|

American Baptist Churches
in the U.S.A. (at one time known as the Northern Baptist
Convention) has 1.5 million members in 5,800 local congregations.
Over the years its General Board at biennial meetings has regularly
expressed its concerned about nuclear weapons.
In a 1985 Policy
Statement on Peace the General Board stated:
- We call on all nations to abolish their nuclear weapons
and to dispose of such weapons in a manner that is not harmful
to either the physical or political environment.
|
In 1992 the General Board adopted a lengthy Resolution
on Arms Reduction which its Executive Committee updated
in 1996. Among other things the resolution indicated that the General
Board of American Baptist Churches:
- Supports the substantial nuclear arms reduction steps
taken by the U.S. and Russian governments and calls for
expeditious fulfillment of those agreements in partnership
with other states from the former Soviet Union.
- Calls on all nuclear powers to take all nuclear weapons
off alert status.
- Calls for all nation states to halt further production,
transfer or sale of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons
and nuclear weapons materials.
- Calls upon nation states and corporations to make substantial
reductions in conventional weapons transfers and sales,
and for the U.N. to establish systems to monitor and control
arms transfers and sales.
- Calls for the United States and all nuclear nation states
to support the expansion of the Partial Nuclear Test Ban
Treaty into a Comprehensive Test Ban, and for the universal
adoption of such a treaty.
- Calls for worldwide acceptance and strengthening of the
NonProliferation Treaty, including the development of more
vigorous verification procedures and a ban on the sale or
transfer of nuclear weapons technology and materials.
- Calls on Congress and the U. S. Administration to make
cuts in military spending and deployment commensurate with
the changed political and military context.
- Calls for the U.S. government to halt development of the
Strategic Defense Initiative and to abandon all plans for
deploying its various components.
- Calls on Congress to create adequately funded programs
for economic conversion and job retraining for workers involved
in arms production and for military personnel who are involuntarily
discharged.
|

The Catholic Church is the largest body of Christians in the world.
It has about 1 billion members. The pope, who is the bishop of Rome,
serves as the head of the Catholic Church and governs from Vatican
City, sometimes referred to as the Holy See. The pope appoints cardinals
to be his main advisers. As a group, they form the College of Cardinals
and elect a new pope after a reigning pope dies or resigns. The
pope also appoints bishops who preside over churches in different
countries.
|

In
recent years policy statements coming from the Holy
See on nuclear disarmament have been made by Vatican
delegation to the United Nations in New York. Thus,
April 2002 Monsignor Francis Chullikat, deputy head
of the delegation, told delegates of the NPT Preparatory
Committee:
| "There has been a regression" from the
commitment to eliminate nuclear weapons." |
And
he reiterated the Holy See's policy position:
| "There can be no moral acceptance of military
doctrines that embody the permanence of nuclear
weapons." |
Five years earlier Archbishop Renato Martino, permanent
observer for the Holy See at the United Nations, told
the First Committee:
|
 |
| "Nuclear weapons cannot be justified and
deserve condemnation." |
He added:
| "The world must move to the abolition of
nuclear weapons through a universal, non-discriminatory
ban with intensive inspection by universal authority." |
In April 2003 Archbishop Diarmuid Martin presented
the current views of the Holy See to a meeting of the
NPT Preparatory Committee in Geneva. He stated:
Global security will only be guaranteed through global
cooperation, within the framework of an authentically
multilateral system.
|
"There
Has Been Regression"
Address by Monsignor Francis Chullikat, deputy
head of a Holy See delegation to the United Nations,
to the Preparatory Committee for the 2005 Review
Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
in New York on April 10, 2002.
Mr. Chairman, as the international community begins
preparation for the 2005 Review of the Non-Proliferation
Treaty, my Delegation notes the deep concern that
is widely felt about the state of nuclear disarmament.
At the 2000 Review, it was felt that progress
was being made. The Review obtained a clear-cut
commitment from the nuclear weapon states that
systematic and progressive efforts to implement
Article VI would include: "An unequivocal
undertaking by the nuclear weapon states to accomplish
the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals
leading to nuclear disarmament to which all states
parties are committed under Article VI."
This commitment was embodied in a list of 13
practical steps the conference unanimously agreed
to take. However, the progress made in implementing
the 13 steps over the past two years has been
indeed discouraging. In fact, the prospects for
future implementation are alarming.
As an examination of the 13 steps shows, there
has not only been a lack of sufficient progress,
there has been regression. Although, thankfully,
there has been no nuclear testing in this period,
the entry-into-force of the CTBT cannot be seen
on the near horizon. The Conference on Disarmament
is paralyzed. One of the parties to the Anti-Ballistic
Missile Treaty has given notice of withdrawal.
Nuclear weapons are still kept on alert status.
The admonition of the International Court of Justice
for the completion of negotiations towards elimination
is ignored.
Even more serious than the lack of progress is
the overt determination of some nuclear weapon
states to maintain nuclear weapons in a critical
role in their military doctrines. While the international
community rightly welcomes the willingness of
those with the most nuclear weapons to reduce
their stocks of operationally deployed warheads,
what is the real effect of such unilateral disarmament
when it is not made irreversible, i.e., when such
stocks can be remounted again quickly?
My Delegation is deeply concerned about the old
posture of nuclear deterrence that is evolving
into the possibility of use in new strategies.
This must be stoutly resisted. The Holy See has
constantly recalled the fact that the strategy
of deterrence can be envisaged only as a stage
in the process aimed at disarmament, even of a
progressive nature. So long as it is taken as
an end in itself, deterrence encourages the protagonists
to ensure a constant superiority over one another,
in ceaseless race of over-arming.
