USCCB: Arms treaty about respect for human life
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops called today for the Senate to ratify the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, during its lame-duck session. Since the story is being ignored by news organizations (except for Catholic news services such as Zenit and CNS) we’ll call your attention to it here.
Writing to each senator in behalf of the bishops’ conference, Bishop Howard Hubbard of Albany framed the issue in terms of the sanctity of human life. Hubbard, who heads the bishops’ Committee on International Justice and Peace, wrote:
Both the Holy See and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops support the New START Treaty because it is a modest step toward a world with greater respect for human life.
Ratification of the New START Treaty is critical because verification ensures transparency and transparency builds trust. The earlier verification and monitoring requirements expired one year ago. Without a new treaty there is no verification requirement in place, a disturbing and potentially dangerous situation our nation has not faced in decades.
The Church’s concern for nuclear weapons grows out of its commitment to the sanctity of human life.
Archbishop Timothy Dolan, president of the conference, added his voice to a USCCB statement on the letter to the Senate.
Statements such as this are often overlooked in the news media, which (along with not a few bishops) prefer to emphasize the bishops’ opposition to abortion and gay rights and not their stands on social justice or war and peace. This statement probably will be overlooked, too, although it’s quite newsworthy when leaders of the nation’s largest religious denomination speak out at a crucial point in a major policy debate such as this, seeking to cast the issue in moral terms. As the bishops portray it, President Obama is trying to get Republicans to pass a treaty that raises respect for human life and “makes our nation and world safer by reducing nuclear weapons in a verifiable way.”
There are signs that some Republicans may be willing to vote for the treaty, which needs 67 votes to be ratified in the Senate. But the debate is far from over. If the bishops really want to bring the considerable body of church teaching on reducing nuclear weaponry to bear in this debate, they’ll need to go further than issuing a statement and talk about it in their individual dioceses.
Tags: Obama
Yes!
Good to see them dealing with another piece of the life issues! Will they lobby their Republican allies, e.g., George Voinovich of Ohio?
“Statements such as this are often overlooked in the news media, which (along with not a few bishops) prefer to emphasize the bishops’ opposition to abortion and gay rights and not their stands on social justice or war and peace.”
It might be worth making this point: the bifurcation between clusters of issues suggested by Paul’s quote pasted here (social justice/war & peace issues vs. sexual/personal morality issues) is one that aligns with the current political fault lines, but does not/should not correspond to the church’s view of how these issues map across the cultural landscape.
As one who is unabashedly clad in the seamless garment, I’d suggest that opposition to nuclear weaponry and opposition to abortion are virtually one and the same, rooted as they both are in respect for the sanctity of all human life.
In its attempts to be a voice of love and wisdom to the larger culture, the church is frequently hamstrung by the prevailing meta-narrative – which accounts, no doubt, and as Paul notes, for the MSM’s failure to pick up this story. It would be wrong to blame the media solely for this situation, but there is no doubt (at least in my mind) that the media as the megaphone of that meta-narrative is an important part fo the process.
It is tempting to divide the bishops conference or into Democrats and Republicans, and of course there is a certain veritude to that, as there would be for any collection of Americans, but in my opinion it’s worth noting that the bishops conference as a body adheres to neither side of the cultural divide.
Jim P: “It is tempting to divide the bishops conference or into Democrats and Republicans, and of course there is a certain veritude to that, as there would be for any collection of Americans, but in my opinion it’s worth noting that the bishops conference as a body adheres to neither side of the cultural divide.”
Jim I suspect you and I belong to the same seamless garment coalition, so we can both rejoice in this. However…. the temptation to divide the bishops in Dems or Repubs, libs or conservs, has a basis in what they choose to say and how they choose to act (e.g., the health-care debate).
I am going to take the Hubbard/Dolan announcement as their recognition that they need to represent the range of issues and not just their faves. The media may be a screen here, but the bishops conference and the bishops do themselves no favor by screaming about one thing and mumbling about others. It’s a two-way problem (in which I think the media is as big a sinner as the bishops).
I am wondering if, out of respect for Human Life and in order to protect Human Life, the issue of Missile Defense has been addressed in light of Russia’s statement on our Missile defense?
The decibel level will be the telling sign. One can find words from all sides of the spectrum to support a viewpoint. It is the follow-up that gives substance to the document. Dolan is showing some signs of serving the whole church. This will be important and welcome if sustained.
Responding to Nancy Danielson … I recommend William Werpehowsk’s recent Commonweal article, “Slow Fade,” for much more detail on this issue. It is at: http://commonwealmagazine.org/slow-fade
As seen in the remarks of Archbishop Edwin O’Brien in a forum sponsored by the U.S. Strategic Command, the bishops aren’t calling for unilateral disarmament but for “mutually verifiable” disarmament agreements that would protect human life.
