| (cont.)
I. The Church in Public Debate:
The Pastoral in Perspective
The pastoral letter on war and peace can be examined from
several perspectives. I wish to look at it today in
ecclesiological terms, specifically as an example
of the Church's role in helping to shape a public
policy debate. Early in the letter the bishops say
that they are writing in order to share the moral
wisdom of the Catholic tradition with society. In
stating this objective the American bishops were following
the model of the Second Vatican Council which called
dialogue with the world a sign of love for the world.
I believe the long-term ecclesiological significance of
the pastoral rests with the lessons it offers about
the Church's capacity to dialogue with the world in
a way which helps to shape the public policy debate
on key issues. During the drafting of the pastoral
letter one commentator wrote in the editorial section
of the Washington Post:
"The
Catholic bishops. . . are forcing a public debate
on perhaps the most perplexing nuclear question
of them all, the morality of nuclear deterrence.
. . Their logic and passion have taken them to the
very foundation of American security policy."
This
commentary accurately captures the purpose of the
pastoral letter. The bishops intended to raise fundamental
questions about the dynamic of the arms race and the
direction of American nuclear strategy. We intended
to criticize the rhetoric of the nuclear age and to
expose the moral and political futility of a nuclear
war. We wanted to provide a moral assessment of existing
policy which would both set limits to political action
and provide direction for a policy designed to lead
us out of the dilemma of deterrence.
It
is the lessons we can learn from the policy impact
of the pastoral which are valuable today. The principal
conclusion is that the Church's social policy role
is at least as important in defining key questions
in the public debate as in deciding such questions.
The impact of the pastoral was due in part to its
specific positions and conclusions, but it was also
due to the way it brought the entire nuclear debate
under scrutiny.
The
letter was written at a time it called a "new
moment" in the nuclear age. The "new moment"
is a mix of public perceptions and policy proposals.
The public sense of the fragility of our security
system is today a palpable reality. The interest in
the TV showing of "The Day After" is an
example of how the public is taken by the danger of
our present condition. But the 'new moment" is
also a product of new ideas, or at least the shaking
of the foundation under old ideas.
Another
commentary generated during the drafting of the pastoral
letter, this one from The New Republic, identified
the policy characteristics of the "new moment":
"The
ground is not steady beneath the nuclear forces
of the United States. The problem is not modes of
basing but modes of thinking. The traditional strategy
for our nuclear arsenal is shaken by a war of ideas
about its purpose, perhaps the most decisive war
of ideas in its history."
The
significant fact to which this editorial points is
that the "new moment" is an "open moment"
in the strategic debate. Ideas are under scrutiny
and established policies are open to criticism in
a way we have not seen since the late 1950's. From
the proposal of "no first use," through
the debate about the MX, to the concept of a Nuclear
Freeze, the nuclear policy question is open to reassessment
and redirection. The potential contained in the "new
moment" will not last forever, policies must
be formulated, ideas will crystallize and some consensus
will be shaped. As yet, the content of the consensus
is not clear.
The
fundamental contribution of The Challenge of Peace,
I believe, is that we have been part of a few central
forces which have created the "new moment."
We have helped to shape the debate; now we face the
question of whether we can help to frame a new consensus
concerning nuclear policy.
The
"new moment" is filled with potential; it
is also filled with danger. The dynamic of the nuclear
relationship between the superpowers is not a stable
one. It is urgent that a consensus be shaped which
will move us beyond our present posture. The pastoral
letter has opened space in the public debate for a
consideration of the moral factor. How we use the
moral questions, that is, how we relate them to the
strategic and political elements, is the key to our
contribution to the "new moment." I could
spend the entire lecture on the moral dimension of
the nuclear debate, but my purpose is rather to relate
the experience we have had in dealing with the nuclear
question to other issues. Without leaving the topic
of the war and peace discussion, I will try to show
how our contribution to this issue is part of a larger
potential which Catholic moral vision has in the public
policy arena. This larger potential is to foster a
consideration of a consistent ethic of life and its
implications for us today.
Page 1 - 2 - 3
- 4 |