Mr. Chairman, the concern of the Holy See mounts
in seeing the non-proliferation regime, with the
NPT as its cornerstone, in disarray. The old policies
of nuclear deterrence, which prevailed in the
Cold War, must lead now to concrete disarmament
measures. The rule of law cannot countenance the
continuation of doctrines that hold nuclear weapons
as essential.
There can be no moral acceptance of military
doctrines that embody the permanence of nuclear
weapons. That is why Pope John Paul II has called
for the banishment of all nuclear weapons through
"a workable system for negotiation, even
of arbitration." Those nuclear weapon states
resisting negotiations should therefore be strongly
urged to finally come to the negotiating table.
In fact, in clinging to their outmoded rationales
for nuclear deterrence, they are denying the most
ardent aspirations of humanity as well as the
opinion of the highest legal authority in the
world. In this regard, my Delegation wishes to
reaffirm its well-known position: nuclear weapons
are incompatible with the peace we seek for the
21st century; they cannot be justified. These
weapons are instruments of death and destruction.
The preservation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty
demands unequivocal action towards their elimination.
Only when such a noble goal is attained can the
international community be assured that nations
are acting in "good faith".
Mr. Chairman, my Delegation is confident that
the Preparatory Committee will seize this opportunity
to develop a sharpened sense of urgency to root
out nuclear weapons that are the biggest threat
to mankind. To keep developing weapon systems
that can jeopardize the natural structure upon
which all civilization rests seriously undermines
the genuine quest of the family of nations to
build a culture of peace for the present and future
generations.
|
|
"Nuclear
Weapons Cannot Be Justified and Deserve Condemnation"
Excerpt from a statement by Archbishop Renato
Martino, the Holy See's permanent observer at
the United Nations, to the United Nations' First
Committee, October 15, 1997. After expressing
support of the Holy See for the recently developed
treaty to eliminate land mines, he stated:

If biological weapons, chemical weapons and now
land-mines can be done away with, so too can nuclear
weapons. No weapon so threatens the longed-for
peace of the 21st century as the nuclear.
Let
not the immensity of this task dissuade us from
the efforts needed to free humanity from such
a scourge. With the valuable admonition offered
in the Advisory Opinion of the International
Court of Justice, the international community
can see the legal and moral arguments against
nuclear weapons intertwine with the strategic:
since nuclear weapons can destroy all life on
the planet, they peril all that humanity has ever
stood for and indeed humanity itself.
During
the acrimonious years of the Cold War with the
emphasis on the military doctrine of nuclear deterrence
as a constant justification for the nuclear arms
build-up, the international community felt powerless
to stop the relentless build-up of nuclear weapons.
Not now, in the post-Cold War era characterized
by new partnerships, the international community
cannot shield itself from the assault on life
itself that nuclear weapons represent.
The
work of this Committee has done in calling for
negotiations leading to a Nuclear Weapons Convention
must be increased. Those nuclear weapons States
resisting such negotiations must be challenged,
for, in clinging to their outmoded rationales
for nuclear deterrence, they are denying the most
ardent aspirations of humanity as well as the
opinion of the highest legal authority in the
world. The gravest consequences for mankind lie
ahead if the world is to be ruled by the militarism
represented by nuclear weapons rather than the
humanitarian law espoused by the International
Court of Justice.
Nuclear
weapons are incompatible with the peace we seek
for the 21st century. They cannot be justified.
They deserve condemnation. The preservation of
the Non-Proliferation Treaty demands an unequivocal
commitment to their abolition.
The
Holy See has previously stated in this Committee:
"The world must move to the abolition of
nuclear weapons through a universal, non-discriminatory
ban with intensive inspection by universal authority".
Today we repeat those words, conscious that there
is a gathering momentum of world opinion in support
of the complete elimination of nuclear weapons.
This is a moral challenge, a legal challenge and
a political challenge. That multiple- based challenge
must be met by the application of our humanity.
|
"Global Security
Requires Global Cooperation"
At
the 2003 meeting of the NPT Preparatory Committee
in Geneva, the views of the Holy See were presented
by Archbishop Diarmuid Martin. He spoke as permanent
observer of the Holy See to the United Nations
Office in Geneva. Subsequently he was appointed
Archbishop of Dublin. In Geneva Archbishop Martin
indicated that "Global
Security Requires Global Cooperation." He
stated:
Global security will only be guaranteed through
global cooperation, within the framework of
an authentically multilateral system.
Archbishop Martin stressed three points in
particular in relation to the Nuclear Non-Proliferaton
Treaty:
-
In the Final Document of
the NPT 2000 Review, all parties recognized
that the total elimination of nuclear weapons
is the only guarantee against the use of threat
of use of nuclear weapons. . . .The preservation
of the non-proliferation dimensions of the
Treaty demands unequivocal action towards
the elimination of nuclear weapons.
-
The fight against terrorism
also requires enhancing our commitment to
an integrated programme of nuclear non-proliferation
and disarmament. The threat of terrorist attacks
using nuclear weapons of mass destruction
ought to galvanize the community of nations
to ensure that the NPT, the cornerstone of
the non-proliferation regime, is strengthened.
- Neither must we lose sight of the goal of
universal adherence to the Treaty. . . . The
peace process in the Middle East should thus
aim at rapidly consolidating the necessary security
presuppositions which will permit the establishment
there of a zone verifiably free of all weapons
of mass destruction.
|
|
|

|

The Catholic Church with 60 million members and 19,200
local parishes is the largest religious body in the United
States. Bishops are appointed by the pope and serve as spiritual
and administrative leaders of 194 dioceses. The bishops join
together as the United States
Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) to jointly
exercise certain pastoral functions on behalf of the Christian
faithful of the United States.