“Slow Fade”. Reminds me of the Gipper who thought that the best offense is a good defense:-)
“I recommend William Werpehowsk’s recent Commonweal article, “Slow Fade,” for much more detail on this issue.”
I do not believe that is available on-line to non-subscribers. Could you provide the publication date for those who access the publication via hard-copy at the library?
When the bishops criticized the health care legislation, there was concern that they had strayed too far from articulating guiding principles, and were inappropriately entering the realm of prudential judgment. It’s not clear to me how this is much different.
“Jim I suspect you and I belong to the same seamless garment coalition, so we can both rejoice in this. ”
We do indeed.
“However…. the temptation to divide the bishops in Dems or Repubs, libs or conservs, has a basis in what they choose to say and how they choose to act (e.g., the health-care debate). ”
From a thumbs-up / thumbs-down point of view, the views of the GOP House members and the views of the USCCB happened to coincide. Drilling down a level to ask why they coincide, we’d find that the two groups do have some reasons in common (e.g. both groups had pro-life concerns), some reasons that don’t coincide (e.g. conscience protection seemed much more important to the bishops than to Republicans) and some reasons on which the groups sharply differ (the bishops are in favor of health care for all and would accept a government program to achieve it; a lot of Republicans opposed the very notion of a huge new government program).
If the bishops’ concerns, especially regarding the Stupak Amendment and conscience protections, had been adequately addressed, I believe the bishops would have come out in favor of health care reform. It’s difficult to imagine that Republicans would have supported health care reform, regardless of what was in the bill.
It seems rather specious to claim that it will cost human lives or put any lives at risk or is otherwise contrary to respect for human life if the Senate does not ram the treaty through unread during the lame-duck session in the same manner in which it rammed through other unread legislation.
For one thing, it might be prudent to understand just exactly what the treaty language says so as to ensure that it, in fact, delivers what some are promising.
For another thing, what with the moral equivilence between abortion and the mere existence of nuclear arms — how many people have been killed by nuclear bombs in the last 50 years compared to how many unborn children have been killed??
I submit that there is very little chance of the United States or Russia getting into a nuclear exchange before the next session of Congress.
For once, this Congress should take it’s time and get it right.
so read it: http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nwgs/start-follow-on-fact-sheet.pdf
And the whole thing: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/140035.pdf
“When the bishops criticized the health care legislation, there was concern that they had strayed too far from articulating guiding principles, and were inappropriately entering the realm of prudential judgment. It’s not clear to me how this is much different.”
Mark P. —
For once I agree with you. What is the difference between saying to the politicians “You should not vote for this particular bill” and “You should vote for this particular treaty”?
Should the bishops “articulate guiding principles”? I’d say Yes, that that is what Vatican II implied, even if it did not explicitly state it.
But even this presents a problem — in any given circumstances and in the crafting of a particular piece of legislation there is always the question of which particular moral principles are relevant to that bill? (For instance, a particular bill for the purpose of safeguarding the safety of workers at the same time, it could be claimed, make it all but impossible for the employer to stay in business. Politicians face such dilemmas all the time.
Let’s say that the bishops agree that certain principles should be implemented. But should they be *limited* to explaining the general principles? Should they never apply them to the facts as they understand them?
That’s the biggest problem of all, but I think there is room for a compromise:
Where bishops have particular competence about both the facts and about the particular moral principles to be applied, they may and even should give their reasons for being for or against particular bills, BUT they should make it clear that their opinions about a particular bill are not the opinion of the Catholic Church. and they may not claim that they are competent to tell the laity whether they *must* agree with them. Also, individual bishops also have the right and even duty to speak out this way in some circumstances, even where this would show disagreement among the bishops.
Some will say that this would weaken the authority of the bishops. I say it would strengthen it IF the bishops presented their opinions cogently, while at the same time taking into consideration the thinking of the laity (as Vatican II also required them to do).
Needless to say, the laity has the right to publicly disagree.
“Mark P. —
For once I agree with you. ”
Imagine my chagrin to learn that I have agreed with you far more often than you have agreed with me.
Istm that if the bishops recuse themselves from exercising prudential judgment about the pressing issues of the day, there isn’t much point in having a bishops conference.
“Where bishops have particular competence about both the facts and about the particular moral principles to be applied, they may and even should give their reasons for being for or against particular bills, BUT they should make it clear that their opinions about a particular bill are not the opinion of the Catholic Church. and they may not claim that they are competent to tell the laity whether they *must* agree with them. Also, individual bishops also have the right and even duty to speak out this way in some circumstances, even where this would show disagreement among the bishops.”
