God and the Bomb: Report and Reflection
Episcopal News Service. May 12, 1983 [83084]
Ven. Erwin M. Soukup, Diocese of Chicago
CHICAGO (DPS, May 12) -- In a well-publicized meeting and debate at the Palmer House Hotel here May 2-3, the Roman Catholic National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB) overwhelmingly adopted a Pastoral Letter on war and peace. Titled "The Challenge of Peace: God's Promise and our Response," the final vote on the third draft of the document was 238 to 9.
It was not an easy process. The discussions on the need for guidance in the complex problems of peace and nuclear weaponry began in November of 1980. A committee, chaired by Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago, prepared the original draft in 1982. It underwent two revisions before reaching the floor of this meeting and even then further re-shaping was attempted through some 400 amendments with which the gathered bishops were faced.
The major controversy to be resolved was whether to restore the word "halt," as proposed in the second draft of the document, in place of the word "curb," used in the third draft in a statement recommending "support for immediate, bilateral, verifiable agreements to 'curb'/'halt' the testing, production and deployment of new nuclear weapons systems...." "Halt" won out in a standing vote, and the remainder of softening language sought in the document by conservative elements of the Conference was quashed.
The 150-page letter pointed to other far-reaching steps to be followed in the teaching of the faithful on the morality of war and peace:
- A "first use" policy of nuclear weapons is an "unjustifiable moral risk;"
- We maintain a "high skepticism" about the possibility of a "limited nuclear" war;
- There are moral limits to a policy of deterrence by the threat of nuclear warfare because of the "fragility and complexity" of its nature in the relationship among nations;
- We defend "respect for and legislative protection of" the rights of both citizens engaged in military service and conscientious objectors.
Leading the conservative element wishing to soften some of the language of the Pastoral were Archbishop Philip M. Hannan of New Orleans and Auxiliary Bishop Patrick V. Ahern of New York. But countless times, when they rose to offer amendments to achieve that purpose, they were voted down. At one point, Archbishop John R. Roach of St. Paul and Minneapolis, who chaired the meeting, proposed, on a minor change, to "give one to" Hannan. Following general laughter, Hannan responded that he would, on the next amendment, "give one back" to the assembly.
Clue to how voting would go during the two-day gathering was observed in the opening minutes of the meeting. Auxiliary Bishop Austin B. Vaughan of New York rose to state that there was such a vast amount of material to digest that he had been under the impression that the final decision on the draft would not be made until the Conference's November 1983 meeting. He was ruled out of order by Roach, a ruling sustained by the body of bishops.
Some criticism of the document surfaced, however, with regard to its length, its complexity, and its repetitiveness in parts. But Bernardin insisted from the beginning that it was a teaching document and meant to be episcopally authoritative only in the principles it outlined and instructive for application in "strictly conditioned moral acceptance."
No one has faulted the document on its research. In addition to the contributions made by the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, testimony and depositions were sought from theologians, Scriptural scholars, peace organizations, military personnel and officials of the United States government. Although the Pastoral contravenes some of the key doctrines of United States foreign policy, Roach and Bernardin stated that the document "does not endorse a specific freeze proposal" and "cannot and should not be used to oppose any specific proposal (of current U.S. policy)."
In recognizing the mood of the bishops and the swing to the harder language of the Pastoral, Ahern stated that he would vote his approval, but reiterated that his reservations about the document concerned the lack of distinction made "between universal moral principles and specific prudential applications."
"In all," he concluded, "the flaws (in the Pastoral) are relatively minor."
The relatively new open nature of reception of testimony and the public debate could be directly attributed to Pope John XXIII and the Vatican II Council. A new generation of bishops has infused the episcopate of the Roman Catholic Church in recent years as well. Seemingly, as a result, a reflective, deliberate and listening Conference undertook an astounding task and shaped a readable, if not brief, document.
Promulgation of the Pastoral now lies in the hands of several bishops, and most of them intend to use it. One or two indicated they would modify it to some extent in their dioceses (one said he would write his own), especially in view of its formidable content and length. Its impact on the membership of the Church, and society at large, remains to be tested.
