducible moral dilemmas understood as situations in which there is no available course of action that does not somehow involve the agent in wrongdoing, even though the action on the whole may be justified” (Sowle Cahill 2019, p. viii).

Kate Jackson-Meyer argues that a tragic dilemma entails a “moral agent choosing between conflicting nonnegotiable moral obligations rooted in Christian commitments to protect human life and the vulnerable” (Jackson-Meyer 2022, pp. 1–2). Such a transgression “involves wrongdoing that causes great harm and may mar an agent’s life” (Jackson-Meyer 2022, p. 2). Thus, she argues that there are degrees of personal culpability and often social culpability in such situations.

Regarding how decisions between conflicting moral obligations can “mar an agent’s life”, she explores the scholarship and impacts of moral injury related to soldiers. Moral injury is the social, psychological, and spiritual harm that arises from a betrayal of one’s core values. The impacts of moral injury often include devastating shame, anxiety, anger, self-isolation, social problems, trust issues, and existential issues (Jackson-Meyer 2022, p. 127). She explains moral injury as “an agent performs an action that is considered ‘justified’ according” to the just war theory or rules of engagement; yet they feel guilty for violating some other moral principle, which she would describe as the nonnegotiable obligation to protect life (Jackson-Meyer 2022, pp. 126, 128). In turn, she argues that the existence of moral injury along with her other key ethical concepts calls into question the pretense of just war theory that the obligation not to kill falls away in the right circumstances (Jackson-Meyer 2022, p. 128).3 She illustrates this with the troubling story of Camilo, a U.S. veteran of the Iraq war, who was told by his therapist not to be so hard on himself since a particularly concerning incident followed a lawful order (Jackson-Meyer 2022, p. 135).

Notably, Jackson-Meyer suggests that this nonnegotiable obligation to protect life is rooted in the recognition of human dignity (Jackson-Meyer 2022, p. 112). For philosophers, one may recall Immanuel Kant’s argument for a categorical imperative which entails treating each person as an end in themselves, and never as merely a means to an end (Johnson and Cureton 2022). Meanwhile, philosopher Georg Hegel argued for the importance of recognition in various dimensions (Iser 2019). Many Christian ethicists have affirmed this general acknowledgement of human dignity. However, Christian ethicist David Hollenbach points out how some of the logical connections between Kant, Hegel, and more recently John Rawls have contributed to dynamics of an undermining or eclipse of the common good (Hollenbach 2002, pp. 9, 24). In turn, he suggests that the concrete and practical implications of human dignity have also too often been truncated in modern society. For example, part of his assessment of Rawls is an overemphasis on tolerance and the avoidance of conflict. Thus, Hollenbach argues for increasing the importance of more robust deliberation in the public square as a form of respect for human dignity. A key part of this deliberation is recognizing that public reason and religious reason can have a mutually enhancing dynamic (Hollenbach 2002, pp. 140, 146, 166–68).4

A key aspect of Hollenbach’s and a general Christian critique of Kant’s approach to dignity is that it may lack constructive, pragmatic implications. Hollenback explains that in modern society such an understanding of dignity too readily either yields a kind of “peace via avoidance” whereas we become more conflict avoidant, and thus, particularly inept at engaging conflict constructively; or we express destructive ways of engaging conflict through forms of dominance, such as militarism (Hollenbach 2002, pp. 24, 124). Civic virtue then tends to be primarily associated with military valor (Hollenbach 2002, p. 16).

Robert Kraynak also raises Christian concerns with Kant’s understanding of dignity. He claims that Kant’s sense of dignity is too embedded in rational autonomy and national self-determination, which easily prioritizes self-imposed laws and may lack recognition of divine law or higher ends (Kraynak 2011, pp. 21, 159). In turn, the common good, importance of formation, sense of being a gift, and the virtues of gratitude and compassion are more easily undermined.

In this context, I return to Cahill’s claim about killing violating our dignity. It is significant to note that Christian ethicist Anna Floerke Schied, who has argued for the moral justification of some wars, similarly acknowledges that “violence, including killing, harms [violates] human dignity” (Floerke Schied 2022). This inconsistency with human dignity is demonstrated by the advancing scientific recognition of trauma, perpetrator-induced syndrome, moral injury, and at times brain damage of the one who kills another in war (MacNair 2002). It is also dehumanizing by obstructing empathy, failing to be a gift to others, devaluing the sacred gift of others, and generating ongoing trauma not only in the parties directly involved, but also in other community members. So, is there another way forward that is consistent and congruent with human dignity, and that illuminates the way of Jesus for our human community?

