What is President-elect Biden's responsibility as a Catholic in relation to the nuclear weapons in his control after January?

[FiveLinden]

I may be missing something but as the OP it seems to me that people are suggesting there is no real way for a Catholic to act as a Catholic once they are President in relation to the Church’s teaching on nuclear war.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

JFK was ready to fire our nukes at Khruschev if he fired them at us, and Biden would do the same if he absolutely had to.

The issue of nuclear weapons is a little different because there is a huge public check against using them. The vast majority of people in USA never want to see us use one, and wish we didn’t have to have them, but those with knowledge and control know they are a “necessary evil” for keeping the peace at this point. I think there’s also a general understanding that we would use such weapons defensively and not as an act of aggression against another country. At the same time, nuclear weapons, beyond having a public check, are not actively murdering many people a day. Abortion is.

We had the same type discussion regarding Reagan, who was not a Catholic but was revered by many Catholics for his anti-abortion and anti-Communism efforts. At the same time Reagan was building our defense arsenal and was regarded as alarmingly ready to use nuclear weapons, way more so than Biden. Some people, including some Catholics, thought this was immoral. Some thought it was moral because we were fighting evil Communism and would only use the weapons defensively.

We pray that any President, Catholic or not, would never have to fire a nuclear weapon, and would disarm to the extent he prudently could. A president could take reasonable steps towards treaties and disarming, so it’s not like he can’t even try to govern according to the Catholic principle.

 

[JimG]

Presidents and other world leaders don’t know in advance what threats they may face or how they may deal with them. A nuclear missile takes about 30 minutes to get from the U.S. to Russia or vice-versa. For a nuclear response, that’s a lot of lead time. During the Cuban missile crisis, when Kruschev placed nuclear missiles in Cuba, those weapons could have hit DC, NYC, and the east coast in 5 minutes. That would result in a huge imbalance in deterrence. JFK could not let that stand. In meetings with the USSR ambassador, he had his brother RFK implicitly threaten nuclear war. Kruschev ultimately pulled the weaons out of Cuba, causing Fidel Castro to be furious. Castro said that if he had been given control of the miissiles, he would have used them. As an aside, Gen. Curtis LeMay had recommended to Kennedy that he be allowed to bomb the missile sites. Good thing that Kennedy did not accept that advice or we would have been at war with the USSR, as it was their military peersonnel who were manning the sites.

 

[redcatholic]

I suppose we have to rely on his holding to the pro life values of his faith. So, not a good record. By the way the last four years have been quite peaceful on the nuclear front with Trump walking back the US aggressive stances in Iran and noko.

 

[Freddy]

JimG:

Sure, it would all be fine until the first North Korean missile strike, or the Russian or Chinese nuclear blackmail. Lack of defense can invite offense and start a war.

If you honestly think those are possibilities…

Would you honestly want to find out?

 

[StudentMI]

Would you honestly want to find out?

Freddy, you think North Korea is going to send a missile to the United States?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Would you honestly want to find out?

Freddy, you think North Korea is going to send a missile to the United States?

No. But if hostilities broke out with South Korea I could imagine them escalating the problem with low yield nukes. And I could see Putin chancing his arm in Eastern Europe.

 

[FiveLinden]

Bear do you have an answer to the question in the OP? It seems to me that the Catholic position absolutely proscribes the use of nuclear weapons against population centres. I agree that smaller tactical nukes aimed at military targets might squeeze in. But the majority of the US arsenal is designed to obliterate whole areas. The Catholic position does not distinguish between aggressive use or retaliatory use. The question I am a feeling an answer to is: should a Catholic president make clear that he (in this case) would use nukes only in line with Catholic teaching, i.e., rule out nearly all use of them? And if not, can such a President be considered Catholic since he is refusing to uphold a key teaching and facilitating the means by which future Presidents might breach that teaching?

 

[JimG]

I don’t think NK or any rational nation is going to send a missile toward the U.S.
There is a saying in the missile corps that if you ever have to turn keys for real, then you have failed in your mission of deterrence.