In 1983 the National Conference of Bishops (as it was
then known) offered their views on nuclear weapons in a pastoral
letter entitled "The Challenge
of Peace: God's Promise and Our Response." Following
the lead of Pope John Paul II in a speech to the United Nations,
the U.S. bishops accepted nuclear deterrence "as a step
on the way toward progressive disarmament". However,
they noted:
|
"No use of nuclear weapons which would violate
the principle of discrimination or proportionality may
be intended in a strategy of deterrence."
|
They also stated:
|
"In the words of our Holy Father, we need a 'moral
about-face.' The whole world must summon the moral courage
and technical means to say no to nuclear conflict; no
to weapons of mass destruction; no to an arms race which
robs the poor and the vulnerable; and no to the moral
danger of a nuclear age which places before humankind
indefensible choices of constant terror or surrender."
|
Ten years later the U.S. Catholic bishops reflected on
the status of nuclear weapons and the movement toward disarmament
in a 1993 report entitled "The
Harvest of Justice Is Sown in Peace". They retained
their conditional acceptance of nuclear deterrence but stated:
| "We must continue to say No to the very idea of
nuclear war." |
They also insisted:
| "The eventual elimination of nuclear weapons is
more than a moral ideal; it should be a policy goal." |
In May 2002 the U.S. Catholic bishops applied these teachings
in a statement on the new nuclear
treaty between the United States and Russia. They favored
the treaty but advocated further cuts in nuclear weapons, abhorred
any use of nuclear weapons, supported ratification of the Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty, and called for more assistance on nuclear threat
reduction.
The Challenge of
Peace: God's Promise and Our Response
A Pastoral Letter on War and Peace
|
|
In
November 1980 the National Conference of Bishops (as
it was then known) appointed a committee of bishops,
chaired by Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, to draft a pastoral
letter on war and peace. The bishops reviewed two drafts
and adopted the third and final draft on May 3,1983.
A substantial part of this pastoral letter focuses on
nuclear weapons. The summary is presented below. The
complete pastoral letter, The Challenge of Peace, is
available from USCCB at 800 235-8722, order number 863-0.
Summary
The Second Vatican Council opened its evaluation of
modern warfare with the statement: "The whole human
race faces a moment of supreme crisis in its advance
toward maturity." We agree with the council's assessment;
the crisis of the moment is embodied in the threat which
nuclear weapons pose for the world and much that we
hold dear in the world. We have seen and felt the effects
of the crisis of the nuclear age in the lives of people
we serve. Nuclear weaponry has drastically changed the
nature of warfare, and the arms race poses a threat
to human life and human civilization which is without
precedent.
We write this letter from the perspective of Catholic
faith. Faith does not insulate us from the daily challenges
of life but intensifies our desire to address them precisely
in light of the gospel which has come to us in the person
of the risen Christ. Through the resources of faith
and reason we desire in this letter to provide hope
for people in our day and direction toward a world freed
of the nuclear threat.
As Catholic bishops we write this letter as an exercise
of our teaching ministry. The Catholic tradition on
war and peace is a long and complex one; it stretches
from the Sermon on the Mount to the statements of Pope
John Paul II. We wish to explore and explain the resources
of the moral-religious teaching and to apply it to specific
questions of our day. In doing this we realize, and
we want readers of this letter to recognize, that not
all statements in this letter have the same moral authority.
At times we state universally binding moral principles
found in the teachings of the Church; at other times
the pastoral letter makes specific applications, observations
and recommendations which allow for diversity of opinion
on the part of those who assess the factual data of
situations differently. However, we expect Catholics
to give our moral judgments serious consideration when
they are forming their own views on specific problems.
The experience of preparing this letter has manifested
to us the range of strongly held opinion in the Catholic
community on questions of fact and judgment concerning
issues of war and peace. We urge mutual respect among
individuals and groups in the Church as this letter
is analyzed and discussed. Obviously, as bishops, we
believe that such differences should be expressed within
the framework of Catholic moral teaching. We need in
the Church not only conviction and commitment but also
civility and charity.
While this letter is addressed principally to the Catholic
community, we want it to make a contribution to the
wider public debate in our country on the dangers and
dilemmas of the nuclear age. Our contribution will not
be primarily technical or political, but we are convinced
that there is no satisfactory answer to the human problems
of the nuclear age which fails to consider the moral
and religious dimensions of the questions we face.
Although we speak in our own name, as Catholic bishops
of the Church in the United States, we have been conscious
in the preparation of this letter of the consequences
our teaching will have not only for the United States
but for other nations as well. One important expression
of this awareness has been the consultation we have
had, by correspondence and in an important meeting at
the Vatican (January 18-19, 1983), with representatives
of European bishops' conferences. This consultation
with bishops of other countries, and, of course, with
the Holy See, has been very helpful to us.
Catholic teaching has always understood peace in positive
terms. In the words of Pope John Paul II: "Peace
is not just the absence of war. . . . Like a cathedral,
peace must be constructed patiently and with unshakable
faith." (Coventry, England, 1982) Peace is the
fruit of order. Order in human society must be shaped
on the basis of respect for the transcendence of God
and the unique dignity of each person, understood in
terms of freedom, justice, truth and love. To avoid
war in our day we must be intent on building peace in
an increasingly interdependent world. In Part III of
this letter we set forth a positive vision of peace
and the demands such a vision makes on diplomacy, national
policy, and personal choices.