The Anglican Communion here and abroad has not been in the rear-guard with respect to its position on the issues of peace and war. In "recent" history, (beginning as far back as 1964), the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church issued a Statement on Peace and War. It, too, noted the ambiguity and complexity of the issue. At that time, during the period of the "Cold War," it took a softer stand on America's right to arm. But it also recognized, as did this gathering, "that a strong military posture does not serve as a deterrent to an aggressor nation intent on military conflict." The statement also declared that "the concept of massive retaliation marked by obliteration bombing of large areas and masses of people should be repudiated."
In 1976, the General Convention passed a resolution that would "support the U.S. government and others to check the proliferation of nuclear arms...." Again, the 1979 session of the General Convention adopted the Lambeth Statement of 1978 in which the Bishops of the Anglican Communion pledged "to protest in whatever way possible at the escalation of the sale of armaments of war..." and "... to place limitations on, ar arrange reductions in, the armaments of war of the nations of the world." That same Convention established a Joint Commission on Peace which was charged with developing "a greater awareness of peacemaking.
A harder stand was taken in the Pastoral Letter from the House of Bishops in 1982. In it the bishops of the Episcopal Church raise some serious questions and offer their conclusions: "How," they ask, "can this policy (of a massive first strike against whole cities and land areas) be squared with a free nation's commitment to justice when it intends the calculated killing of millions of human beings who themselves are not on trial? We hold such an intention to be evil."
The Episcopal bishops continue: "The squandering of such resources (on the production and deployment of nuclear weapons) constitutes an act of aggression against the thirty children who die every sixty seconds of starvation in the world....We declare this to be immoral and unjust." The bishops also called for a continuing witness against "a belligerent nuclear arms policy." And they pledged themselves to a weekly fasting and daily prayer for peace. All of this occurred eight months prior to the same call issued by the Roman Catholic bishops at the National Conference of Catholic Bishops in Chicago.
A member of the secular press, a national wire press service correspondent who had attended the General Convention in New Orleans, was heard to say that the Pastoral Letter of the Bishops of the Episcopal Church was "more precise, more concise, and better focused."
Several developments have resulted from the General Convention's resolution in New Orleans to make the Church an instrument of peacemaking. At its February meeting in Charleston, SC, the Executive Council adopted a resolution against nuclear weaponry development. After a vigorous debate among its members, the Council, as a stockholder of record, voted 21 to 10 to ask AT&T to withdraw from its contracts to manage the Sandia National Laboratory because that facility is the primary United States source of nuclear weapons technology.
An additional move was the invitational conference on peace, "To Make Peace," which was held in Denver April 28-May 1. A series of panel discussions, debates and spiritual conferences highlighted the event. Participants included legislators, academics, religious, members of the foreign intelligence community and key Church leaders. Drawn from a growing network of more than 600 people who form the Episcopal Church's peace network, the participants heard from the voices of traditional and more modern peacemakers, men and women who influence public policy and religious leaders who framed the meeting's work on the basis of Scripture and prayer.
The Church of England, in its recent Synod, also wrestled with the problems provoked by the nuclear age in a debate which was broadcast nationwide last February. Five hours of intensive discussion culminated in a vote on two issues. In a show of hands, the 554-member General Synod of bishops, priests and laity rejected a call for Great Britain to unilaterally abandon its nuclear arsenal. The argument against this proposal was that banning the bomb in England would leave the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in disarray and would sabotage the Geneva talks between the United States and Soviet Russia. The "pro" argument was that there is an over-sufficiency of nuclear weaponry and a reduction or disposing of the arms would not affect deterrence one way or the other.
In a second vote, the Synod did urge the government to reject the policy of "first use" of nuclear weapons in any form. Clearly, the current discussions in the English Church are directed more toward the applications of the principles than toward the broader aspects of the moral problems raised by the nuclear age.
There is a rising tide of evidence that the current arms race raises new moral dilemmas. Some are rooted in the past, but the concepts of a "just war," of deterrence and of limited war take on new dimensions in the light of nuclear capabilities in international relationships. Christians will always live with their sinfulness. But the enormity of what that sinfulness might effect has begun to prey upon the consciences of Christians everywhere. If God-fearing Christians are to have any affect upon the future of "this small planet spinning in space," they will have to be willing to examine hard questions and respond to grave consequences.