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

[graciew]

It is an interesting read of the sequence of what Popes had to say about nuclear weapons and wars .And several of them by now. So I shared it.
The article is there for whoever is interested.

 

[OneSheep]

I am relieved to see that at no point did anyone call the mere ownership of these weapons to be immoral.

They are to be condemned:

Nor can we fail to be genuinely concerned by the catastrophic humanitarian and environmental effects of any employment of nuclear devices. If we also take into account the risk of an accidental detonation as a result of error of any kind, the threat of their use, as well as their very possession, is to be firmly condemned. For they exist in the service of a mentality of fear that affects not only the parties in conflict but the entire human race. International relations cannot be held captive to military force, mutual intimidation, and the parading of stockpiles of arms. Weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons, create nothing but a false sense of security.

Pope Stresses Need to Halt Nuclear Arms - ZENIT - English

Recognize Catastrophic Humanitarian, Environmental Effects

zenit.org

Two long years ago the Bishop of Rome condemned the possession of nuclear weapons. So, this begs the question: Why hasn’t every other Catholic bishop also forcefully condemned the possession of nuclear weapons – especially every bishop living in a nuclear-armed nation?

The U.S. has approximately 1,650 strategic nuclear warheads capable of being delivered via land, sea and air, and plans to spend over $1.5 trillion during the next 30 years on modernization.

Pope Francis Condemns Nuclear Weapons: So Why the Silence?

by Tony Magliano Two years ago, speaking before a Vatican sponsored international symposium titled “Prospects for a World Free of Nuclear Weapons and for Integral Disarmament,” Pope Francis said we…

paxchristiusa.org

The use of resources on these weapons, rather than using the resources to help those suffering poverty, mental illness, addiction, and many other human sufferings is immoral.

I expect to see some solid theological foundation.

Matthew 7:12

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

A nuclear weapon is nothing more than a really high yield bomb. The principle that should be followed and that the Church should focus on is that one does not target civilians in war. This applies equally to the nuclear bomb as to the sword. Assuming a just war, the Church does not condemn the targeting and killing of another nation’s armed forces. Why is it evil to nuke, say, an important military facility in Siberia (say a…gasp…nuclear launch facility) in which civilian casualties would be either nonexistent or negligible, to deny the enemy its capabilities? Why would the nuke condemn you to hell but a bunch of conventional missiles would not? It makes no sense. I’d think it would be equally admissible to nuke an important enemy military facility as to saturate it with cruise missiles, and equally inadmissible to nuke a city as it would be to level every square inch of it with MLRS rockets. There is nothing magically evil about a nuke, it’s how it’s used. And frankly the primary usefulness of a nuke is to deter anyone from using them against you, less they suffer an equal response. Unless we are to believe that the principle we should follow is that killing in war is sinful unless you give the other guy a sporting chance to kill as many of your guys as you do his. The Pope is running down the same path as the Mayor of London- running around trying to ban guns and knives and screwdrivers and household acid products because they have been used to kill people when the real problem is, people murdering other people. The nuke cannot be uninvented. He is tilting at windmills.

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

Does the Pope condemn nuclear power plants because accidents may happen? Can he point to a single incident of someone accidentally triggering all the safeties on a nuclear device and blowing themselves up? Because I can certainly point to accidents that have occurred at nuclear power plants, and I don’t see the Pope running around telling people they are going to hell for using nuclear power.

 

[OneSheep]

Does the Pope condemn nuclear power plants because accidents may happen?

From what I remember, no, but nuclear power plants are not good for the planet at this time, because they are subject to accidents and there is no truly sustainable means of dealing with the waste.

Can he point to a single incident of someone accidentally triggering all the safeties on a nuclear device and blowing themselves up?

Accidents happen. Sometimes, accidents happen that no one could have predicted. Anything can fail.

I don’t see the Pope running around telling people they are going to hell for using nuclear power.

The Pope isn’t telling people they are going to hell.

Do nuclear weapons help you feel safe?

 

[AlNg]

“ The Popes and the moral revolt against nuclear weapons “

“The Pope hosted a November 2017 Conference in the Vatican, bringing together politicians, Nobel Prize winners, and scientists, to search for new ways to free the world from nuclear weapons. …Addressing the opening of the Conference, Pope Francis said: “Nuclear weapons are not only immoral but must also be considered an illegal means of warfare.””

Hopefully, Catholics and others will pay attention to what the Holy Father is teaching here.

 

[graciew]

I hope so too. We need peace…