The Pope: not using or possessing nuclear arms will be added to the Catechism

[Genesis315]

The Pope: not using or possessing nuclear arms will be added to the Catechism - Vatican News

First, we all know the phrase “from the chair” (ex cathedra), but I think we need a new category “from the airplane” (google says “ex scapha”).

Second, I’m beginning to doubt whether Pope Francis even knows what’s in the CCC, as like the environment thing, this is already in there.

 

[Ammi]

Guess I better post mine on craigslist while i still have time.

 

[vz71]

I am curious to see what legal wrangling there is to claiming mere ownership of a nuclear weapon to be sinful.

 

[Feanor2]

No worries.

Folks around CAF will just say “prudential judgement” and move on to believing what they want.

 

[Ammi]

Most CAF members respect what’s in the CCC, from my experience.

We just have a time working out how it all works in harmony. Lots to go by. Encyclicals, documents, bulls, councils, etc.

Heck, give us some more.

No genuine conversations in normal talk!

 

[Weserthy]

Second, I’m beginning to doubt whether Pope Francis even knows what’s in the CCC, as like the environment thing, this is already in there.

I’m beginning to doubt whether Pope Francis even knows what the CCC is, and what its purpose is. The CCC is not meant to be a vehicle to change Church teaching, or to push a Pope’s pet projects, or as a tool to attempt to force Catholics into changing their opinions on a subject. The CCC is simply an encyclopedia of Catholic teaching and used as a reference for the faithful as a compendium of Church teaching. Simply putting something into the CCC, especially a prudential matter like this, doesn’t make it true. Things are put into the CCC because they are true. These frequent changes to the CCC (this will be the third revision in about 7 years if the ecological thing goes through) risk devaluing the CCC if it is going to be updated every other year to put in something about the latest whim that the Pope has about topic XYZ. It also loses its value as a resource for evangelization and as an academic resource if it is going to be updated this often. You won’t be able to say to some Protestant or other curious individuals who ask about Church teaching - “look at the CCC for Church teaching”, when everything is potentially subject to revision when the Pope feels like it. Don’t think that this will be the last thing that will be changed either - there are already a number of voices that have a lot of pull in the Vatican calling for an “update” to the Church’s teaching on homosexuality, for example (Fr. Martin, Cdl. Tobin).

Another concern that will probably happen over this is how it will be handled when it is put in the CCC.
Typically when something is put into the CCC it is cited with sacred scripture or other Church documents, such as encyclicals written by Popes. When Pope Francis made the change to the CCC about the death penalty, he cited…one of his own speeches. Then the CDF put out a document stating that it was a development of doctrine…based on one of Pope Francis’ speeches. Not exactly very convincing.

Then there’s the actual matter that we’re talking about here: nuclear weapons. This change to the CCC is essentially pointless, and will accomplish nothing. Can it even be said that merely possessing nuclear weapons is a sin? Using them, sure, but just possessing them? Another obvious problem is that only nations own nuclear weapons, not individuals, and sin only really applies to individuals in the traditional sense (unless we’re going to start sending nations to confession now). No nations, not in our lifetime, or probably in our grandchildren’s lifetimes, are going to give up their nuclear weapons, because then there is the danger that only your enemies will have them, and that is just not practical from a political and militaristic standpoint. The only nation on earth that will ever give a hoot about this being added to the CCC is probably Vatican City.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Another obvious problem is that only nations own nuclear weapons, not individuals,

There is stuff in the Catechism which concerns the state. This would just be another one.

 

[vz71]

There is stuff in the Catechism which concerns the state. This would just be another one.

Perhaps, but we still have a problem with how exactly the mere possession of something can be sinful.

 

[tseleehw]

I’m beginning to doubt whether Pope Francis even knows what the CCC is, and what its purpose is. The CCC is not meant to be a vehicle to change Church teaching, or to push a Pope’s pet projects, or as a tool to attempt to force Catholics into changing their opinions on a subject.

Pope Francis seems to be using the CCC as a backdoor into “changing” Church teaching by inserting his opinions into it and claiming them to now be “Church teaching”. I get the impression that he thinks he can just put something in there and say, “look, it’s Church teaching now, nothing you can do about it!” Don’t like the death penalty - put it in the Catechism. Don’t like nuclear bombs - put it in the Catechism.