4. Accompaniment as a Way Forward

In light of the discourse on moral dilemmas, the praxis of accompaniment may offer a way forward that is consistent and congruent with human dignity in a variety of contexts and across a range of difficult moral decisions.

Tetiana Stawnychy, the president of Caritas Ukraine, observed that “war creates chaos and tension. Therefore, our task is to work in contrast to the chaos, establish relations and communication, and strengthen solidarity. Love, attention, and support heal even the most serious wounds” (Stawnychy 2022). Pope Francis has called war sheer madness. In Fratelli Tutti, he invites people to go beyond “theoretical discussions” to gain insight and to “touch the wounded flesh of victims.” Indeed, he says,

“let us look … at all those civilians whose killing was considered ‘collateral damage.’ Let us ask the victims themselves. Let us think of the refugees and displaced, … the mothers who lost their children, and the boys and girls maimed or deprived of their childhood. Let us hear the true stories … [and] look at reality through their eyes. … In this way, we will be able to grasp the abyss of evil at the heart of war. Nor will it trouble us to be deemed naive for choosing peace.”

(Francis 2020, par. 261)

The general trajectory of what Francis seems to be doing amid various wars is to shift the world’s gaze: a shift, modeled by Jesus, toward the practice of accompaniment, with a focus on breaking the dynamic of violence (McCarthy 2022).5 This focus manifests Jesus’ emphasis on a series of transforming initiatives found in the Sermon on the Mount, which scholar Glenn Stassen has identified (Stassen 2003, 2006). Accompaniment affirms and admires those who are willing to take a high-risk stand against aggression rather than to be passive, as well as acknowledging the pressure-packed decisions being made about how to resist, such as in the Ukraine war or other similar situations (Francis 2022b).

Notably, when some Jewish groups strategized to violently resist the ruthless Roman military, Jesus modeled accompaniment by turning away from justifying methods of war and enabling any dynamics of violence to perpetuate and spread. This is not because Jesus was being ‘condescending’ to his Jewish community, but because he recognized that such an approach would significantly harm those he intimately loved as well as other parties to the conflict. Thus, accompaniment it seems is also not about justifying methods of war and enabling dynamics of violence to perpetuate and spread, which would significantly harm all parties to the conflict.6 Rather, accompaniment is consistent with and illuminates our shared human dignity, e.g. what Francis calls “gestures of humanity” (O’Connell 2023).

Recalling some previous insights, Archbishop Romero urged his fellow priests to stand next to campesinos who were being attacked and take the same risks. Goizueta describes accompaniment as giving up comfort and accompanying Jesus, who is present in the vulnerable. Accompaniment is sustained encuentro and leads to hope. Entering en la lucha or into the struggle, this accompaniment dynamic interrupts the cruelty or cycle of abandonment with liberation. Thus, accompaniment is a sacramental act that enables Jesus’ eucharistic presence (Goizueta 1995, p. 209). Notably, Kate Jackson-Meyer also describes the value of accompaniment in relation to tragic dilemmas. She calls it a way of honoring others, supporting others in their journeys and in their moral discernment (Jackson-Meyer 2022, pp. 152–54). Stephen Pope argues that the foundation of accompaniment is the intrinsic dignity of every person as well as being associated with integral human development. He senses the political dimension of accompaniment calling us to embrace community organizing (Pope 2019).

In turn, accompaniment helps to address some of the previously mentioned Christian critiques of dignity as articulated by Kant or extended by Rawls. On the one hand, accompaniment transcends a tendency toward ‘peace via avoidance,’ and being indifferent or inept at engaging conflict constructively. On the other hand, it challenges the tendency toward engaging conflict destructively through forms of dominance, such as militarism and mass violence. Accompaniment also transcends a narrow allegiance to rational autonomy by embodying a praxis of mutual formation and a sense of being gift.