While pursuing peace incessantly, it is also necessary
to limit the use of force in a world comprised of nation
states, faced with common problems but devoid of an
adequate international political authority. Keeping
the peace in the nuclear age is a moral and political
imperative. In Parts I and II of this letter we set
forth both the principles of Catholic teaching on war
and a series of judgments, based on these principles,
about concrete policies. In making these judgments we
speak as moral teachers, not as technical experts.
|
I. Some Principles, Norms and Premises of Catholic Teaching
A. On War
- Catholic teaching begins in every case with a presumption
against war and for peaceful settlement of disputes.
In exceptional cases, determined by the moral principles
of the just-war tradition, some uses of force are
permitted.
- Every nation has a right and duty to defend itself
against unjust aggression.
- Offensive war of any kind is not morally justifiable.
- It is never permitted to direct nuclear or conventional
weapons to "the indiscriminate destruction of
whole cities or vast areas with their populations.
. . ." (Pastoral Constitution, #80.) The intentional
killing of innocent civilians or non-combatants is
always wrong.
- Even defensive response to unjust attack can cause
destruction which violates the principle of proportionality,
going far beyond the limits of legitimate defense.
This judgment is particularly important when assessing
planned use of nuclear weapons. No defensive strategy,
nuclear or conventional, which exceeds the limits
of proportionality is morally permissible.
|
|
B. On Deterrence
- "In current conditions 'deterrence' based on
balance, certainly not as an end in itself but as
a step on the way toward a progressive disarmament,
may still be judged morally acceptable. Nonetheless,
in order to ensure peace, it is indispensable not
to be satisfied with this minimum which is always
susceptible to the real danger of explosion."
(Pope John Paul II, "Message to U.N. Special
Session on Disarmament," #8, June 1982.)
- No use of nuclear weapons which would violate the
principles of discrimination or proportionality may
be intended in a strategy of deterrence. The moral
demands of Catholic teaching require resolute willingness
not to intend or to do moral evil even to save our
own lives or the lives of those we love.
- Deterrence is not an adequate strategy as a long-term
basis for peace; it is a transitional strategy justifiable
only in conjunction with resolute determination to
pursue arms control and disarmament. We are convinced
that "the fundamental principle on which our
present peace depends must be replaced by another,
which declares the true and solid peace of nations
consists not in equality of arms but in mutual trust
alone". (Pope John XIII, Peace on Earth, #113.)
C. The Arms Race and Disarmament
1. The arms race is one of the greatest curses on
the human race; it is to be condemned as a danger, an
act of aggression against the poor, and a folly which
does not provide the security it promises. (Cf: Pastoral
Constitution, #81; Statement of the Holy See to the
Untied Nations, 1976).
2. Negotiations must be pursued in every reasonable
form possible; they should be governed by the "demand
that the arms race should cease; that the stockpiles
which exist in various countries should be reduced equally
and simultaneously by the parties concerned; that nuclear
weapons should be banned; and that a general agreement
should eventually be reached about progressive disarmament
and an effective method of control." (Pope John
XXIII, Peace on Earth, #112.)
D. On Personal Conscience
- Military Service: "All those who enter
the military service in loyalty to their country should
look upon themselves as the custodians of the security
and freedom of their fellow countrymen; and when they
carry out their duty properly, they are contributing
to the maintenance of peace." (Pastoral Constitution,
#79.)
- Conscientious Objection: "Moreover,
it seems just that laws should make humane provisions
for the case of conscientious objectors who refuse
to carry arms, provided they accept some other form
of community service." (Pastoral Constitution,
#79.)
- Non-violence: "In this same spirit we
cannot but express our admiration for all who forego
the use of violence to vindicate their rights and
resort to other means of defense which are available
to weaker parties, provided it can be done without
harm to the rights and duties of others and of the
community." (Pastoral Constitution, #78.)
- Citizens and Conscience: "Once again
we deem it opportune to remind our children of their
duty to take an active part in public life, and to
contributed towards the attainment of the common good
of the entire human family as well as that of their
own political community. . . . In other words, it
is necessary that human beings, in the intimacy of
their own consciences, should so live and act in their
temporal lives as to create a synthesis between scientific,
technical and professional elements on the one hand,
and spiritual values on the other." (Pope John
XIII, Peace on Earth, #146, 150.)
|
| II. Moral Principles and
Policy Choices
As bishops in the United States, assessing the concrete
circumstances of our society, we have made a number
of observations and recommendations in the process of
applying moral principles to specific policy choices.
A. On the Use of Nuclear Weapons
- Counter Population Use: Under no circumstances
may nuclear weapons or other instruments of mass slaughter
be used for the purpose of destroying population centers
or other predominantly civilian targets. Retaliatory
action which would indiscriminately and disproportionately
take many wholly innocent lives, lives of people who
are in no way responsible for reckless actions of
their government, must also be condemned.
- The Initiation of Nuclear War: We do not
perceive any situation in which the deliberate initiation
of nuclear war, on however restricted a scale, can
be morally justified. Non-nuclear attacks by another
state must be resisted by other than nuclear means.
Therefore, a serious moral obligation exists to develop
non-nuclear defensive strategies as rapidly as possible.
In this letter we urge NATO to move rapidly toward
the adoption of a "no first use" policy,
but we recognize this will take time to implement
and will require the development of an adequate alternative
defense posture.
- Limited Nuclear War: Our examination of the
various arguments on this question makes us highly
skeptical about the real meaning of "limited."
One of the criteria of the just-war teaching is that
there must be a reasonable hope of success in bringing
about justice and peace. We must ask whether such
a reasonable hope can exist once nuclear weapons have
been exchanged. The burden of proof remains on those
who assert that meaningful limitation is possible.