 

[FiveLinden]

No. But if hostilities broke out with South Korea I could imagine them escalating the problem with low yield nukes. And I could see Putin chancing his arm in Eastern Europe.

Agreed. There is a real possibility of the US being faced with the actual use of nuclear weapons. NK is not spending (literally) the livelihoods of its people on a nuclear programme just for a threat with no intention of ever using them. All you need to establish a threat in the mind of the US is (as Saddam Hussein showed) is to issue a couple of press releases and be coy about whether you really have the weapons. NK understands that it must actually have them, and be ready to use them.

 

[Freddy]

Does the Church teach that nuclear weapons are intrinsically evil? If so, why does she teach this, when did she begin teaching this, and on what grounds? Would this also apply to massive non-nuclear weapons such as the MOAB (Mother of All Bombs)? If not, why not?

They are just a technology like any other technology — able to be used for horrifying and unjust purposes, but still, in and of themselves, just a form of technology.

I don’t suppose Lincoln had any qualms about using the newly invented Gattling gun in the civil war. The gun might have actually killed more people than the Hiroshima bomb.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I’ve explained before, on many threads, that Catholics do not cease to be Catholics if they disagree with a Church teaching or even sin. Also, social justice teachings of the Church are not the same as dogma of the Church when it comes to Church teaching.

There are people on this forum and elsewhere who constantly disagree with me on this, however, I believe my viewpoint to be correct.

There are reams of Catholic theology on matters like nukes and “just war”. The bottom line is Biden is a Catholic just like Kennedy was a Catholic, and the fact that Kennedy had and Biden likely will have access to the nuclear arsenal and would likely deploy it in a situation of absolute necessity does not cause them to be suddenly not Catholic or automatically excommunicated. If they have a question about the morality of nuclear missiles, disarmament etc there are likely bishops and such who would be quick to advise or counsel them in private. If they acted with reasonable prudence I doubt they would be considered to be in a state of mortal sin.

The Church is not going to force a position that would make a Catholic unable to serve as President or put an entire nation at risk.

 

[Genesis315]

Here is a good analysis on the Church’s position on nuclear weapons from Pope Pius XII through Francis (yes, the article is from the SSPX, who are in an irregular canonical situation and working with the Church to resolve, but it is a good, brief explanation nonetheless that defends Francis on this point).

The Pope says “No” to Atomic Weapons - District of the USA

If you don’t want to click the link, basically, Pius XII was first completely for disarmament as nuclear weapons were always disproportional in a just war analysis, and therefore we would have to choose to suffer injustice rather than use them. Through the papacy of St. John Paul II, the Church accepted possessing them for bilateral deterrence as an intermediate step to disarmament–this toleration was mostly due to the need to maintain the political stability between the two superpowers with the world in a state of bi-polarization. With the breakdown of that situation, Benedict XVI and Francis returned to the earlier position of Pius XII.

Since it is a factual analysis, I think a politician could disagree in good faith and consider that we are still in that intermediate step where ownership can be tolerated for deterrence–but he should be trying work for disarmament.

 

[FiveLinden]

social justice teachings of the Church are not the same as dogma of the Church when it comes to Church teaching

Is the teaching in relation to the need to proscribe abortion under law not part of social teaching? That is the comparison I was drawing. If a president supports the possible use of nuclear weapons for the destruction of large populations how is that distinguished from support for laws allowing abortions?

 

[RhodesianSon]

The US is never going to give up its nukes. Mere possession is not immoral, and they do work as a deterrent.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

No, abortion is outright murder of an innocent person.

Nuclear weapons deployed in any situation other than extreme emergency war/defense situation would also be outright murder.

I cannot think of a situation where the abortion of a baby is comparable to emergency war/ defense of a nation.

So if you’re trying to draw a parallel between the two for purposes of arguing abortion is okay or Biden’s position on it is okay, it’s not (in fact I believe pro-choice is legally unconstitutional as well as morally wrong) and this discussion stops here because I will not further countenance yet another effort by you to criticize the Church. Good night.