Don’t think that this will be the last thing that will be changed either - there are already a number of voices that have a lot of pull in the Vatican calling for an “update” to the Church’s teaching on homosexuality, for example (Fr. Martin, Cdl. Tobin).

This is the endgame. They’re just softening things up for the really big changes to come by making changes to the Catechism commonplace. Then they’ll have an excuse to update the teaching on homosexuality. “Well we’re just updating everything else, might as well update this one too.” Then they’ll put in Father Martin’s language about how homosexuality isn’t disordered, but just differently ordered, and Catholics will be expected to tow the new line. The German synod is coming up. Get ready - it’s coming sooner than you think.

 

[IanM]

Then there’s the actual matter that we’re talking about here: nuclear weapons. This change to the CCC is essentially pointless, and will accomplish nothing. Can it even be said that merely possessing nuclear weapons is a sin? Using them, sure, but just possessing them? Another obvious problem is that only nations own nuclear weapons, not individuals, and sin only really applies to individuals in the traditional sense (unless we’re going to start sending nations to confession now). No nations, not in our lifetime, or probably in our grandchildren’s lifetimes, are going to give up their nuclear weapons, because then there is the danger that only your enemies will have them, and that is just not practical from a political and militaristic standpoint. The only nation on earth that will ever give a hoot about this being added to the CCC is probably Vatican City.

Laurence England has another very funny thread on this very thing: “Possessing nukes: mortal or venial?”

https://twitter.com/x/status/1199471386672140293

 

[Yeoman]

Can it even be said that merely possessing nuclear weapons is a sin? Using them, sure, but just possessing them?

That’s the interesting question.

Using them is a sin (and in my view, the only instances in which they were used was in fact sinful). Possessing them expresses an avowed intent to use them, and if we look at it that way, perhaps possessing them is sinful.

On the other hand, it isn’t necessarily the case that use of atomic weaponry would replicate the 1945 examples. I.e., merely possessing atomic weapons does send a message that, under some circumstances, the possessor would use them, but that doesn’t mean that the possessor would target cities with them. The long common assumption has been that of course that’s what would be done, but the better military evidence is that nations target each others nuclear weapons themselves.

Use alone would mean a lot of civilian deaths, and in a full exchange it’d be massively destructive to human life and disproportionate to whatever goal the use may have had, but that assumes that the use would necessarily be of that type. Even with a nuclear exchange between two ICBM armed nations can that really be assumed? It isn’t clear that it can be now.

Indeed, as weapons have developed they’ve become more and more precise to the point where civilian loss of life at a historically low level is regarded as a horror. During the Second World War tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of civilians were killed in cities that were outright targeted by the Western Allies. It’s worth noting that so little was really thought of this that air crews were given general absolution before boarding their planes for something that in retrospect appears gravely sinful to us today. Now, if just a few civilians die in an air strike our national reaction is horror.

That pertains to conventional weapons, but the fact of the matter is that nuclear weapons as well are now more precise than ever, and their yields have accordingly reduced. Using them would still be a horror, but it’s a horror that can be contemplated in some odd circumstances, including battlefield use, without imagining the end of human existence with it. Of course, that same precision now means that by and large there’s no real need to even contemplate nuclear weapons as you can do the same thing with really precise conventional weapons. That’s what gave rise to the cruise missile, which was originally a nuclear weapon. It was so surprise, why bother?

 

[Yeoman]

Perhaps, but we still have a problem with how exactly the mere possession of something can be sinful.

While it would be a poor analogy, what about the possession of pornography?

At least in almost all circumstances, I think its conventional possession would be sinful.

 

[F_Marturana]

What about a stack of playboys?

7 countries have nuclear weapons.

I don’t have any. I support nuclear disarmament. I don’t think I will worry much if the catechism is updated. I’m sure that any updates will go under the section “Thou shall not kill”. Possibly in the subsection on just war.

The catechism is updated occasionally to cover sins that couldn’t have existed before. IVF is an example.

Humanae vitae is a response to the advent of the birth control pill.

 

[Yeoman]

An an observation, while I have real difficulties with the concept of using nuclear weapons, including the 1945 use of them, I think it’s important to note that putting it in the catechism goes one more step towards making it impossible for a practicing Catholic to hold high office in the United States. That ought to be pondered.