In our view the first imperative is to prevent any
use of nuclear weapons and we hope that leaders will
resist the notion that nuclear conflict can be limited,
contained or won in any traditional sense.
B. On Deterrence
In concert with the evaluation provided by Pope John
Paul II, we have arrived at a strictly conditional moral
acceptance of deterrence. In this letter we have outlined
criteria and recommendations which indicate the meaning
of conditional acceptance of deterrence policy. We cannot
consider such a policy adequate as a long-term basis
for peace.
C. On Promoting Peace
- We support immediate, bilateral verifiable agreements
to halt the testing, production and deployment of
new nuclear weapons systems. This recommendation is
not to be identified with any specific political initiative.
- We support efforts to achieve deep cuts in the arsenals
of both superpowers; efforts should concentrate first
on systems which threaten the retaliatory forces of
either major power.
- We support early and successful conclusion of negotiations
of a comprehensive test ban treaty.
- We urge new efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear
weapons in the world, and to control the conventional
arms race, particularly the conventional arms trade.
- We support, in an increasingly interdependent word,
political and economic policies designed to protect
human dignity and to promote the human rights of every
person, especially the least among us. In this regard,
we call for the establishment of some form of global
authority adequate to the needs of the international
common good.
|
|
This letter includes many judgments from the perspective
of ethics, politics and strategy needed to speak concretely
and correctly to the "moment of supreme crisis"
identified by Vatican II. We stress again that readers
should be aware, as we have been, of the distinction
between our statement of moral principles and of official
Church teaching and our application of these to concrete
issues. We urge that special care be taken not to use
passages our of context; neither should brief portions
of this document be cited to support positions it does
not intend to convey or which are not truly in accord
with the spirit of its teaching.
In concluding this summary we respond to two key questions
often asked about this pastoral letter:
Why do we address these matters fraught with such complexity,
controversy and passion? We speak as pastors, not politicians.
We are teachers, not technicians. We cannot avoid our
responsibility to lift up the moral dimensions of the
choices before our world and nation. The nuclear age
is an era of moral as well as physical danger. We are
the first generation since Genesis with the power to
threaten the created order. We cannot remain silent
in the face of such danger. Why do we address these
issues? We are simply trying to live up to the call
of Jesus to be peacemakers in our own time and situation.
What are we saying? Fundamentally, we are saying that
the decisions about nuclear weapons are among the most
pressing moral questions of our age. While these decisions
have obvious military and political aspects, they involve
fundamental moral choices. In simple terms, we are saying
that good ends (defending one's country, protecting
freedom, etc.) cannot justify immoral means (the use
of weapons which kill indiscriminately and threaten
whole societies). We fear that our world and nation
are headed in the wrong direction. More weapons with
greater destructive potential are produced every day.
More and more nations are seeking to become nuclear
powers. In our quest for more and more security we fear
we are actually becoming less and less secure.
In the words of the Holy Father, we need a "moral
about-face." The whole world must summon the moral
courage and technical means to say no to nuclear conflict;
no to weapons of mass destruction; no to an arms race
which robs the poor and the vulnerable; and no to the
moral danger of a nuclear age which places before humankind
indefensible choices of constant terror or surrender.
Peacemaking is not an optional commitment. It is a requirement
of our faith. We are called to be peacemakers, not by
some movement of the moment, but by our Lord Jesus.
The content and context of our peacemaking is set not
by some political agenda or ideological program, but
by the teaching of his Church.
Ultimately, this letter is intended as an expression
of Christian faith, affirming the confidence we have
that the risen Lord remains with us precisely in moment
of crisis. It is our belief in his presence and power
among us which sustain us in confronting the awesome
challenge of the nuclear age. We speak from faith to
provide hope for all who recognize the challenge and
are working to confront it with the resources of faith
and reason.
To approach the nuclear age in faith is to recognize
our absolute need for prayer: we urge and invite all
to unceasing prayer for peace with justice for all people.
In a spirit of prayerful hope we present this message
of peace.
Summary: The Challenge of
Peace: God's Promise, Our Response © 1983 United
States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Inc., Washington,
DC. Used with permission. All rights reserved. No part
of this document may be reproduced by any means without
permission in writing from the copyright holder.
|
The Harvest of Justice
Is Sown in Peace
A Reflection of the National Conference of Catholic
Bishops
on the Tenth Anniversary of The Challenge of Peace
|
Ten years after issuing The Challenge of Peace the
National Conference of Catholic Bishops reviewed the findings
of the 1983 pastoral letter and offered their reflections.
The Harvest
of Justice is available on the web site of the U.S.
Conference of Catholic Bishops. The section dealing with
nuclear disarmament is presented below with permission.
|
- Unfinished Business: Nuclear Disarmament and
Proliferation
Our l983 pastoral letter focused special attention
on the morality of nuclear weapons at a time of
widespread fear of nuclear war. Only ten years later,
the threat of global nuclear war may seem more remote
than at any time in the nuclear age, but we may
be facing a different but still dangerous period
in which the use of nuclear weapons remains a significant
threat. We cannot address questions of war and peace
today, therefore, without acknowledging that the
nuclear question remains of vital political and
moral significance.