In morally difficult situations such as large scale violent conflict, the praxis of accompaniment can also look like providing robust humanitarian resources; peacebuilding aid for local mediators and trauma-mitigation, even for political leaders; trust-building initiatives, such as allowing the flow of grain in Ukraine or prisoner exchanges; and just peace delegations such as the religious leaders delegation to Ukraine during the war in May 2022 or the delegation to Bethlehem over Christmas in 2023 during the war in Gaza (Dunne and McCarthy 2022). I have previously written about the praxis of accompaniment regarding the war in Ukraine (“Praxis”, McCarthy 2023a). Accompaniment also entails the mobilization of credible messengers, such as Qatar, Egypt, and Jordan, during the war in Gaza who were able to generate a six-day humanitarian pause and could create conditions to incentivize detaining or removing leaders responsible for significant harm. Such mobilization also includes persistent, needs-based diplomacy, political processes, and consistent public statements to break the cycles of violence. Accompaniment also entails slowing things down and focusing on restorative justice mechanisms such as the Parents Circle (n.d.) and Combatants for Peace (n.d.) in the Holy Land.7 Similarly, accompaniment offers models of and invitations to acknowledge responsibility for harm, such as done in the 1990’s during apartheid in South Africa with the ANC, which had an armed-resistance wing, and President de Klerk (“War is”, McCarthy 2023c). Accompaniment may also look like robust prayer and days of mourning as President Abbas called for in Palestine (CNN 2023).

In addition, accompaniment also may entail support for nonviolent resistance movements to undermine key sources of power of violent actors (Sharp 2013, pp. 5–6). The effectiveness of strategic nonviolent resistance is not predicated on the oppressor having a change of heart or a responsive moral conscience or even being willing to engage. Nor does it depend on a regime having only minimal dehumanization of those they harm (Sharp 1973). Instead, the effectiveness of strategic nonviolent resistance is often determined by significantly undermining key sources of power which the oppressor depends on to maintain their injustice and violence (Sharp 2013).8

Accompaniment may also entail support for unarmed civilian protection deployments such as the Nonviolent Peaceforce in Ukraine who protect elderly, persons with disabilities, children, etc. (Nonviolent Peaceforce n.d.); and support for other forms of shared physical risk, such as onsite journalists, high profile leaders, or large groups of unarmed third parties. Cardinal Pizzaballa’s offer to exchange himself for children kept hostage in Gaza is another illuminating example (McLellan 2023).

Accompaniment is saying “I hear you. I am with you. This is/was a horrible and difficult situation. We can find a way through. How can we most likely break this dynamic of de-humanization and violence? What might lean us toward a more sustainable just peace?”

In contrast to prioritizing an accompaniment approach focused on breaking the cycles of violence, we can look at the U.S. government’s approach to Israel, particularly after the horrendous violent attack orchestrated by Hamas on 7 October 2023. The primary public message from U.S. leadership was Israel has a “right to defend itself”, which meant here a justification for a military strategy of violence (Biden 2023). Days into the violent response, thousands of Palestinians were killed, including the bombing of hospitals, schools, religious sites, refugee camps, etc. Food, water, and electricity were cut off and de-humanizing rhetoric from Israeli leadership increased (Karanth 2023). So, U.S. leadership continued to justify military violence while also encouraging Israel to follow international law and try to protect civilians. Yet, weeks into the violent response, over 10,000 Palestinians were killed with around 70% being women and children, including 80% of the population displaced (UN Press 2023). So, U.S. leadership shifted somewhat to try and encourage humanitarian aid, negotiated a humanitarian pause and the exchange of some prisoners; yet still justifying violence by blocking UN resolutions for a ceasefire and continuing to send weapons to Israel (Nichols 2023).9 Over eight months in, now we have over 37,000 Palestinians killed, patterns of torture by Israeli soldiers (Alsaafin and Humaid 2023; Democracy Now 2023), Israeli hostages killed by their own military (BBC 2023), over 30 children dying of forced starvation, generational trauma and the seeds of bitterness for likely ongoing cycles of violence. The International Court of Justice has ruled that there is a plausible risk of irreparable harm to the Palestinian right to be protected from genocide; and called on Israel to do better to prevent such harm. (ICJ 2024, sec. 54, 86).10

Although President Biden offers a, “we are standing by you” to Israel, and eventually some calls for a humanitarian pause, and thus, some aspects of accompaniment (or perhaps more precisely solidarity), his approach of justifying the military invasion and continuing to send weapons falls short of the kind of accompaniment I am elucidating in this paper. This is because it is not primarily focused on interrupting the dynamics of violence, rather it is perpetuating dynamics of violence, even to the point of mass atrocities.

