Newspaper Page Text
o*
on he Council teaching
concerning peace and war,
and vigorously to pursue the
search for means by which at
all times to limit and
eventually to outlaw the
destructiveness of war.
The Vatican Council noted
that “war continues to
produce daily devastation in
one or another part of the
world” (n. 79). The
observation has lost none of
its truth in the period since
the Council ended; indeed,
there have been further
grievous outbreaks of war and
aggression.
Of one mind with the
Council, we condemn
without qualification wars of
aggression however their true
character may sometimes be
veiled. Whatever case there
may have seemed to exist in
other times for wars fought
for the domination of
another nation, such a case
can no longer be imagined
given the circumstances of
modern warfare, the
heightened sense of
international mutuality and
the increasingly available
humane means to the
realization of that mutuality.
We join wholeheartedly in
the Council’s condemnation
of wars fought without
limitation. We recognize the
right of legitimate
self-defense and, in a world
society still unorganized, the
necessity for recourse to
armed defense and to
collective security action in
the absence of a competent
authority on the international
level and once peaceful means
have been exhausted. But we
seek to limit warfare and to
humanize it, where it remains
a last resort, in the maximum
degree possible. Most of all,
we urge the enlisting of the
energies of all men of good
will in forging the
instruments of peace, to the
end of that war may at long
last be outlawed.
Meanwhile, we are
gratefully conscious that
“those who are pledged to
the service of their country as
members of its armed forces
should regard themselves as
agents of security and
freedom on behalf of their
people. As long as they fulfill
this role properly, they are
making a genuine
contribution to the
establishment of peace”
(Gaudium et Spes, 79).
In the Christian message
peace is not merely the
absence of war. Ultimately,
of course, it presupposes that
presence within and among
men of a positive principle of
life and unity which is none
other than the divine life to
which the Church bears
witness, of which Christ in
His Church is the source. The
soul, then, of a peaceful
society is divine charity. But
justice, the great concern of
the well-ordered state and the
justification for its existence,
is the foundation of the
organized society.
Therefore, peace cannot
be reduced soley to the
maintenance of a balance of
power between enemies; nor
is it to be brought about by
dictatorship, whether this be
the imposition of the sheer
will of a ruler, a party or even
a majority. It is an enterprise
of justice and must be built
up ceaselessly in seeking to
satisfy the all-embracing
demands of the common
good. This is the point of,
Pope Paul’s positive, dynamic
concept of peace: the modem
word of peace is
development. Peace therefore
presupposes the fraternal
confidence which manifests
itself in a'firm determination
to respect other persons and
peoples, above all their
human dignity, and to
collaborate with them in the
pursuit of the shared hopes of
mankind.
Arms Control
It is in nuclear warfare,
even in its “cold phase or
form, that mankind confronts
the moral issue of modem
war in its extreme case. This
has become a situaion in
which two adversaries possess
and deploy weapons which, if
used against each other, could
annihilate their respective
civilizations and even
threaten the survival of the
human race. Nothing more
dramatically suggests the
anti-life direction of
technological warfare than
the neutron bomb; one
philosopher declares that the
manner in which it would
leave entire cities intact, but
totally without life, makes it,
perhaps, the symbol of our
civilization. It would be
perverse indeed if the
Christian conscience were to
be unconcerned or mute in
the face of the multiple moral
aspects of these awesome
prospects.
It is now a quarter century
since Pope Pius XII
summoned that conscience to
a “War on War.” He pointed
out World War II’s
“unspeakable atrocities,” the
“image of a hell upon which
anyone who nourishes
humane sentiments in his
heart can have no more
ardent wish than to close the
door forever.” He warned
against the further progress of
“Human inventions . . .
directed to destruction”, and
pleaded that to the recogni
tion of the immorality of wars
of aggression there be added
“the threat of a judicial
intervention of the nations
and of a punishment inflicted
on the aggressor by the
United Nations, so that war
may always feel itself
proscribed always under the
watchful guard of preventive
action.” He argued that then
“humanity, issuing from the
dark night in which it has
been submerged for so great a
length of time, will be able to
greet the dawn of a new and
better era in its history”
(Christmas broadcast, 1944).
The Second Vatican
Council, in a solemn
declaration, endorsed “the
condemnation of total
warfare issued by recent
popes” and stated:
“Every act of war directed
to the indiscriminate
destruction of whole cities or
vast areas with their
inhabitants is a crime against
God and man which merits
firm and unequivocal
condemnation” (Gaudium et
Spes, 80).
The Council explictly
condemned the use of
weapons of mass destruction,
but abstained from
condemning the possession of
such weapons to deter
“possible enemy attack” (n.
81). Though not passing
direct judgment on this
strategy of deterrence, the
Council did declare that
“men should be convinced
that the arms race in which so
many countries are engaged is
not a safe way to preserve a
steady peace. Nor is the
so-called ‘balance’ resulting
from this race a pure and
authentic peace. Rather than
being eliminated thereby, the
causes of war threaten to
grow gradually
stronger . . . Therefore it
must be said again: the arms
race is an utterly treacherous
trap for humanity, and one
which ensnares the poor to an
intolerable degree’ (n. 81).
The Council did not call
for unilateral disarmament;
Christian morality is not
lacking in realism. But it did
call for reciprocal or
collective disarmament
“proceeding at an equal pace
according to agreement and
backed up by authentic and
workable safeguards” (n. 82).
There are hopeful signs that
such a formula may be
strengthened by the Partial
Test Ban Treaty and that the
commitment under the
Non-Proliferation Treaty to
proceed to a negotiation of
balanced reductions of
nuclear weapons-at the same
time extending the use of
nuclear power for peaceful
development of the needy
nations under adequate
inspection safeguards-may
provide a positive, sane
pattern for the future. We
earnestly pray so,
commending the furtherance
of these hopes to responsible
leaders and to the support of
all citizens.
