A complex document

...A pastoral letter alone will never suffice for the true teaching and learning function of the whole church...

...but the more specific one becomes, the lesser is the degree of certitude and the greater the possibility of disagreement within the one body of the church...

...Perhaps deterrence need not depend on declared intent...

...Some theorists might not want to admit that you cannot threaten what you cannot do...

...Spokespersons for the Catholic bishops have also come out against the development of the neutron bomb...

...In my judgment the evil which is tolerated in both cases is precisely the evil intention to threaten population centers...

...In their 1976 pastoral letter To Live in Christ Jesus the American bishops have accepted the principle that it is wrong to threaten to do what morally you cannot actually do...

...Point one prohibits the use of nuclear weapons for the purpose of destroying population centers or civilian targets (the principle of discrimination) and also the use of nuclear weapons against military targets when the attacks on these targets would devastate nearby populations (the principle of proportionality...

...Such an understanding of ecclesiology affects the way in which the teaching function of the hierarchical magisterium is understood and exercised...

...The church is a community of moral discourse...

...The paradox is that the sinful situation of deterrence does bring about "peace of a sort...

...One is hereby tolerating one's own intention to do evil (threaten a population center...

...This questioning and repudiation of the criterion of "superiority" or "equivalence" in favor of "sufficiency" should be incorporated into the bishops' statement...

...The problem arises only if one maintains that it is wrong to threaten to attack population centers...

...In short, this document recognizes a "big church" with the possibility of pluralism on specific complex issues...

...The threat in this case is taken by the other party but is not given by our expressed or declared intention...

...Such suggestions are obviously prudential and would not pretend to have achieved moral certitude, but they would raise some questions for the consciences of all of us especially those in the military, in defense planning, and in nuclear arms production...

...One of the distinctive theological and ethical contributions made by the American bishops is the concept of the toleration of deterrence, including counter-city deterrence...

...Perhaps the bishops felt that if the present document had opposed all use, it could not justify any deterrence...

...In the 1976 pastoral letter To Live in Christ Jesus as I mentioned earlier, the bishops made the statement that, in addition to the wrong in using nuclear weapons against civilian populations, it is also wrong to threaten to attack them as part of a strategy of deterrence...

...Likewise, the past statements have called for an end to the arms race but have not demanded unilateral nuclear disarmament...

...The draft does warn that gradual disarmament has become a meaningless term and that the status quo cannot be maintained...

...Point three applies these prohibitions about use to the threat of such use...

...What is the reason for leaving open the possibility of legitimate counter-force use of nuclear weapons...

...The same tension between justification and toleration appears elsewhere in the draft...

...Point two prohibits any first use of any type of nuclear weapons...

...If this is the case, then here is an application of toleration different from that of the past...

...The questions raised by the discussion of toleration thus illustrate the complexity of the conceptual problem in dealing with this agonizing existential question of nuclear deterrence...

...On page 38 for instance, the draft states that "nuclear weapons are at best barely tolerable," but earlier the draft justified and not merely tolerated some (presumably usable) counter-force nuclear weapons...

...The church has a role of involvement in the world and in trying to better the world...

...The document recognizes that it cannot be content with merely restating general moral principles nor with making obvious specific requirements such as the humane treatment of prisoners, but that it must look at the nature of existing and planned weapons systems, and the use and consequences of their use...

...The deterrent can be tolerated as long as there is hope of reducing and ending the nuclear arms race...

...The reason proposed against the first use of such weapons also would seem to prohibit the second or retaliatory use of such weapons...

...then it would not be necessary to invoke the concept of tolera-tion...

...Could such possession, plus the threat, undeclared but implicit in the existing situation, really deter...

...For deterrence to work, would not at least some people in the chain of command still need to have the intention to threaten...

...Toleration of deterrence...

...All are called to examine their consciences, pray, study, dialogue, decide, and then take actions aimed at making true peace and justice more present in our world...

...This toleration is not meant to be a comforting moral judgment but an urgent call to bring about change...

...What explains the use of toleration here...

...Krol obviously did not want to call for the removal of all counter-population deterrence so he used the category of I toleration...

...The possession of such nuclear weapons for deterrence can be tolerated as the lesser of two evils provided there is hope of meaningful nuclear arms reduction...

...Yet the document itself recognizes that one can possess nuclear weapons on the basis of toleration without having to justify their use in any circumstances...

...It seems that the present draft would be better and more consistent if it maintained the same position...

...The draft invokes the principle that the safest course must be followed when the spiritual or temporal welfare of people is involved...

...Ecclesiological aspects...

...First, there seems to be a contradiction in the document itself...

...Use...

...Such an involvement means that at times the church must tolerate the existence of evil while striving to change it...

