Nobody asked me, but …

This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected.  Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies.  Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue.  The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.

de­

Unilateral Disarmament: This is

Blessed Are the Peacemakers

As an active member in my church and being outspoken on military ethics,

I was recently volunteered by my fel­low parishioners to debate with the Bishop of Richmond on the issues of war and peace. It was, in fact, not a debate but an effort to help those con­cerned form a conscience that will con­tribute to peace. Bishop Walter F. Sul­livan of Richmond summarized the pastoral letter—approved by the Na­tional Conference of Catholic Bishops on 3 May 1983—and emphasized a nation’s right to legitimate self-defense and the bishops’ strong reservations concerning nuclear war.

The letter, titled “The Challenge of Peace: God’s Promise and Our Re­sponse,” addresses the bishops’ con­cern for the consequences of nuclear war and their desire “to speak words of hope and encouragement in times of fear.” That the bishops take up this issue is appropriate, but it is no less appropriate for military officers to enter the discussion and enlighten their con­science on the ethics of modem war.

For we “children of God” who are in the military, the peacemakers of our nation, the issue of war poses special challenges and opportunities. We are caught in the tension of this issue. Al­though the selections of policy, strat­egy, and weapons are made by our civilian masters, our counsel is often sought. The burden of executing that strategy and the use of those weapons fall on us. In tension with that is our heartfelt desire for peace. General Doug­las MacArthur said in his farewell ad­dress at West Point, “ ... the soldier, above all other people, prays for peace, for he must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war.” Far from causing guilt and confusion, this should be a source of pride. As stated by the Second Vatican Council, “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.” A government has both the right and the obligation to raise such custodians. Quoting the bishops’ pasto­ral letter, “ . . . governments threat­ened by armed, unjust aggression must defend their people. This includes de­fense by armed force if necessary as a last resort .... Governments cannot be denied the right to legitimate de­fense once every means of peaceful settlement has been exhausted.” And finally, quoting Pope Pius XII, “A people threatened with an unjust ag­gression, or already its victim, may not remain passively indifferent, if it would think and act as befits a Christian.”

The Catholic Church and the bishops have always supported, guided, and respected the military. The “just war theory,” described in the bishops’ let­ter, is intended both to limit war and help form conscience. The letter rein­forces existing military regulations and traditions regarding the rules of war.

However, we must not confuse the totality of the pastoral letter with moral law. Quoting again from the letter, “Not every statement in this letter has the same moral authority. At times we re-assert universally binding moral prin­ciples (e.g., non-combat immunity and proportionality)*. ... at other times we apply moral principles to specific cases. When making applications of these principles we realize—and we wish readers to recognize—that pruden­tial judgments are involved based on specific circumstances which can change or which can be interpreted dif­ferently by people of good will (e.g., the treatment of ‘No first use’).” The letter clearly states that such judgments are not morally binding.

The bishops do not pretend to have the last word or claim expertise in tech­nology or strategy. Rather, they ask for dialogue and prayerful reappraisal.

Those people who enjoy or profit from creating confrontation fail to make the important distinctions. They detract from the volume of good work avail­able in the letter and poison the debate. I view as equally reprehensible the ac­tions of those who deny the moral prin­ciples of part one of the letter and those who attach their own overstated moral strictures to the prudential judg­ments in part two. For example, the

*The principle of proportionality means that the costs and damage of war must be proportional to the good expected from going to war.

bishops do not call for military pe°P ^e to resign or disobey orders, nor do tn ; condemn military defense or the P^os' session of nuclear weapons. The con­fusion and conflict created by some unthinking people have placed an un­fortunate and unnecessary burden on military and defense industry people- found myself one of those burdened people until I read the bishops’ letter- recommend that everyone read it- The pastoral letter, the study of ^stra egy, and experience have helped me form my conscience on many of the issues surrounding the discussion of war and peace. Some of them are dts cussed here.           ,

Pacifism: I can accept the individua conscientious objector as a witness t Christ and respect his rights on the strict condition that he abridges neim^e my personal right to self-defense nor the nation’s obligation to secure the common defense. Many forms of ^{ac 1} nonviolence, however, do not satisfy this condition. During the Vietnam War, many suffered great hardships as a predictable consequence of active nonviolence. Pacifism as a national^ strategy does abridge a government s obligation for the security of the com mon defense. In addition, it abridges my right to self-defense, since the

magnitude of aggression requires con

certed defense. There is nothing tⁿ . scriptures to indicate the Lord’s desif^e for us to be martyred or enslaved.

Neutrality and Isolationism: Pop^e Pius XII gives these strategies short shrift when he says, “All the more does the solidarity of the family of ^na tions forbid others to behave as mere spectators, in any attitude of apathe neutrality.” He adds that defense o goods of humanity is “an obligah⁰¹¹ for the nations as a whole, who h^avC^_ duty not to abandon a nation that is tacked.” I find a strategy which dc-^st' the victim of aggression selfish ana nearsighted.

nounced in the bishops’ pastoral let^te It’s no wonder—we tried it, and it ^ didn’t work. A decade of unilatera armament was answered by a ^,liaSS ,.i_so Soviet buildup. But that logic must ^ apply to the “immediate, bilateral.