The end of the Cold War has changed the nuclear
question in three ways. First, nuclear weapons are
still an integral component of U.S. security policies,
but they are no longer at the center of these policies
or of international relations. In 1983, a dominant
concern was the ethics of nuclear weapons. Today,
this concern, while still critically important,
must be considered in the context of a more fundamental
question of the ethical foundations of political
order: How do we achieve Pacem in Terris' vision
of a just and stable political order, so that nations
will no longer rely on nuclear weapons for their
security? Second, we have new opportunities to take
steps toward progressive nuclear disarmament. In
l983, the first task was to stop the growth of already
bloated nuclear arsenals; today, the moral task
is to proceed with deep cuts and ultimately to abolish
these weapons entirely. Third, the threat of global
nuclear war has been replaced by a threat of global
nuclear proliferation. In addition to the declared
nuclear powers, a number of other countries have
or could very quickly deploy nuclear weapons, and
still other nations, or even terrorist groups, might
seek to obtain or develop nuclear weapons. Just
as the nuclear powers must prevent nuclear war,
so also they, with the rest of the international
community, bear a heavy moral responsibility to
stop he spread of nuclear, biological and chemical
weapons.
|
- The Moral Judgment on Deterrence.
In 1983, we judged that nuclear deterrence may be
morally acceptable as long as it is limited to deterring
nuclear use by others; sufficiency, not nuclear
superiority, is its goal; and it is used as a step
on the way toward progressive disarmament.29
Some believe that this judgment remains valid,
since significant progress has been made in reducing
nuclear weapons, including the most destabilizing
ones, while at least some of those that remain are
still necessary to deter existing nuclear threats.
Others point to the end of the Soviet threat and
the apparent unwillingness of the nuclear powers
to accept the need to eliminate nuclear weapons
as reasons for abandoning our strictly conditioned
moral acceptance of nuclear deterrence. They also
cite the double standard inherent in nonproliferation
efforts: What is the moral basis for asking other
nations to forego nuclear weapons if we continue
to judge our own deterrent to be morally necessary?
We believe our judgment of 1983 that nuclear
deterrence is morally acceptable only under certain
strict conditions remains a useful guide for evaluating
the continued moral status of nuclear weapons
in a post-Cold War world. It is useful because
it acknowledges the fundamental moral dilemmas
still posed by nuclear weapons, and it reflects
the progress toward fulfilling the conditions
we elaborated in 1983. At the same time, it highlights
the new prospects - and thus the added moral urgency
- of making even more dramatic progress in arms
control and disarmament as the only basis for
the continued moral legitimacy of deterrence.
-
A Post-Cold War Agenda For Nuclear Disarmament.
While significant progress has been made in recent
years, we believe additional steps are needed
if nuclear policies and priorities are to keep
up with the dramatic changes in world politics
and if our nation is to move away from relying
on nuclear deterrence as a basis for its security.
Present challenges include the following:
- The Role of Nuclear Weapons: We must continue
to say No to the very idea of nuclear war. A minimal
nuclear deterrent may be justified only to deter
the use of nuclear weapons. The United States should
commit itself never to use nuclear weapons first,
should unequivocally reject proposals to use nuclear
weapons to deter any nonnuclear threats, and should
reinforce the fragile barrier against the use of
these weapons. Indeed, we abhor any use of nuclear
weapons.
- Arms Control and Disarmament: Nuclear deterrence
may be justified only as a step on the way toward
progressive disarmament. The end of the Cold War,
according to the Holy See, "challenge[s] the
world community to adopt a post-nuclear form of
security. That security lies in the abolition of
nuclear weapons and the strengthening of international
law."30
A first step toward this goal would be prompt ratification
and implementation of the START I and START II treaties.
Even once these treaties are fully implemented,
there will still be more than 10,000 nuclear weapons
in the world, containing explosive power hundreds
of thousands times greater than the bombs dropped
on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Therefore, much deeper
cuts are both possible and necessary. The eventual
elimination of nuclear weapons is more than a moral
ideal; it should be a policy goal.
The negotiation of a verifiable comprehensive test
ban treaty would not only demonstrate our commitment
to this goal, but also would improve our moral credibility
in urging nonnuclear nations to forego the development
of nuclear weapons. We, therefore, support a halt
to nuclear testing as our nation pursues an effective
global test ban and renewal of the Non-Proliferation
Treaty. Also, steps must be taken to reduce the
threat of nuclear terrorism. We must reverse the
spread of nuclear technologies and materials. We
welcome, therefore, U.S. efforts to achieve a global
ban on the production of fissionable materials for
use in nuclear weapons. Finally, one should not
underestimate the role of the International Atomic
Energy Agency as a forum for the discussion of these
issues and as a force encouraging nations to take
the steps necessary in this area.
- Cooperative Security and a Just International
Order: The nuclear powers may justify, and then
only temporarily, their nuclear deterrents only
if they use their power and resources to lead in
the construction of a more just and stable international
order. An essential part of this international order
must be a collective security framework that reverses
the proliferation of nuclear weapons, guarantees
the security of nonnuclear states and ultimately
seeks to make nuclear weapons and war itself obsolete.
The United States and other nations should also
make the investments necessary to help ensure the
development of stable, democratic governments in
nations which have nuclear weapons or might seek
to obtain them.
An active commitment by the United States to
nuclear disarmament and the strengthening of collective
security is the only moral basis for temporarily
retaining our deterrent and our insistence that
other nations forego these weapons. We advocate
disarmament by example: careful but clear steps
to reduce and end our dependence on weapons of
mass destruction.
In our five-year report on The Challenge of
Peace, we said: "To contain the nuclear
danger of our time is itself an awesome undertaking.
To reshape the political fabric of an increasingly
interdependent world is an even larger and more
complicated challenge."31
Now, on this tenth anniversary, we must be engaged
in the difficult task of envisioning a future rooted
in peace, with new institutions for resolving differences
between nations, new global structures of mediation
and conflict-resolution and a world order that has
moved beyond nuclear weapons once and for all. We
are committed to join in this struggle, to bring
the Gospel message of justice and peace to this
vital work.
|
New
Nuclear Treaty and U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy
 |
|
Pope John Paul
II greets
Bishop Wilton D. Gregory
|
On May 24, 2002 the Most Reverend Wilton D. Gregory,
President, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, issued
a Statement
on New Nuclear Treaty and U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy.
