Misuse of Canon 12 in Just War Debate

In the Followers of the Way (FOTW) presentation "'It's Just War' - Should Christians Fight? Debate," Mr. David Bercot cited Canon 12 of the Council of Nicaea, to support Christian non-resistance or pacifism. In his commentary on the canon, Bercot points out that the whole Church provides a uniform position against Christians use of the sword in the military. He says, "This is the whole Church speaking. I see a very uniform position. . . . Nicaea was the whole Church; it was an Ecumenical Council" (see 1:17:30).

It is interesting that Bercot appeals to a canon of an ecumenical council because the canons and councils, like the Scriptures and the Holy Fathers, are within the Tradition of the Orthodox Church.  Ecumenical Councils were synods of bishops which primarily decided upon dogmatic formulations, especially in the face of heresy. Secondarily, Ecumenical Councils issued canonical legislation which governs the administration of the Orthodox Church.

Canon 12 of the Council of Nicaea, the First Ecumenical Council (AD 325), states: 

As many as were called by grace, and displayed the first zeal, having cast aside their military girdles, but afterwards returned, like dogs, to their own vomit, (so that some spent money and by means of gifts regained their military stations); let these, after they have passed the space of three years as hearers, be for ten years prostrators. But in all these cases it is necessary to examine well into their purpose and what their repentance appears to be like. For as many as give evidence of their conversions by deeds, and not pretense, with fear, and tears, and perseverance, and good works, when they have fulfilled their appointed time as hearers, may properly communicate in prayers; and after that the bishop may determine yet more favorably concerning them. But those who take the matter with indifference, and who think the form of not entering the Church is sufficient for their conversion, must fulfill the whole time (NPNF2 14.27).

Citing 2 Peter 2:22, the canon provides a penance for those repentant Christians who had formerly "cast aside their military girdles", i.e., left the military, and then returned to their station. But does this canon truly provide a uniform condemnation of military service for Christians? This canon stands as part of Canon 11 of the same council: 

Concerning those who have fallen without compulsion, without the spoiling of their property, without danger or the like, as happened during the tyranny of Licinius, the Synod declares that, though they have deserved no clemency, they shall be dealt with mercifully. As many as were communicants, if they heartily repent, shall pass three years among the hearers; for seven years they shall be prostrators; and for two years they shall communicate with the people in prayers, but without oblation. 

Canon 12 of Nicaea I was not addressing Christians who left the military as "conscientious objectors" and later returned to military service. More specifically the canon referred to those Christians in the army of Licinius (r. 308 – 324) who left because of paganism and re-enlisted. The imperial military was arguably the element of Roman society most devoted to paganism and, for the Christian, idolatry. The devotion to the empire's pagan deities was another manifestation of a soldier's duty and service to Rome. Paganism, not pacifism, was the issue at stake in canons 11 and 12.

In the year 313, the Edict of Milan permanently established religious toleration within the Roman Empire and marked an end to the period of persecution of Christianity. The proclamation was the outcome of a political agreement between the Roman emperors St. Constantine the Great (r. 306-337) and Licinius. In addition to Christians being granted legal rights to freely exercise their faith, their church buildings were rebuilt and other properties which had been confiscated were to be promptly returned. Emperor Licinius later changed his opinion about Christians and persecuted them. Prior to his defeat in 324, Licinius “ill-treated many of the priests who lived under his government; he also persecuted a multitude of other persons, but especially the soldiers” (Sozomenus, The Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen, 1.7 [NPNF2 2.243-244]). 

In The Rudder, a collection of the texts of Orthodox Canon law by St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain, is the following interpretation of canon 11: "There are other Canons which deal with those who deny the faith as a result of great violence or dire necessity. The present Canon deals with those persons who deny it without being forced to do so." And the interpretation given to canon 12 is as follows:

