U.S. Bishops Urge Congress to Ratify Nuclear Treaty

[Catholic_Press]

The U.S. bishops are urging congressmen to ratify the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) to decrease nuclear weaponry.

More…

 

[JimG]

I’m not opposed to the treaty. But I do worry that a treaty agreeing to a 30% reduction in nuclear weapons by the U.S. and Russia, does nothing to ensure nuclear non-proliferation among other, more dangerous regimes, such as North Korea and Iran.

It also seems to me that it was precisely Russia’s–and the USSR’s–inability to keep up with the U.S. in the area of strategic weapons, that led to the end of the cold war. To be effective, any strategic nuclear weapon program must be credible to have a deterrent effect. And a very small nuclear arsenal is likely not an effective deterrent. To that extent, nuclear arms reduction makes war more, not less likely.

 

[Man]

How important is non-proliferation? How can it be enforced?

 

[JimG]

How important is non-proliferation? How can it be enforced?

Not very well. That’s why it is important, in my view, to maintain a credible deterrent. Non-proliferation in Iran and N. Korea might have to be enforced by military means. But a stronger stance at the outset can sometimes prevent proliferation in the first place. During the Cold War, much of Europe elected to rely on the U.S. deterrent rather than developing their own nuclear forces; thus non-proliferation was accomplished through strength.

 

[Erich]

This link points out 10 things that are wrong with the START treaty, among them:

• the new START treaty will result in making Russia the world’s most dominant nuclear power because it limits future U.S. missile defense options. Even the Russians know this and have publicly stated it, but President Obama denies it. Making Russia a more dominant nuclear power is an all-around bad strategy because it empowers a nation that routinely invades its neighbors, is hostile to democracy even within its own borders, and is famous for helping rogue nations like Iran develop nuclear weapons.
• The treaty also allows Russia the ability to reduce its stockpile of aging nuclear weapons and upgrade them with strategic and tactical nukes. Meanwhile, Obama has already promised not to replace or modernize the U.S. arsenal. Bottom line: The treaty assures that Russia will one day have a qualitative and quantitative advantage over the U.S.
• the establishment of an independent Bilateral Consultative Commission which has a broad mandate to promote the objectives of the treaty. The Commission has the power to impose additional restrictions on our missile defenses which will severely compromise our national Sovereignty.
• the dismantling of President Ronald Reagan’s “trust but verify” strategy which required the U.S. to be sure the Russians were conforming to the treaty.
• the treaty’s inadequate response to the fact that Osama Bin Laden and other terrorist groups consider the acquisition of tactical nuclear weapons “a sacred goal.”

 

[Man]

We don’t always have a bill we want, but one we have. It appears that we need a treaty of some sort. Of course, not signing one is probably easier on the US than on Russia. But the generally product of such is not desirable. That is, it will result in every more powerful easier to use and easier to justify the use of WMD.

 

[JimG]

We don’t always have a bill we want, but one we have. It appears that we need a treaty of some sort. Of course, not signing one is probably easier on the US than on Russia. But the generally product of such is not desirable. That is, it will result in every more powerful easier to use and easier to justify the use of WMD.

Just so we keep in mind that one thing that makes it easier to justify the use of WMD’s is the knowledge that the other side has no credible deterrent.

 

[markomalley]

This article is inaccurate. There was no vote at the last bishops’ meeting in Baltimore to urge Congress to do anything. Per the Code of Canon Law:

Can. 455 §4. In cases in which neither universal law nor a special mandate of the Apostolic See has granted the power mentioned in §1 to a conference of bishops, the competence of each diocesan bishop remains intact, nor is a conference or its president able to act in the name of all the bishops unless each and every bishop has given consent.
Bishop Hubbard is more than welcome to speak in his competence as the Bishop of Albany or as the Chairman of the Justice and Peace committee. Archbishop Dolan is more than welcome to speak within his competence as the Archbishop of New York and the President of the Conference.

But this article says,

The U.S. bishops **[not the USCCB, or the Justice and Peace Committee, but the US bishops] **are urging congressmen to ratify the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) to decrease nuclear weaponry.

Nothing of the sort has happened…

 

[Man]

This article is inaccurate. There was no vote at the last bishops’ meeting in Baltimore to urge Congress to do anything. Per the Code of Canon Law:

Can. 455 §4. In cases in which neither universal law nor a special mandate of the Apostolic See has granted the power mentioned in §1 to a conference of bishops, the competence of each diocesan bishop remains intact, nor is a conference or its president able to act in the name of all the bishops unless each and every bishop has given consent.
Bishop Hubbard is more than welcome to speak in his competence as the Bishop of Albany or as the Chairman of the Justice and Peace committee. Archbishop Dolan is more than welcome to speak within his competence as the Archbishop of New York and the President of the Conference.

But this article says,

The U.S. bishops **[not the USCCB, or the Justice and Peace Committee, but the US bishops] **are urging congressmen to ratify the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) to decrease nuclear weaponry.

Nothing of the sort has happened…

Thank you, that answers 2 of my questions.

Still, we must bear in mind that these are compelling voices that matter. Whatever the actual legalistic strength actually is.