Meanwhile, it is greatly to
be desired that such prospects
not be dashed by irrational
resolves to keep ahead in
“assured destruction”
capability. Rather it is to be
hoped that the early
ratification by the Senate of
the Non-Proliferation
Treaty-which in essence is a
Treaty between the USSR
and the US and other
nations-will hasten discussion
of across the board
reductions by the big powers.
Despite, and even because of,
the provocations in Eastern
Europe and elsewhere, the
United States should
continue steps to create a
better climate for these
discussions, such as taking the
lead in inviting the UN
Atomic Energy Commission
and other organizations and
foreign states to visit its
nuclear facilities, and
scrupulously reviewing all
commitments for the sale,
loan or lease of armaments.
The Council’s position on
the arms race was clear. To
recall it: “Therefore, we
declare once again: the arms
race is an utterly treacherous
trap for humanity ... It is
much to be feared that if this
race persists, it will eventually
spawn all the lethal ruin
whose path it is now making
ready” (n. 81).
Nonetheless, the nuclear
race goes on. The latest act in
the continuing nuclear arms
race is no doubt the US
decision to build a “thin”
anti-ballistic missile system to
defend against possible
nuclear attack by another
world power. This decision
has been widely interpreted
as the prelude to a “thick”
ABM system to defend
against possible nuclear
attack.
In themselves, such
anti-ballistic missiles are
purely defensive designed to
limit the damage to the
United States from nuclear
attack. Nevertheless, by
upsetting the present strategic
balance, the so-called balance
of terror, there is grave
danger that a United States
ABM system will incite other
nations to increase their
offensive nuclear forces with
the seeming excuse of a need
to restore the balance.
Despite the danger of
triggering an expanded
escalation of the arms race
the pressures for a “thick”
ABM deployment persist.
We seriously question
whether the present policy of
maintaining nuclear
superiority is meaningful for
security. There is no
advantage to be gained by
nuclear superiority, however
it is computed, when each
side is admittedly capable of
inflicting overwhelming
damage on the other, even
after being attacked first.
Such effective parity has been
operative for some years. Any
effort to achieve superiority
only leads to ever-higher
levels of armaments as it
forces the side with the lesser
capability to seek to maintain
its superiority. In the wake of
this action-reaction
phenomenon comes a
decrease in both stability and
security.
The National Conference
of Catholic Bishops pledges
its united effort toward
forming a climate of public
opinion for peace, mindful of
the Council’s advice that
“government officials
depend on public opinion and
feeling to the greatest
possible extent” (n. 82). We
will therefore, through
existing and improved
agencies, support national
programs of education for
Catholic Americans and for
all Americans in collaboration
with all religious groups and
other organizations.
With Gaudium et Spes, we
commend the arduous and
unceasing efforts of
statesmen and specialists in
the field of arms control and
disarmament, and to add our
own encouragement of
systematic studies in this
field. As the Council appealed
to Catholic scholars
throughout the world to
participate more fully in such
studies, so we call upon
intellectuals in the Church in
our land to bring scholarly
competence and their powers
of persuasion to that “war on
war” which the modern
Popes have without exception
pleaded that we wage.
We urge Catholics, and
indeed all our countrymen, to
make a ceaseless vigil of
prayers for peace and for all
those who are charged with
the delicate and difficult
negotiations of disarmament.
Such prayers provide the
most obvious and appropriate
occasion for ecumenical
services bringing together all
in our communities who
cherish the blessed vision of
peace herealded by the
Hebrew prophets and
preached by Christ and His
Apostles. We cannot but
question the depth of the
commitment to peace of
people of religious
background who no longer
pray for peace. But those
who only pray for peace,
leaving to others the arduous
work for peace, the dialogue
for peace, have a defective
theology concerning the
relation between human
action and the accomplish
ment of that will of God in
which is our peace. So, f too,
those who, neglectful of the
part of prayer, rely a only, l on
their own power, or on the
pooling of merely human
resources of intelligence,
energy and even good will,
forget the wisdom of
Scripture: “If the Lord does
not build the house, in vain
the masons toil; if the Lord
does not guard the city, in
vain the sentries watch”
(Psalm 127,1-2).
The International
Community
The Council Fathers
recognized that not even
ending the nuclear arms race,
which itself cannot be
accomplished without the full
cooperation of the
international community,
would ensure the permament
removal of the awesome
threat of modern war. Nor
would disarmament alone,
even assuming it to be
complete and across the
board, remove the causes of
war. “This goal undoubtedly
requires the establishment of
some universal public
authority acknowledged as
such by all, and endowed
with effective power to
safeguard, on the behalf of
all, security, regard for justice
and respect for right” (n. 82).
Such an authority,
furthermore, is required by
the growing, ever more
explicit interdependence of
all men and nations as a result
of which the common good
“today takes on an
increasingly universal
complexion and consequently
involves rights and duties
with respect to the whole
human race” (n. 26).
Therefore political leaders
should” .. . extend their
thoughts and their spirit
beyond the confines of their
own nation, put aside
national selfishness and
ambition to dominate other
nations, and nourish a
profound reverence for the
whole of humanity, which is
already making its way so
laboriously toward greater
unity” (n. 82).
We commend the efforts
of world statesmen,
particularly those of our own
nation, who seek to extend
the spirit and practice of
cooperation in international
agencies and regional
associations of nations, with
the object not only of
terminating or preventing
war, and of building up a
body of international law,
but also of removing the
causes of war through
positive programs.
Since war remains a
melancholy fact of life today,
we believe the United States
not only should insist on
adherence to and the
application by all nations of
existing international