This Canon, too, appears to be speaking of Christian soldiers living in the time of Licinius. It decrees thus: As regarding all Christian soldiers who having been called and having been strengthened by divine grace displayed at first courage and eagerness for martyrdom, and cast aside their belts, which were their army decorations, but thereafter returned, like dogs to their own vomit, which is to say, repented, and denied the faith, insomuch that some of them even spent money and by means of beneficia, or, more plainly speaking, with gifts and benefactions (for that is what this Latin word signifies) they regained their former status in the army; as for them, I say, after they have done three years in the place assigned to "listeners," let them do also ten years more in the place assigned to "kneelers." That is to say, in other words, though allowed to enter the church, they must leave together with catechumens. Besides all this, however, the prelate and the spiritual father ought to examine into the likings and proclivities of such faith-deniers, and the kind and mood of their repentance. For all those who repent with fear of God, and who propitiate God with tears and penetential contrition, and patiently endure hardships, and do good to others in a charitable way, as, for instance, by giving alms, and other virtues, and, generally speaking, who repent truly and genuinely, and not fictitiously and in appearance only; as for these persons, I say, after they fulfill the said three years with "listeners," they may rightfully pray with the faithful, and need not leave the church (ahead of time). In addition to this concession, the prelate is permitted to show them still more kindly treatment and mercy. But as for all those who repent unconcernedly and carelessly, and think that it is enough evidence of repentance for them to go to church ostensibly with "kneelers" and to leave again with catechumens; as for these persons, I say, let them fulfill all three years of "listening," and the entire ten years of succumbency.

Even according to Western patristic scholars, canon 12 (like canon 11) deals with cases which had arisen during the reign of Licinius in the East, who resolved to purge his army of all ardent Christians and ordered his Christian officers to sacrifice to the pagan gods. According to Hefele: 

In his last contests with Constantine, Licinius had made himself the representative of heathenism; so that the final issue of the war would not be the mere triumph of one of the two competitors, but the triumph or fall of Christianity or heathenism. Accordingly, a Christian who had in this war supported the cause of Licinius and of heathenism might be considered as a lapsus, even if he did not formally fall away. With much more reason might those Christians be treated as lapsi who, having conscientiously given up military service (this is meant by the soldier’s belt), afterwards retracted their resolution, and went so far as to give money and presents for the sake of readmission, on account of the numerous advantages which military service then afforded.  It must not be forgotten that Licinius, as Zonaras and Eusebius relate, required from his soldiers a formal apostasy; compelled them, for example, to take part in the heathen sacrifices which were held in the camps, and dismissed from his service those who would not apostatize.” Bright notes, “In the case before us, some Christian officers had at first stood firm under the trial imposed on them by Licinius.  They had been 'called by grace' to an act of self-sacrifice . . . and had shown 'their eagerness at the outset.' . . . These men had responded to a Divine impulse:  it might seem that they had committed themselves to a noble course:  they had cast aside the 'belts' which were their badge of office. . . . They had done, in fact, just what Auxentius, one of Licinius’ notaries, had done when, according to the graphic anecdote of Philostorgius, . . . his master bade him place a bunch of grapes before a statue of Bacchus in the palace-court; but their zeal, unlike his, proved to be too impulsive—they reconsidered their position, and illustrated the maxim that in morals second thoughts are not best, . . . by making unworthy attempts—in some cases by bribery—to recover what they had worthily resigned. . . .  This the Council describes in proverbial language, probably borrowed from 2 Pet. 2:22, but, it is needless to say, without intending to censure enlistment as such.  They now desired to be received to penance: accordingly they were ordered to spend three years as Hearers, during which time 'their purpose, and the nature of their repentance' were to be carefully 'examined' (See other notes on Canon 12 in NPNF2 14.28-29). 

Those Christians who left the military because of their refusal to commit idolatry were allowed to return to their former rank after Licinius was defeated. Eusebius of Caesarea also wrote concerning the confessors engaged in military service: 

Once more, with respect to those who had previously been preferred to any military distinction, of which they were afterwards deprived, for the cruel and unjust reason that they chose rather to acknowledge their allegiance to God than to retain the rank they held; we leave them perfect liberty of choice, either to occupy their former stations, should they be content again to engage in military service, or after an honorable discharge, to live in undisturbed tranquillity. For it is fair and consistent that men who have displayed such magnanimity and fortitude in meeting the perils to which they have been exposed, should be allowed the choice either of enjoying peaceful leisure, or resuming their former rank (The Life of Constantine, 2.33 [NPNF2 1.508]).

Canon 12 of the Council of Nicaea does not support Christian non-resistance or pacifism as Mr. Bercot alleged in the Just War Debate. This is just another one of many examples of "prooftexting" the Fathers in order to promote doctrines that are contrary to the consensus of the Church.