...On this point Christians may differ, for the decision is not easy.I describe the proposed position of the bishops here as a reluctant noncondemnation of such use with the major problem being the difficulty of keeping the use of nuclear weapons limited...

...The draft and the Krol statement are not entirely clear...

...Earlier official statements from some Catholic bishops in the United States proposed even more specific criteria and judgments...

...A bishops' pastoral on peace, war, and disarmament not only involves complex ethical questions but also raises many ecclesiological problems...

...The entire point six accepts even counter-city possession and deterrence on the basis of the principle of toleration...

...I myself maintain that nuclear weapons should never be used...

...Krol interprets the 1976 statement that it is "wrong to threaten to attack population centers" as referring to "the declared intent to use them involved in our deterrence policy is wrong...

...Perhaps the most famous examples are the toleration of prostitution and the pre- Vatican II toleration of religious liberty or separation of church and state...

...But in the light of the 1976 statement the only way for the American bishops to avoid a call for unilateral counter-city nuclear disarmament is to invoke the concept of toleration...

...The document urges the immediate end, by all states, of the further development, production, and deployment of new weapons and delivery systems...

...Krol testified: "too long have we been guided by the false criterion of equivalence or superiority of armaments...

...From all these sources it is evident that the American Catholic bishops would.adopt the just war principle but also would admit the legitimacy and role of pacifism...

...Tolerating one's own evil intention appears to be a new proposal in Catholic ethical thought: There might be another possible explanation of the toleration involved here...

...Toleration in this case is based on the judgment that to deny nuclear deterrence any moral legitimacy may bring about worse consequences than we presently live with under conditions of deterrence...

...The position which leaves open some use of nuclear weapons, i.e., second strike, counter-force, raises some questions...

...But the same problem of limitation and the same principle logically lead to the conclusion that even second strike, counter-force nuclear weapons should never be used...

...In tolerating prostitution or the separation of church and state, one did not tolerate one's own intention to do evil...

...The concept appeared on the American scene in the testimony to a congressional committee by Cardinal Krol on the SALT II treaty on September 6, 1979...

...The present draft is very careful to spell out the meaning of toleration: The present deterrence relationship between the United States and Russia is a sinful situation and an objectively evil situation...

...Moral Theology: A Continuing Journey (University of Notre Dame...

...However, even if this were the correct interpretation, and it does not seem to be so, there would still be some problems...

...Point two argues against the first use of limited, counter-force nuclear weapons because of the immense difficulties in limiting escalation...

...This document reasserts, as would be expected, that the whole church can never become a sect or an opposition movement...

...father CHARLES E. curran, professor of moral theology at the Catholic University of America, is the author of numerous books dealing with the relationship between political, religious and moral issues, including Contemporary Problems in Moral Theology, Politics, Medicine, and Christian Ethics and, most recently...

...In this case the evil tolerated is simply the existence and possession of these weapons, not the declared intention to use them...

...The document is also very conscious of the difficulty of arriving at certitude because of the great complexity involved in prudential judgments...

...The draft develops through a series of six points or principles which set forth "interlocking ideas...

...There is a further question that ethicists should rightly ask in searching out the meaning of toleration: what is the evil that is tolerated...

...It is necessary at times even in the midst of complexity to come to some specific judgments...

...Did this mean that there was a moral obligation to get rid of such deterrence...

...Toleration involves tolerating the lesser of two evils...

...Point five justifies the deterrent based on the counter-force threat whose use is not condemned in point four...

...As a result of this complexity the bishops' conclusions are offered as an "invitation to moral direction, dialogue, and growth...

...Point four raises the question about the one remaining category of use-second strike (in retaliation against a nuclear attack) counterforce (as distinguished from counter-city) use...

...I believe this is the proper way for a church document to proceed...

...Also unilateral initiatives by the United States are called for, with the only example being to forego deployment of weapons used mainly in a first strike...

...Deterrence might come from the very existence and possession of the weapons in the context of the mistrust which characterizes international relationship at present...

...As noted in the draft, toleration is an accepted concept in Catholic moral theology...

...The conciliar or papal teaching never uses the concept or word toleration...

...One cannot morally threaten to do what points one and two say cannot be done...

...Limits of deterrence...

...The draft makes a neat distinction between principles and conclusions...

...Within the church the draft rightly recognizes the pluralism of possible approaches including pacifism and just war theories...

...Point six then goes on to recognize that broader deterrence (e.g., counter-city) is a moral evil, but it can be tolerated (not approved...

...It is in keeping with past statements by the Second Vatican Council, by recent popes, and by the American bishops themselves...

...Such an approach obviates the problem involved in tolerating one's own intention to do or threaten that which is evil...

...Similar judgments should be incorporated here as illustrations and applications of the general principles expressed earlier and of the criterion of sufficiency of deterrence...