 

[Digitonomy]

This article is inaccurate. There was no vote at the last bishops’ meeting in Baltimore to urge Congress to do anything. Per the Code of Canon Law:Can. 455 §4. In cases in which neither universal law nor a special mandate of the Apostolic See has granted the power mentioned in §1 to a conference of bishops, the competence of each diocesan bishop remains intact, nor is a conference or its president able to act in the name of all the bishops unless each and every bishop has given consent.

Nothing of the sort has happened…

Thanks for pulling that canon law cite. I would suggest two possible loopholes in your analysis.

First, it’s not clear to me what is meant by “act” in the canon. Act may mean to do anything whatsoever, but it may be more restricted in its meaning. If the latter, the canon may be restricting the president from proclaiming particular local law for US bishops, but not restricting him from voicing the general feeling of the conference - whether or not there are a few bishops who disagree with him.

Second, I seem to remember that the USCCB did approve some sort of nuclear disarmament document back in the 80s. Depending on how vaguely that was worded, it may have encouraged the US government to make every effort to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the world. This treaty is one such effort, and consistent with the kinds of action the bishops called for 25 years ago. Thus the USCCB president could be within his rights, even with your interpretation of the canon, to reiterate the support of the conference for such a treaty.

 

[markomalley]

Thanks for pulling that canon law cite. I would suggest two possible loopholes in your analysis.

First, it’s not clear to me what is meant by “act” in the canon. Act may mean to do anything whatsoever, but it may be more restricted in its meaning. If the latter, the canon may be restricting the president from proclaiming particular local law for US bishops, but not restricting him from voicing the general feeling of the conference - whether or not there are a few bishops who disagree with him.

Second, I seem to remember that the USCCB did approve some sort of nuclear disarmament document back in the 80s. Depending on how vaguely that was worded, it may have encouraged the US government to make every effort to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the world. This treaty is one such effort, and consistent with the kinds of action the bishops called for 25 years ago. Thus the USCCB president could be within his rights, even with your interpretation of the canon, to reiterate the support of the conference for such a treaty.

Archbishop Dolan is more than welcome to speak for the USCCB.

But when the news article purports that he is speaking on behalf of all the US bishops (which, by the way, is more than what Bishop Hubbard claimed to do in the letter itself), then I have a problem with it.

Not so much for the nuclear disarmament…that is pretty much a slam dunk that all the bishops are going to agree on that one (but the question must be asked before that authority is claimed).

But when a Catholic news source like Zenit makes a statement that the “US bishops do this” or the “US bishops do that” and, in reality, it is some pointy-headed bureaucrat at the USCCB headquarters or the USCCB president at that time who is making a statement, it gets confusing to people who don’t understand the role and authority (and lack thereof) of a bishops’ conference.

That’s why I posted that Canon.

(BTW, the Holy Father actually spoke about this very issue – bishops conferences overstepping their bounds – with the Brazilian bishops at their last ad limina visit)

See here for his statement. A highlight:

Thus the episcopal conference “promotes unity of effort and intention among the bishops, becoming an instrument that enables them to share the fatigue of their labours. Yet it must avoid becoming a parallel reality or substituting the ministry of each individual bishop; in other words, it must not change his relationship with his particular Church and with the college of bishops, nor become the intermediary between the bishop and the See of Peter”

 

[curlycool89]

I agree with the US Bishop(s). There’s no need to have so many nuclear weapons around.

When you have enough nukes to nuke the entire world, you can’t possibly justify them all as deterrents.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I am against it because of the part that would limit our anti-missile defenses. If that was not in the treaty I would support it.

I actually heard a news story that was talking about Obama’s decision not to place anti-missile defenses in Poland (something that Poland wanted) because, as the news story said, “Russia perceived that these anti-missile defense batteries were aimed at Russia.”

So now we aim defenses? Defenses target no one except for attackers.

 

[Digitonomy]

Archbishop Dolan is more than welcome to speak for the USCCB.

But when the news article purports that he is speaking on behalf of all the US bishops (which, by the way, is more than what Bishop Hubbard claimed to do in the letter itself), then I have a problem with it…

But when a Catholic news source like Zenit makes a statement that the “US bishops do this” or the “US bishops do that” and, in reality, it is some pointy-headed bureaucrat at the USCCB headquarters or the USCCB president at that time who is making a statement, it gets confusing to people who don’t understand the role and authority (and lack thereof) of a bishops’ conference.

I don’t worry too much about what the ignorant think when they read such things (although I agree with you that it would be responsible for Zenit to think this). But I think the majority of people reading Zenit know that “the US bishops” is shorthand for the USCCB.

 

[markomalley]

I don’t worry too much about what the ignorant think when they read such things (although I agree with you that it would be responsible for Zenit to think this). But I think the majority of people reading Zenit know that “the US bishops” is shorthand for the USCCB.

It may seem like much ado about not very much, but you have to remember that many of those “ignorant” are Catholics who get their news from the NY Times, CNN, and Huffington Post. If Zenit is not diligent, how can we expect the secular press to be diligent about something that they wouldn’t really grasp in the first place?