It’s already the case that recent developments in the law have reached the point where its now difficult for a practicing Catholic to be a jurist. The death penalty (which I don’t agree with) is in the catechism now, which I’m okay with, but that does mean if you are up for being a judge and you are a Catholic its fair game for the appointing body to ask you how you’d reconcile the existence of the death penalty with your office. The same is true for State Governors. It’s already the case that state judges in states where judges can perform civil marriages are now in the position, if they are Catholic, of being put in moral difficulty simply by occupying the office.

Prior to the 1960 election of John F. Kennedy it was almost impossible for the electorate to get over a Presidential candidates Catholic religion. Kennedy managed to change that by basically declaring himself to be a Sunday only Catholic, a move that was a disaster in my view for Catholics in the U.S. That’s only become really clear recently, however, as the laity has grown increasingly upset with Catholic politicians who take positions that can’t be reconciled with the Faith. But with a change like this, a legitimate debate question for a Catholic candidate would be “will you dismantle the U.S. nuclear arsenal in keeping with the position of your faith?”

I’d like to think we’re getting back around to the point where an observant Catholic can run for real office without moral compromise once again. Things like this make it difficult.

 

[Yeoman]

What about a stack of playboys?

7 countries have nuclear weapons.

I don’t have any. I support nuclear disarmament. I don’t think I will worry much if the catechism is updated. I’m sure that any updates will go under the section “Thou shall not kill”. Possibly in the subsection on just war.

The catechism is updated occasionally to cover sins that couldn’t have existed before. IVF is an example.

Humanae vitae is a response to the advent of the birth control pill.

I agree on your stack of Playboys analogy. Indeed, I made a similar one. After all, having a pornography stash is inconsistent with an intent not to view them.

On nuclear arms I think the question is more difficult. The oddity of them is that current yields, while still massive, are not as massive as they once were and it is possible to argue that the only way to destroy a hardened military target which serves a nuclear strike purpose itself is through a nuclear weapon. I.e., what if, for example, North Korean attacked South Korea, it went poorly, and we knew that North Korean was going to obliterate Seoul as it went down in defeat? If we were at war already, and could prevent the nuclear obliteration of the southern capitol by a nuclear strike on a hardened nuclear target, and not create excessive loss of civilian life, would that be justified?

That may sound far fetched but I’d argue it isn’t. A North Korean attack on South Korean is perfectly possible, that would put us in a state of combat on the Korean peninsula to defend the ROK, and if the North was losing I can easily imagine it deciding to use its nuclear weapons before it fell. In that instance, while I don’t know this to be the case, I can imagine that the only way to prevent it might be through the use of a nuclear weapon on a hardened target.

I think one of the problems with considering this topic in general is that nearly everyone, including perhaps the Pope, imagines what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki occurring in any instance in which nuclear weapons might be used, and that all nuclear devices have 1945 yields. In fact, as time as moved on, that example is obsolete, just as the conventional air weapons of 1939-1945 are.

 

[vz71]

While it would be a poor analogy, what about the possession of pornography?

The possession of porn is a tacit approval as well as a direct support for the sinful activity necessary to create it.

This not necessarily the case with nuclear weapons. The entire manufacturing process does not involve sin.

 

[vz71]

I’m sure that any updates will go under the section “Thou shall not kill”. Possibly in the subsection on just war.

This assumes the use of the weapon.

What if someone just owns the weapon? How can that be a sin?

 

[Feanor2]

Genesis315:

Second, I’m beginning to doubt whether Pope Francis even knows what’s in the CCC, as like the environment thing, this is already in there.

I’m beginning to doubt whether Pope Francis even knows what the CCC is, and what its purpose is. The CCC is not meant to be a vehicle to change Church teaching, or to push a Pope’s pet projects, or as a tool to attempt to force Catholics into changing their opinions on a subject. The CCC is simply an encyclopedia of Catholic teaching and used as a reference for the faithful as a compendium of Church teaching. Simply putting something into the CCC, especially a prudential matter like this, doesn’t make it true. Things are put into the CCC because they are true. These frequent changes to the CCC (this will be the third revision in about 7 years if the ecological thing goes through) risk devaluing the CCC if it is going to be updated every other year to put in something about the latest whim that the Pope has about topic XYZ. It also loses its value as a resource for evangelization and as an academic resource if it is going to be updated this often. You won’t be able to say to some Protestant or other curious individuals who ask about Church teaching - “look at the CCC for Church teaching”, when everything is potentially subject to revision when the Pope feels like it. Don’t think that this will be the last thing that will be changed either - there are already a number of voices that have a lot of pull in the Vatican calling for an “update” to the Church’s teaching on homosexuality, for example (Fr. Martin, Cdl. Tobin).

