A Blast from the Bishops

By WALTER ISAACSON

America's Roman Catholic leadership denounces nuclear weapons

The detailed document marshals moral principles and strategic arguments in a counterstrike at the heart of U.S. military doctrine. Noting that NATO strategy threatens a first use of tactical nuclear weapons if the Soviet Union invades Central Europe, it proclaims, "We do not perceive any situation in which the deliberate initiation of nuclear warfare, on however restricted a scale, can be morally justified." Speaking to those who work in nuclear arms factories, it instructs, "We have judged immoral even the threat to use such weapons." Ethical questions are raised about the new MX missile system. And using the language of nuclear freeze proposals, which the Reagan Administration strongly opposes, the document calls for "immediate, bilateral verifiable agreements to halt the testing, production and deployment of new strategic systems."

The statement released last week, at the climax of the 1982 election campaign, is not the work of activists campaigning for the nuclear freeze resolutions that are on the ballot in nine states, nor of Democrats who have been trying to make the Reagan Administration's arms control policies an issue. "The Challenge of Peace" is a draft of a proposed pastoral letter to the nation's 51 million Roman Catholics, prepared by a committee of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (N.C.C.B.). By addressing not only the moral and theological dimensions of nuclear arms, but also the political and strategic complexities, the bishops have invited heated dissent from church members and Government leaders. "This puts us right out there saying that our religious convictions may well lead us into opposition to our Government," says Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Gumbleton of Detroit, one of the five drafters of the document.

Pastoral letters are intended to advise Roman Catholics on moral courses of action, but are not binding rules. The bishops began working on the nuclear weapons letter in July 1981, at the request of Minnesota Archbishop John Roach, president of the N.C.C.B. "We see this as the major moral imperative of our time," Roach said last week.

The first draft was submitted last June to the 285 active American bishops. Among those objecting to the letter then was Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger. While praising the document's recognition of the right to legitimate self-defense, Weinberger insisted that "safety requires an armory of arms." Defending the first-use doctrine, he wrote: "Were NATO to forgo the possibility of a nuclear response to armed aggression, the Warsaw Pact might conclude that the risks of conventional attack against Western Europe were acceptable." National Security Adviser William Clark also wrote a detailed response to the first draft. Said he: "To deter effectively, we must make it clear to the Soviet leadership that we have the capability to, and will, respond to aggression."

The new draft issued last week contains some revisions, but overall it is even more fervent in its opposition to the Administration's policies than the previous document. The White House, which has sought to deflect attention from arms control issues during the campaign, decided to delay any formal response until after the election. But at his first formal news conference in 21 months, Weinberger last week strongly defended Reagan's proposed strategic buildup. Said the Defense Secretary: "A nuclear freeze would weaken the deterrent forces we rely on to prevent war. We think freezing at this point is something that will increase the danger of war. The moral aspects of it should be examined from that point of view." The Administration has asked for a meeting with the bishops' committee, which may be held next month.

Public discomfort over Reagan's perceived lack of commitment to arms control, and over his strategic weapons buildup, has been one of the President's serious political liabilities. The Democrats have sought to capitalize on these fears and capture the antinuclear issue. The bishops' letter is, intentionally or not, highly sympathetic to Democratic positions on nuclear arms. Indeed, the language used in calling for a freeze is nearly identical to a resolution, backed mainly by Democrats, that narrowly failed a House vote (204-202) last August; approved instead was a softer, Administration-backed proposal. Aside from its general political implications, the letter offers ammunition to the freeze movement. Says Randall Kehler, national coordinator of the Freeze Campaign Clearinghouse in St. Louis: "The document is saying to people that this is a serious, moral, religious issue."

The bishops denied that the release of the letter was timed to influence Tuesday's voting. It was sent to bishops on Oct. 22, and was distributed at a press conference last week in advance of the annual meeting of the N.C.C.B. "I for one never even thought of the possible impact on the elections," says Bishop John O'Connor, auxiliary military vicar and one of the document's coauthors. Says Chicago Archbishop Joseph Bernardin, who chaired the five-bishop panel: "I am sure no one really believes that we made public our draft to influence the elections."

The proposed letter represents a careful compromise by the authors, who studied 1,000 pages of comment on their first draft. Bishop Gumbleton pressed for the most pacifist approach, while Bishop O'Connor tended to oppose harsh criticism of U.S. policy. It specifically addresses the responsibilities of Catholics as individuals. "As citizens we wish to affirm our loyalty to our country and its ideals, yet we must also hold to the universal principles proclaimed by the church."

The most divisive dispute was over the legitimacy of deterrence as a justification for a nuclear arms program. Pope John Paul II addressed this moral problem in a statement he sent to the U.N. after the first draft had been written. The Pope said deterrence "may still be judged morally acceptable," but added that it could not be considered "an end in itself and "it is indispensable not to be satisfied with this minimum, which is always susceptible to the real danger of explosion." This formulation follows the guidelines established by the Second Vatican Council in 1962-65, which wrestled with the still unanswered dilemma that nuclear deterrence depends on a nation's expressing the willingness to commit an immoral act--using nuclear weapons.

Following the Pope's guidance, the bishops forged a consensus on the issue that was arrived at only in a final telephone conference call among the drafters on Oct. 7. They decided to revise the section of the first draft that labeled deterrence "marginally justifiable." Instead, they declared that deterrence must only be "a step on the way toward progressive disarmament," and could not be used to justify the continued arms race. "We have pretty well accepted the Holy Father's view of the deterrent role," Bernardin told TIME Correspondent Wilton Wynn in Rome last week. "But we are going forward in applying these principles to very concrete situations."