Accompaniment may be a way to mitigate or avoid such impacts in Gaza and other dangers of moral justification of war and violence. Some of the dangers or limits include the pattern of how justifying violence even in difficult situations still normally gets us stuck in cycles of significant harm, violence, and trauma. Another danger is that it can generate cultural and structural violence, which makes further direct violence more likely (Galtung 1990). It often fails to address the root causes of violence, and thus, fails or even obstructs building a sustainable peace. Justifications of violence may also obstruct the formation of courageous nonviolent peacemakers and distance us from the way of Jesus. It is inconsistent with human dignity as described earlier, and especially regarding war, inconsistent with ecological care (CNI 2016). Pope Francis calls war “the negation of all rights and a dramatic assault on the environment” (Francis 2020, par. 257).

Accompaniment may also be a way to build on Cahill and Jackson-Meyer’s insights regarding “irreducible moral dilemmas” and “tragic dilemmas.” Reflecting on the Sermon on the Mount, Cahill explains that “the morally right act is simply but radically the act that demonstrates the forgiving attentiveness to the needs of others disclosed by Jesus as the will of God.” The “mandate” in difficult situations is “to enter into them by identifying the needs of those concerned as one’s own.” The adversary, aggressor, or violent actor is not to be approached in “self-righteous judgment, but in a compassionate desire to meet the needs of wrongdoers and victims as well as possible in difficult circumstances” (Sowle Cahill 2019, pp. 58–59). In turn, accompaniment invites people into a similar analysis of needs (DC Peace Team 2022; Macron 2023; Cohen 2022).11

When some person or group seeks to “justify” their violence, what needs might they be trying to meet through this strategy of justification? A hypothetical example: a group of people who are in a really difficult situation—perhaps one even that seems like a moral dilemma—seek justification for killing another. The desire for justification may be, in part, about the need for others to acknowledge or consider the really difficult situation they are in. However, by justifying their killing, others can contribute to a dynamic that causes the group to experience more trauma, even generational trauma, lowering of empathy, obstruction to the sense of sacred gift of all persons, increased possessiveness, and even moral injury or brain damage. In other words, by justifying the killing, others may increase the probability of harm to the group’s own well-being and souls. In contrast, accompaniment would affirm the willingness to resist injustice or aggression, acknowledge the immense difficulty and harm done in the situation whether the group responds with more violence or not; and then rather than justify the violence, focus on how to break the cycle of violence moving toward a sustainable just peace. Thus, if others attend to the group’s deeper needs for acknowledgment and consideration in a way that’s likely healthier for the group, then it seems that accompaniment may satisfy such needs.

Another critical need in such difficult moral situations is often safety. The strategy of justifying war, whether offensive or defensive, tills the soil for organizations or governments to prepare, train, and invest to be ready for such apparent “justified” war situations. One has seen this strategy with the massive militarization in many European countries in relation to the war in Ukraine. The emphasis or focus of activity related to hostile conflict too easily and predictably slides into staying ahead of potential adversaries in lethal technology and the arms race, winning the battle, dominating the other, or destroying the other, even at times under the guise of claims about the common good, necessity, self-defense, democracy, freedom, or protecting the vulnerable. In turn, the predominant social and political patterns unleashed generate dynamics and cycles of dehumanization, domination, harm, and violence. There are numerous examples, such as during the Cold War between the U.S. and Soviet Union with proxy wars in Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, and Afghanistan, which had direct repercussions related to 9/11 and the recent twenty years of war in Afghanistan (Johnson 2004). Thus, the strategy to justify war may ultimately undermine meeting the need for safety, especially in a sustainable, holistic way.

Instead, with accompaniment in place of moral justification for violence, the emphasis or focus more aptly turns to breaking cycles of violence and increasing effective nonviolent strategies.12 Significantly fewer people die through nonviolent resistance approaches. In such contexts and moments of death, lament and even remorse may be appropriate for not protecting all life, especially if we are not adequately prepared for activating robust nonviolent resistance. Yet, even when people do die with this approach, it still illuminates human dignity and the powerful love of Christ, as well as tills the soil for a more sustainable just peace. That is, when people live as courageous gifts during intense conflict, they illuminate the giftedness—that is, dignity—of all those around them, which has constructive cascading effects on a community and society.13 In turn, accompaniment seems, at a minimum, to better meet the need for safety.