 

[FiveLinden]

…abortion is outright murder of an innocent person…[n]uclear weapons deployed in any situation other than extreme emergency war/defense situation would also be outright murder.

So if you’re trying to draw a parallel between the two for purposes of arguing abortion is okay or Biden’s position on it is okay, it’s not (in fact I believe pro-choice is legally unconstitutional as well as morally wrong) and this discussion stops here because I will not further countenance yet another effort by you to criticize the Church. Good night

I am not criticising the Church. I am not arguing anything about abortion or Biden’s position. I am asking a question to understand the way in which its teachings are applied by and to political leaders.

I’m really looking for a CAF member who supports the sanctions applied to Biden by some Church leaders because of his position on abortion to say whether similar sanctions should apply if he does not commit to using nuclear weapons, or maintaining stockpiles, only in line with Catholic teaching or at least doing so in so far as is possible. As you rightly point out, if I have understood you correctly, both the Church’s teaching on abortion and the just war/nuclear teachings of the Church have in common a belief that innocent life cannot be directly taken as a means or an end.

Hence my question. I hope you also have a good night.

 

[MNathaniel]

The Church is not going to force a position that would make a Catholic unable to serve as President

I’m not trying to provoke annoyance but I honestly don’t see why. It’s not as if “being president” is a human right.

If the Church can force a position that would make a Catholic unable to serve as president of Planned Parenthood, why can’t the Church force a position that would make a Catholic unable to serve as president of a country?

It’s not about the Church prescriptively writing down: “And you can’t be president of country X, and you can’t be president of corporation Y…” But the Church can clarify the moral law, and if a layperson realizes that if they personally take specific jobs X or Y, they’d have to violate the moral law… it seems to me that as laypeople we’re often obligated to either insist on modifying, or decline to accept jobs because of the moral law they’d require us to violate. And at the end of the day, ‘president’ is just one in a long list of jobs.

I don’t actually know the extent or firmness of Church teaching regarding nuclear actions. But it doesn’t seem to me that the OP has asked an unreasonable question here. The Church shouldn’t consider mere worldly politicians above God’s law – and assuming certain political jobs in certain political climates will almost inevitably involve breaching the moral law in some way (whether by the evil of nuking a city, or just the scandal of claiming that one would) that does open up a real can of worms. (Worms I personally have no answer for, to be clear.)

I can imagine someone arguing that bluffing about willingness to do evil, is proportionately counterbalancing to allowing the evil of having one’s own country nuked. But it’s a tricky argument to make because if we admit it’s a bluff, the bluff loses its effectiveness.

 

[TheLittleLady]

I remember a poingant episode of The West Wing where the fictional president went to confession after a federal execution.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Here is a good analysis on the Church’s position on nuclear weapons from Pope Pius XII through Francis (yes, the article is from the SSPX, who are in an irregular canonical situation and working with the Church to resolve, but it is a good, brief explanation nonetheless that defends Francis on this point).

https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/pope-says-“no”-atomic-weapons-29450

If you don’t want to click the link, basically, Pius XII was first completely for disarmament as nuclear weapons were always disproportional in a just war analysis, and therefore we would have to choose to suffer injustice rather than use them. Through the papacy of St. John Paul II, the Church accepted possessing them for bilateral deterrence as an intermediate step to disarmament–this toleration was mostly due to the need to maintain the political stability between the two superpowers with the world in a state of bi-polarization. With the breakdown of that situation, Benedict XVI and Francis returned to the earlier position of Pius XII.

Since it is a factual analysis, I think a politician could disagree in good faith and consider that we are still in that intermediate step where ownership can be tolerated for deterrence–but he should be trying work for disarmament.

I’m all for mutual disarmament and drawing down one’s arsenal, but it’s a hard fact of life that you always have to keep your enemy guessing, never let him know what you’re really thinking, never let him know what you “would do” and what you “would not do”, and keep him off balance at all times, lull him into complacency if that strategy works, or make him fear you if that strategy works.