Another concern that will probably happen over this is how it will be handled when it is put in the CCC.
Typically when something is put into the CCC it is cited with sacred scripture or other Church documents, such as encyclicals written by Popes. When Pope Francis made the change to the CCC about the death penalty, he cited…one of his own speeches. Then the CDF put out a document stating that it was a development of doctrine…based on one of Pope Francis’ speeches. Not exactly very convincing.

Then there’s the actual matter that we’re talking about here: nuclear weapons. This change to the CCC is essentially pointless, and will accomplish nothing. Can it even be said that merely possessing nuclear weapons is a sin? Using them, sure, but just possessing them? Another obvious problem is that only nations own nuclear weapons, not individuals, and sin only really applies to individuals in the traditional sense (unless we’re going to start sending nations to confession now). No nations, not in our lifetime, or probably in our grandchildren’s lifetimes, are going to give up their nuclear weapons, because then there is the danger that only your enemies will have them, and that is just not practical from a political and militaristic standpoint. The only nation on earth that will ever give a hoot about this being added to the CCC is probably Vatican City.

And there we have it- prudential- just like the death penalty.

 

[Yeoman]

The possession of porn is a tacit approval as well as a direct support for the sinful activity necessary to create it.

This not necessarily the case with nuclear weapons. The entire manufacturing process does not involve sin.

This is only true if you make certain assumptions, but those assumptions may not be warranted in either example.

As for the possession of nuclear weapons, their mere possession is in and of itself a direct endorsement of their use in some circumstances. Otherwise, their possession makes no sense whatsoever. Even the common defensive example endorses their use. I.e., if we hold nuclear weapons to deter others from using them against us (which has never actually been the official policy of the US), we are stills saying that if they are used against us, we will retaliate through their use.

That’s the essence of the problem for those who feel holding them is immoral. Its directly analogous to saying “if you kill my family, I will kill yours”. Revenge isn’t moral. Even threatening revenge as a deterrent isn’t moral. You have the right of self defense, of course, but that means you have the right to use force on your attacker, not on his family. By and large, most people who conceive of the use of nuclear weapons, given the 1945 example, imagine it only in that way.

The real problem is that example. If imagined in the the post 1945/early Cold War way, that is completely immoral and completely analogous to owning a stack of Playboys, as F_Marturana put it. Your ownership implied an approval of use at least under some circumstances, and indeed with nuclear weapons its an implicit declaration that you are willing to use them.

But what if your willingness to use them, in 2019, is in keeping with 2019 technology. That’s where the real problem with this change may be. Current nuclear weapons are lower yield than in the past and there’s been discussion of lower yield weapons yet. You don’t need the giant yields if your target is another nuclear weapon in a silo. Does use of a weapon like that defensively, either as a deterrent or even in fact involve a greater risk of serious sin than use of a high yield conventional weapon?

On manufacturing process, I’d see only a bit of a distinction at all. Manufacturing an atomic weapon, from beginning to end, serves the process of building one for potential use. Manufacturing pornography involves an obvious mortal sin right from the onset, i.e. the use of some person in a deeply immoral way to produce the deeply immoral product. While that is true, in the case of both, if their possession is immoral, there are a lot of people who are engaged in remote material cooperation with evil, from truck drivers to clerks. Be that as it may, as Catholic theology is concerned with scienter principally, it’s still the case manufacturing a nuclear weapon, if possessing it is immoral, is immoral, for the same reason that going downtown with a formed intent to buy a Playboy is immoral, even if it turns out that the bookstore is out of them.

 

[vz71]

As for the possession of nuclear weapons, their mere possession is in and of itself a direct endorsement of their use in some circumstances. Otherwise, their possession makes no sense whatsoever.

Ownership of the weapon does not in any way make a claim to usage.

As to making sense, that is irrelevant.
People own things that do not make sense all the time.