The bishops are uniquely invested with the authority to speak FOR the Catholic church on matters of faith and morals. That doesn’t mean that they claim to control the votes of every Catholic on every political issue- that’s not what their lobbying operation is all about.
Consider that, in this case, we can be sure that there are many millions of Catholic laity (and probably some clergy) who think the START Treaty is a really bad idea. Some of them are probably calling their senators right now to urge them to vote against the treaty. Ann, are you thinking that bishops should represent the breadth of Catholic opinion in their communication to Congress? I’d think it should work somewhat differently:
* The moral principles are right and true in this case, ragardless of how many Catholics accept them
* The bishops’ job is to articulate, explain and defend these principles, to their fellow Catholics, to the larger culture, and to the government. Hopefully, if their voices are heard, they will persuade people in all three groups about the rightness of their teaching.
“The bishops are uniquely invested with the authority to speak FOR the Catholic church on matters of faith and morals. That doesn’t mean that they claim to control the votes of every Catholic on every political issue- that’s not what their lobbying operation is all about.”
Jim P. –
Yes, they do have the authority, but it seems to me that they have neither right nor duty to exercise that authority unless they have done their homework with due respect for the opinions of those who disagree with them. Too often we hear only conclusions from bishops, not their *reasons* for reaching those conclusions. And those bishops often includes popes.
No, “the bishops” as a whole group do not claim to control all the Catholic voltes, but a few try to control the votes in their dioceses and we never hear the other bishops cautioning them to cut it out. They do tremendous harm to the Church by their bullying — too many people think they are both typical *and* authorized to do so.
” Ann, are you thinking that bishops should represent the breadth of Catholic opinion in their communication to Congress?”
Yes, indeed, that is exactly what I think. Plus in doing so they could give some good example in how to disagree civilly to the miserable demagogues who are too often are elected to public office.
* The moral principles are right and true in this case, ragardless of how many Catholics accept them”,
Jim — the problem with moral principles is not that they aren’t true, the problem is that sometimes one has to decide which principle has priority in a given case. So to say principles “in this case are true” is a category mistake — we apply principles not because they are “true” but because they are *good* guides in a particular set of circumstances. The issue is *rightness*, not truth.
The facts of human existence are such that sometimes we cannot apply all true principles rightly in a given case. Take the case of parents who are guided by the principle that they must educate their twins without favoring one over the other. But, say, one of the children has a medical problem that requires that they spend a lot more money on that child’s education than on the other twin’s, so the other twin has to go to a less good school than she otherwise would have. In this case there are competing principles (do not favor one of them, give what each needs), and these parents will do what in their neighbors would be an injustice, i.e., not right.
*Applying* principles is not a matter of which ones are “true”. We really musn’t muddle truth and rightness. Honorable people can disagree about what is right in given circumstances, including bishops.
Jim, let’s face it. Our church is highly clericalized. So far as I can see, lay initiative in matters of public policy, church organization and finance, and many other non-doctrinal areas of Church life is largely ignored if not actively discouraged. As a consequence, except for relatively small organizations and publications, e.g., Commonweal, America, Catholic Alliance for the common Good, the only group publicly recognized as speaking for Catholic thought and practice is the hierarchy. Regardless of the issue and of professional competence, the press and the public take it that voice of the hierarchy is the only significant voice that gives expression to Catholic thought and practice.
Regrettably, the hierarchy feeds this misapprehension when it not only ADVOCATES some public policy ( which it has every right to do) but also denounces competent Catholics who disagree with what they push for. The graphic examples are the health care bill, the flap over Notre Dame’s invitation to Obama, and the public proclamation that some Catholic politicians ought not to be permitted to receive the Eucharist.
Flatly, the hierarchy all too often plays the obedience card when the issue is not one where that card is appropriate.
There’s much to be said for Ann’s comments about applying principles. There’s even more to be said about the failure of the hierarchy to teach the truth that all adult Catholics have responsibilities for the Church and its mission which the hierarchy ought to respect and show proper deference for. Until the hierarchy grows up and admits that it alone cannot call all the shots it will continue to impede rather than promote the Church’s mission.
Me: ” Ann, are you thinking that bishops should represent the breadth of Catholic opinion in their communication to Congress?”
Ann: “Yes, indeed, that is exactly what I think. Plus in doing so they could give some good example in how to disagree civilly to the miserable demagogues who are too often are elected to public office.”
Well, civilly, I disagree :-). It is not the role of the bishops, in their role as lobbyists, to represent the breadth of Catholic opinion. It is their role to apply the teachings of the church to the public square.
That phrase “the teachings of the church” is pretty complicated. Bishops don’t have a monopoly on it, in the sense that they are the only ones allowed to think. They are, however, the authoritative spokespersons and teachers for that entity that we call “the church”, which includes Catholics in the US, Catholics elsewhere, Christ as the head, the saints, other Christians in some sense, and so on.