In limiting the application of deterrence, the bishops stressed that it could not morally extend to threatening innocent civilians. This calls into question the use of large-scale nuclear arms, which by their nature would inflict massive civilian casualties, and more specifically the American strategic option known as "counter-value," which targets political, economic and military institutions in or near urban areas for retaliation. "Under no circumstances may nuclear weapons or other instruments of mass slaughter be used for the purpose of destroying population centers," the document states. It adds an injunction that, if applied, would pose a dilemma for Catholics in the strategic chain of command: "No Christian can rightfully carry out orders or policies deliberately aimed at killing noncombatants."

The letter applies its moral guidelines to very specific elements of U.S. policy. Tactical nuclear weapons based in Western Europe to repel a Soviet conventional attack present "an unacceptable moral risk" because it is unlikely that any battlefield nuclear exchange could be limited. (NATO's tactical nuclear weapons are supposed to offset the Soviets' 2.6-to-l advantage in tanks and other conventional weapons.) The MX missile, the bishops say, might be destabilizing; since it threatens the Soviets' missiles, it could prompt Moscow to launch a pre-emptive strike.

Despite its detailed prescriptions, the document is presented as a theological tract, suffused with "the good news which has come to us in the person of Jesus." It invokes a biblical vision of peace to reach its clear theme: "We must continually say no to the idea of nuclear war." It also draws on the theological theory of a "just war," first propounded in the 5th century by St. Augustine, who justified force to restrain those who would harm the innocent. Since Vatican II, some Catholics have rejected the just-war theory in favor of a pacifist option. But ironically, many of the more activist priests, who have supported revolutionary struggles in the Third World, advocate extending the theory by loosening the traditional restriction that just wars can be waged only by duly constituted civil authorities.

The debate over nuclear policy has caused divisions within the U.S. Catholic Church. On the ramparts for the antinuclear activists are the 57 bishops, including Gumbleton, who belong to the American branch of the Catholic peace group Pax Christi. They have been encouraged by the example of Pope John Paul II, who has made the abolition of nuclear war a central theme of his papacy and who last year made a pilgrimage to the memorial at Hiroshima. Some have gone as far as Bishop Leroy Matthiesen of Amarillo, Texas, who has told those in his diocese not to work at a local nuclear weapons plant. "The possession of nuclear weapons is the same thing as a threat to use them," he argues.

This pacifist faction within the church has drawn the ire of many conservative Catholic intellectuals (see box). "Some of the bishops are extremely cavalier," says Church Historian James Hitchcock of St. Louis University. "They seem to say there is no real problem with the Soviets. And some of them have fallen into the habit of saying that a nuclear holocaust would be the greatest of all evils. Yet in religious terms, physical destruction, no matter how horrible, can never be the worst evil. It makes me shiver when it is implied that we should allow ourselves if necessary to be conquered." Others argue that the bishops are overstepping their worldly authority. Says conservative Catholic Columnist William F. Buckley: "I resent what must be viewed as a certain political opportunism. The bishops are entitled to a presumption of moral attention, but there is no presumption of their enjoying a special knowledge on these matters."

The debate will be fully aired at a four-day meeting of the bishops' conference in Washington beginning Nov. 15. The tactful and diplomatic Bernardin, who is called a "George Shultz of the Catholic hierarchy," will work to mold a consensus around his committee's draft. A special meeting will be called, probably next spring, to vote on the final version. If it passes by a two-thirds margin, it will be sent to all parishes to become a guide for Catholic teachings. Even if adopted, the letter is likely to remain a matter of controversy among members. Says Auxiliary Bishop Anthony Bosco of Pittsburgh: "I have a feeling that the bishops are a little more liberal than many of our faithful. There remains a lot of persuading to be done."

By undertaking such a mission, which seeks to define a moral position on one of the modern world's most pressing dilemmas, the bishops have thrust themselves into the midst of a complex and heated national policy issue. Thomas Fox, the liberal editor of the National Catholic Reporter, sees this as a momentous challenge. Says he: "This will place U.S. Catholics in a confrontation with American policies, thereby forcing Catholics to make a choice between abiding by the moral teachings of the church or supporting their Government as defined by the Reagan Administration. There is the potential for the greatest religious-political clash in U.S. history."

That, surely, is an overstatement. But by casting this political issue in a theological context, the bishops are likely to have a profound effect on the debate over how to counter the Soviet military threat. As with the addition of any moral element to discussions of public policy, this religious involvement offers many benefits. But, as many Catholic leaders have noted, it carries with it dangers. --By Walter Isaacson. Reported by J. Madeleine Nash/Chicago and Bruce van Voorst/New York

Nuclear Theology

"We do not perceive any situation in which the deliberate initiation of nuclear warfare, on however restricted a scale, can be morally justified."

"We have judged immoral even the threat to use nuclear weapons."

"We must continually say no to the idea of nuclear war."

"No Christian can rightfully carry out orders or policies deliberately aimed at killing noncombatants."

"As citizens we wish to affirm our loyalty to our country and its ideals, yet we must also hold to the universal principles proclaimed by the church."

With reporting by J. MADELEINE NASH, BRUCE VAN VOORST

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.