This was the day on which President Bush and President
Putin signed the Strategic Offensive Reduction Treaty
between the United States and Russia. The Catholic bishops
stated:
| We welcome the new treaty. . . .
The treaty should contribute to non-proliferation
efforts and a safer world. |
However, they added that
| we are concerned that
U.S. planning and policies keep pace with the dramatic
changes in world politics since the end of the Cold
War, and move away from reliance on nuclear weapons
as a central part of our nation's military doctrine.
|
Bishop Gregory's statement cited four issues of particular
importance.
| Further cuts in nuclear weapons.
Much deeper, more irreversible cuts, both in strategic
and tactical weapons, are both possible and necessary.
The use of nuclear weapons. We oppose
the continued readiness of the United States to
use nuclear weapons, especially against non-nuclear
threats, and the potential development of new
weapons for this purpose. . . . We abhor any use
of nuclear weapons.
Ratification of the test ban treaty. We
urge the President to support the ratification
of the comprehensive test ban treaty.
Treat reduction. More must be done to
assist nuclear nations, particularly Russia, in
dismantling and safeguarding their weapons and
nuclear materials.
|
These ideas were further developed in Testimony
on the MoscowTreaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions
before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on July
23, 2002. The testimony was presented by Fr. Drew Christiansen,
S.J., counselor on international affairs, U.S. Conference
of Catholic Bishops.
|
Other Statements
on Nuclear Weapons Issues
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops makes statements on other
nuclear weapons issues as they arise, such as the proposed Robust
Nuclear Earth Penetrator. To see these statements click here.
|
|

|

Pax Christi International
is a non-profit, non-governmental Catholic peace movement
that began in France at the end of World War II. Today, it
is comprised of autonomous national sections, local groups,
and affiliated organizations spread over 30 countries and
5 continents, with over 60,000 members worldwide. The movement
works in all areas of peace but has a specific focus on demilitarization,
security and arms trade, development and human rights, and
ecology.
In 1998 Godfried Cardinal Danneels, president of Pax Christi
International, joined with the Rev. Dr. Konrad Raiser, general
secretary of the World Council of Churches in a statement
entitled Act Now for Nuclear Abolition
, presented to Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Preparatory
Conference. Among other things they stated:
|
Nuclear weapons, whether used or threatened, are grossly
evil and morally wrong. As an instrument of mass destruction,
nuclear weapons slaughter the innocent and ravage the
environment....When used as an instrument of deterrence,
nuclear weapons hold innocent people hostage for political
and military purposes. Therefore, the doctrine of nuclear
deterrence is morally corrupt.
|
In 2000 Pax Christi International published New Challenges
on Nuclear Disarmament Agenda: A Call and Statement on Nuclear
Disarmament. (This can be seen at to www.paxchristi.net, then
go to resources -- archive (more) -- security & disarmament
-- 10/00 -- New Challenges on Nuclear
Disarmament Agenda SD04 (EFGDP)00 English.) Signed by
74 bishops from 20 nations
on five continents, the statement declared:
| The need for abolition [of
nuclear weapons] exists because of the real possibility
that nuclear weapons could be used in anger for the first
time since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, with disastrous results
for the whole of humanity. In recent years, we have witnessed
policies by several states to extend the role of nuclear
weapons in their security policies. India and Pakistan
are the most prominent examples. The USA and the Russian
Federation too are modernizing and extending the role
of nuclear weapons.
We call upon all states to put urgent negotiation of
a nuclear disarmament convention at the top of the international
agenda.
|
The Pax Christi International statement then presented
a set of immediate steps to move closer to abolition, including
nuclear reductions by the United States, Russia, and the small
nuclear-weapon states, ratification of the Comprehensive Test
Ban Treaty, de-alerting, pledge of no first use, and establishment
of nuclear free zones.
|

|

Pax Christi
USA is the national Catholic peace movement
of 14,000 members who are committed to the gospel imperative
of seeking peace through nonviolence. It is the United States
section of Pax Christi International.
In
1998 on the 15th anniversary of Challenge of Peace:
God's Promise and Our Response (the 1983 report of
the National Conference of Catholic Bishops), Catholic bishops
affiliated with Pax Christi USA issued a statement on The
Morality of Nuclear Deterrence. [URL to be obtained].
Speaking for themselves and not the entire National Conference
of Catholic Bishops, the Pax Christi bishops indicated:
| For the past fifteen years, and particularly
in the context of the Cold War, we, the Catholic bishops
of the United States, have reluctantly acknowledge the
possibility that nuclear weapons could have some moral
legitimacy, but only if the goal was nuclear disarmament.
It is our present, prayerful judgment that this legitimacy
is now lacking. |
They concluded by saying:
| Nuclear deterrence as a national policy must be condemned
as morally abhorrent because it is the excuse and justification
for the continued possession and further development of
these horrendous weapons. We urge all to join in taking
up the challenge to begin the effort to eliminate nuclear
weapons now, rather than relying on them indefinitely. |
|


The Church
of the Brethren has 140,000 members and 1,100 congregations
in the United States. It is governed by Annual Conference, with
every congregation sending delegates yearly. General Board is the
program and administrative agency of the Church of the Brethren.