If a layperson, or a large number of laypeople, or an organized group of laypeople, advocate something contrary to what the church teaches through its authoritative spokespersons, then … that person / those people / that group is not thinking/speaking/acting in union with the church. Even though they are associated with the church in some way, they are not speaking “for the church”.
When this lack of unity manifests itself, it is the role of the bishops to civilly propose (not impose) what the church actually teaches.
“So to say principles “in this case are true” is a category mistake — we apply principles not because they are “true” but because they are *good* guides in a particular set of circumstances. ”
In the case of the START Treaty, one of the most important ways that the bishops can contribute to the public discussion is by identifying the *right* principles to guide our thinking. In this case, the principles that they have identified would be along the lines of, “we must never, in any circumstances, endanger the wellbeing or lives of massive numbers of civilians”.
Needless to say, there are other, competing principles that wield a lot of influence in the US, such as, “It is most important that we possess the ability to blast our enemies to smithereens before they get the chance to do the same to us”.
I suspect we agree that the principle I’ve attributed to the bishops is the *right* principle (among other, competing principles) to apply to this situation. Is there a sense in which it is also a *true* principle? Catholics would make so bold as to answer “yes”, in the sense that our principles should be rooted in the person, words and deeds of the one who claimed, “I am the way, the truth and the life”. By “true principle”, I mean to say that it is a principle that allows us to live in the light of the one who is Truth.
“Bishops, therefore, with their helpers, the priests and deacons, have taken up the service of the community, (11*) presiding in place of God over the flock,(12*) whose shepherds they are, as teachers for doctrine, priests for sacred worship, and ministers for governing.(13*)”
Jim P. =-
This is from Lumen Gentium, the big section on bishops. This section gives a great deal of attention to the duties of bishops (See especially sections 20-26.) Over and over it is emphasized that it is their primary duty to teach. This includes their judging the meanings of Scripture and Tradition. Nowhere does it say anything about their having the function of applying general moral principles to individual circumstancres, much less the duty to lobby civil authorities. Yes, they are also priests and governors within the Church. But those are not the practical matters of the profane world. The latter are the domain of the laity.
The Catholic moral tradition has long recognized the difference between theoretical reason and practical reason. The former has to do with general principles, and these include the general principles of morality. These latter are indeed the domain of the bishops. Practical reason concerns what to do, how to act, in particular circumstances. It involves applying those general principles to concrete cases, While no doubt priests and bishops can help with making such decisions, and, yes, we are bound to consider the teachings of the Church in choosing how to act in individual circumstances, ultimately, it we individual non-bishops who must ultimately decide which of the general principles taught by the bishops should obtain in each given case and what ought to be done: the Church herself teaches that individuals must always do what their consciences tell them is right in individual cases. This does not falsity the general principles taught by the Church. It does recognize that different principles must be applied in different circumstances.
How do we know which principle should obtain? That’s a much harder question to answer. From time immemorial the Church has talked about the virtue of prudence in this regard, but it seems there are no general rules that tell us how to decide all prudential judgements.
But Cathy is the one to ask about practical reason and prudence. She knows a heck of a lot more about them than I do.
” suspect we agree that the principle I’ve attributed to the bishops is the *right* principle (among other, competing principles) to apply to this situation. Is there a sense in which it is also a *true* principle?”
Jim P. –
You’re getting into some subtle matters here, but I think they’re important.
It seems to me that the first thing to observe is that a statement can be true and about a moral good at the same time, e.g., “It is a good thing for parents to educate their children”. But that is a somewhat different statement from “Parents ought to educate their children”. The latter one expresses the moral necessity that the parents must educate the kids. I would say that the latter one is also both true and about a moral good, but there might be exceptions.
The second thing to observe is that “Parents ought to educate their children” is a general, not a universal statement. It doesn’t say “All parents without exception ought to educate their children”. (An exception I would grant would be the case of very feeble-minded and hostile parents.) Because it is indefinite all that can be said is that it is about a moral good and it’s generally true, and that it expresses what generally ought to be done, i.e., what is generally right.
Third, observe that those two sorts of statements are different from commands: “Parents, educate your children”. Commands are neither true nor false, only good and bad, right or evil.
I agree that the general principle the bishops are invoking is generally true. But I can think of an exception to not killing many civilians. Suppose there were a great asteroid headed for Earth and the only way to deflect it was to set off an atomic bomb in the atmosphere at a certain place and certain time to deflect it. In the process it might kill many, many civilians. Would I agree to that? Probably, if there were no other way. That might be a far-fetched case, but I think you can see the point about individual circumstances varying which principles should apply. The general principles remain true, they’re still about morally good actions, but both cannot be adhered to in certain circumstances.