Further, some Christian approaches to accompaniment, at times with narrow understandings of ‘spiritual needs,’ have relegated it to pastoral care rather or more than moral theology (Buffel 2022).14 Along with the trajectory of accompaniment described in liberation theology and psychology, the ELCA and Pope Francis, I am proposing a more integrated approach that sees some morally difficult situations calling for accompaniment as both the pastoral and moral response. Accompaniment is a pastoral movement in the sense of walking closely and compassionately into the struggle. Accompaniment is a moral movement in the sense of identifying the good as affirming the willingness to resist and seeking to break dynamics or cycles of violence, rather than justifying significant harm or violence. As Fr. Ignacio Martín-Baró reminds us, such accompaniment is a trauma-informed approach. In turn, accompaniment can be practiced with oneself or with others before, during, or after incredibly difficult moral decisions and situations.15

Camillo’s story is heartbreaking and illustrative of the need for an accompaniment approach. In the U.S.-Iraq war, he killed a young person who seemed at risk of throwing a grenade. His therapist told Camillo that he should not be so hard on himself and that he had followed a lawful order. Yet, Camillo reflects on seeing the young man through the sight of his rifle, still alive, and a voice inside him saying not to pull the trigger. Camillo knew “without a shred of doubt” that if he shot the young person there would be serious consequences to face (Jackson-Meyer 2022, p. 135). When he opened fire, Camillo acknowledges that he “desecrated the most sacred sanctuary of my being” (Jackson-Meyer 2022, p. 135).

An accompaniment approach might affirm Camillo’s willingness to take significant risks to protect life rather than be passive. One would acknowledge to Camillo the incredible potential harm in that moment and the immense difficulty of his moral situation. Camillo would be invited to unpack the feelings, needs, and contours of his described sense of ‘desecrating the most sacred sanctuary of his being.’ One might invite and walk with Camillo in reflecting on other possible options to break the dynamic of violence in that moment. Camillo may also be invited to reflect on ways to heal the harm he and others experienced due to that situation. One might also acknowledge the actual harm occurring in the wider strategy or structure of that war and invite reflection on other options to interrupt the broader dynamic of that war. Such trauma-informed accompaniment integrates both pastoral care and moral theology.

People in different roles and positions in society would embody accompaniment in diverse ways. Some people may be physically close to the destructive conflict and violence taking even physical risk to interrupt the dynamic. Being pastorally sensitive, such persons still need to be attentive to self-care if they hope their actions will be impactful and sustainable. Others may be less close although still engage in activity, even risk-taking activity to shift the dynamics of violence. For example, such risks could entail social, economic, or political risks. In either case, accompaniment offers an integration of pastoral care and moral dynamics.

In turn, this understanding of accompaniment is a posture and a practice primarily, though not exclusively, within the tradition and broader paradigm of active nonviolence, which includes both peacebuilding and nonviolent resistance strategies.

5. Conclusions

In this paper, I began by describing some Catholic and Christian approaches to accompaniment that root it in the mission of the Church and an understanding of who God is. To define accompaniment, I particularly drew on the insights of liberation theology and voices from the global south who call us toward an accompaniment that enters the struggle, takes significant risks, and lives a sustained encuentro to break the cycle of abandonment and violence. I then analyzed some predominant ways of wrestling with justifications of significant harm or violence, particularly recent contributions by Cahill and Jackson-Meyer on moral dilemmas. To advance the discussion, I proposed one way to re-imagine Catholic ethics and is with the praxis of accompaniment in particularly difficult moral situations. I argued that accompaniment offers a way to be consistent with and illuminate our dignity as gifts of God, as well as the Love of Christ. Integrating the pastoral and the moral, accompaniment affirms the willingness to resist aggression or injustice and focuses on how to break cycles of dehumanization and violence. Meanwhile, accompaniment also avoids the moral justification of significant harm or violence, and thus, may mitigate the horrendous impacts of such violence. This approach may better meet needs (such as acknowledgement, safety), break cycles of violence, and lean us into a more sustainable just peace.

Future queries might ask what the praxis of accompaniment could look like in other contexts or moral issues, such as immigration policy, our criminal justice system, guns in our homes for protection, end of life health care, or abortion?