As a peace church the Church of the Brethren through Annual Conference
and General Board has addressed the abhorrence of nuclear weapons
dozens of times. Though written nearly 20 years ago, the sentiment
is perhaps captured best in a General Board Resolution of October
1984. Among concerns expressed were the following:
- Under the banner of national security, our nation fuels
a nuclear arms race; but it has not made us more secure.
We seek to intimidate enemies with the threat of nuclear
weapons, calling it deterrence; but it has not deterred
other nations in their weapons buildups. It has only heightened
the mutual threat.
- Our nation has contributed to a world situation in which
few serious negotiations are taking place to reduce the
danger of nuclear annihilation.
- We call for initiatives by our government toward true
security for all and away from belligerence.
- We believe and international agreement should be sought
to keep outer space weapon-free and that funds should not
even be used for "star wars" research.
|
Here is the complete resolution:
| Church of the Brethren General Board Resolution
October 1984
In this time of terrible Belligerence
Never in the span of human existence have we known such ultimate
threat
to life itself. Under the banner of national security, our
nation fuels
a nuclear arms race; but it has not made us more secure. We
seek to
intimidate enemies with the threat of nuclear weapons, calling
it
deterrence; but it has not deterred other nations in their
weapons
buildups. It has only heightened the mutual threat.
In growing devotion to military preparation, our national
spending
priorities have changes. More of our wealth is being moved
into war
making. The planned outlay of just under $300 billion for
national
defense in 1985 is an increase of 70% within four years. At
the same
time, there are for 1985 planned cuts in spending for programs
to assist
low-income people. We are not investing our resources wisely.
The
spending is not consistent with Christian stewardship.
Our nation has contributed to a world situation in which
few serious
negotiations are taking place to reduce the danger of nuclear
annihilation. We assume that all liberation movements are
"communist"
inspired and controlled. We reduce international relationships
to a
conflict between "the free world" and "an evil
empire." We replace
diplomacy with military confrontation as a means to world
stability. We
place missiles in Europe. We refuse to renounce first strike
use of
nuclear weapons. Intervention by the United States in regional
disputed
in areas like the Middle East and Central America has increased
the
level of violence and contributed to conflict rather than
resolving it.
In this time of terrible belligerence,
As a people of God, as members of the body of Christ, as
members of
the Church of the Brethren, we feel impelled to declare our
concern
about present national direction.
Our nation is not alone in creating conditions of enmity,
in engaging
in terrorist activity, and in threatening human survival.
Our task is
not to make a dispassionate, "even-handed" assessment
of national blame
among the nations of the world. Rather, we must assess the
action of our
own nation. We must acknowledge and confess our own responsibility
for
that action. And we must determine the steps we will take
as a people
convinced that "all war is sin." Ours is a sobering
assignment. We come
to this time with and awareness that in the eyes of most of
the world
and in the judgment of most of the Body of Christ, our nation
is the
most threateningly belligerent on earth. We call for initiatives
by our
government toward true security for all and away from belligerence.
In this time of terrible belligerence,
We believe events have already demonstrated the negative
results of
basing Pershing II ballistic missiles and ground-launched
Cruise
missiles in Western Europe. The announced intention to deploy
the
weapons unless new arms agreement s were reached between the
United
States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has not
resulted in
agreement. Rather those negotiations are terminated and the
Soviets have
deployed submarines armed with nuclear weapons near our coastlines.
Our
relationships with the nations of Western Europe are strained
because of
opposition by so many people to the presence of the missiles.
We call
for an end to the deployment of the missiles and the elimination
of
their presence in Western Europe.
In this time of terrible belligerence,
The MX missile is a dangerous and expensive weapon. IT is
a
first-strike weapon with great accuracy and a "hard target
kill
capacity" far exceeding land based missiles now possessed
by either the
USA or the USSR. It is a weapon that invites a pre-emptive
strike and an
early launch as a response.
The future threat to human life is a great cost. But a greater
cost
is the present one of human suffering in poverty that the
same resources
could be used to alleviate. TO produce the first twenty-one
missiles,
$2.5 billion has been budgeted for the 1984 fiscal year. To
build the
proposed 100 MX Missiles would cost an estimated $25-$30 billion.
In
spite of those costs, reports came of the government's intention
to
build 200 MX missiles. The cost in weaponry is increased by
inflated and
accelerated charges. What is already committed represents
locked-in
long-term costs for the future.
The MX missile is promoted as a "bargaining chip"
in arms control
negotiations. Such is obviously not the case. Even such justification
for the MX missile is a dangerous gamble in a game of violence.
We call
for an end to the development and production of the MX missile.
In this time of terrible belligerence,
The Trident II submarine-based missile is an even greater
threat than
the MX. This counterforce weapon is designed to destroy enemy
missile
silos. It is seen as a threat to the entire Soviet nuclear
deterrence
force. While the MX would require one-half hour to reach the
Soviet
Union, the Trident II can be launched near their shores. The
projected
development of 20 submarines, each with 24 missiles, is estimated
to
cost more than $40 billion. We call for a cancellation of
the
development of this first strike nuclear weapon.
In this time of terrible belligerence
Millions of dollars are being spent to design and create
space
weaponry. Even as the nation engages in a limited debate about
the
desirability of such arms, scientists are openly skeptical
about the
possibility of developing the proposed defensive nuclear shield
in
space. Whether possible or not we abhor even the idea if militarizing
outer space. We believe and international agreement should
be sought to
keep outer space weapon-free and that funds should not even
be used for
"star wars" research.
In this time of terrible belligerence,
Continuing efforts are made to produce new chemical weapons
after a
fifteen-year moratorium on such production. Hundreds of millions
of
dollars are spent annually on chemical warfare. These chemical
weapons,
most threatening to unarmed civilians, are rejected for deployment
by
European a | |