It may be paradoxical, but as Chesterton taught us, the fact that something is paradoxical does not prevent it from being true.
In any imagined dispute between Chesterton and the Catechism, I'd pick the Catechism. So would Chesterton.
I think that a more convincing reason for avoiding avoidable arms build ups is the corrosive effect such militarization has on the societies that practice them.
Whether being well armed will deter others from attacking you is an empirical question, not a theological or moral one. If someone thinks it "paradoxical" that a nation is less likely to attack another if it has a strong army, then so be it. But being paradoxical does not equal being untrue.
Well, without seeing what the strictures of the treaty actually entail (and excuse), it's hard for me to tell the size of this tempest. I tend to be a little leery of the paper sausage ground out by the factoti at Turtle Bay. You know, the same people who try to get us to sign on to "reproductive rights" treaties and the lot.
"When the resolution was approved by the assembly's legal committee
over U.S. objections, Richard Grenell, spokesman for the U.S. Mission
to the United Nations, said: "The only way for a global arms trade
treaty to work is to have every country agree on a standard."
"For us, that standard would be so far below what we are already
required to do under U.S. law that we had to vote against it in order
to maintain our higher standards," he said."
This is at least a rationale for the US vote. I don't know if its valid or note but there it is.
"2316 The production and the sale of arms affect the common good of nations..."
Some have argued that the Church's teaching on birth control results in families living in poverty.
When the nations of the world spend trillions on arms, I find it hard to accept the argument that the Church is to "blame" for poverty.
This post, and the one regarding the 10 days the US can regain its moral authority, seem to assume that disagreement with a political position is necessarily a violation of the Church's teachings.
Mark doesn't even make an argument that there is a violation here. He just presents it as de-facto. The US didn't agree to a new treaty, so now it's ignoring the teachings of the Catechism.
The linked opinion piece doesn't even begin to describe the counterarguments for the various political actions that the US has taken regarding arms treaties and national security arrangements. I'm not going to read some one-sided rant and then automatically assume that the actions are objectively described by the US, and then take Mark's implication that they ignore Church teaching. And frankly, any reasonably person who doesn't see America as the cause of the world's ills would do the same thing.
I suggest that next time something like this comes up, instead of merely asserting that the US is once again ignoring Church teaching, we look at the reasons the US is taking its actions (perhaps the treaties are just another way to hamper our national security? Perhaps the treaties really ARE outdated, etc.) and then see if those actions actually ignore/violate Church teaching.
As for the Catechism itself, I think people read their own policies into it. Of course the Arms Race doesn't "ensure" peace. Who said it did? Otherwise, I'd be in favor of Iran getting nukes. I'm obviously not in favor of that. But does the Catechism mandate that the actions described in the linked rant, that the US rejected? I don't know, but I do know that Mark has done nothing to tell me if so, why.
The argument that the Church is to blame for poverty because of its stance on birth control is hard to accept, but I'm not sure what the fact that the nations of the world spend trillions on arms has to do with it.
No doubt there are examples where spending money on arms has led to more poverty and economic hardship (the Soviet Union comes to mind). But there are also examples where just the opposite is the case. It's generally recognized, for example, that it was America's arms build up due to WWII, rather than any of the New Deal policies, that ended the Great Depression. I'd also argue that the peace and prosperity experienced by Western Europe, South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan over the last 60 years is due in no small part to the presence of the American military in those countries.
I don't know anything about the particular arms treaty in question, and I certainly don't deny that regulation of the arms trade can be a good thing, depending on the details. But reality is a complex thing, and doesn't always work the way our idealistic notions would like it to work.
WWII was brought on in part through the lack of an arms race. France and Britain looked like pushovers.
It is true that we arguably hastened our entry into WWII by arming, and thereby convincing the Japanese that they had to attack before we became unassailable, but the point was that they intended to attack us anyway. Our not arming would merely have let them relax their timetable.
This post, and the one regarding the 10 days the US can regain its moral authority, seem to assume that disagreement with a political position is necessarily a violation of the Church's teachings.
No, they don't.
I think we really need to take to heart what Robert T. Miller has so eloquently been saying at First Things' website. Basically, the defense of the country and spending on defense are matters of prudential judgment. Bishops really know little about this and they are the really threats to public safety. They should butt out and stick to teaching doctrine and let the lay people who are experts in the matter figure it out for themselves.
"But reality is a complex thing, and doesn't always work the way our idealistic notions would like it to work."
Josiah- I agree very much that it is arms spending is complex topic, and so because of the evil and sin in the world.
Syd:
If you want to *really* know what I'm lampooning, just read what Mr. Warminster says. He sums up the Cafeteria Conservative attitude perfectly.
matters of prudential judgment
"Prudential judgment" is to the right wing of the Catholic Church what "conscience" is to the left wing. That is, it's a good enough excuse for ignoring Catholic teaching and doing whatever you want.
Ron,
The idea that there may be a legitimate diversity of opinion on certain matters of Church teaching is itself a matter of Church teaching. As then-Cardinal Ratzinger put it:
"Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia."
Ron:
Bingo. Tranpose this rhetoric to the key of D for Dem and you get, "Basically, what a woman does with her body and what a sovereign corporation does with life forms it has patented are matters of prudential judgment. Bishops really know little about this and they are the real threats to public safety. They should butt out and stick to teaching doctrine and let the lay people who are experts in the matter figure it out for themselves."
Josiah:
So do you think Cardinal Ratzinger or Pope Benedict would endorse the notion that the teaching of the Church is a "threat to public safety" and bishops should just shut up when the Catechism inconveniences American priorities?
Josiah, it strikes me as . . . odd . . . that "traditional" Catholics constantly resort to a quote from Cardinal Ratzinger that comes from a note never intended for publication while at the same time these Catholics ignore or scoff at teachings of the Church found in magisterial documents like the Catechism and the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. It seems especially . . . odd . . . since the same Cardinal Ratzinger, having become pope, urged the lay faithful to study the Compendium but made not a public mention of the note you guys quote at the rest of us all the time.
I wouldn't say I ignore this section of the Catechism, but I do respond with a yawn and a "that's swell, but get back to me when you have something a little more concrete."
The Church has no problem with the mere existence of armies, and it surely knows that any army necessarily serves as a deterrant to attackers. How a nation is able to fight a Just War without "the accumulation of arms" is beyond me and even, dare I say, beyond Mark.
Oh, I see, it's "over-armament" that's the real problem. Well, I certainly agree that it's never good to overdo anything but you don't need a Magesterium to tell you that, you just need to have a functioning brain. Absent, of course, is a means to determine when the army has one too many tanks. That's where prudential judgment is supposed to come in, but as we just learned, a conservative using prudential judgment when the Catechism offers vague guidance is the moral equivalent of advocating abortion on demand. Good to know.
Ron:
I'm puzzled as to why Cardinal Ratzinger's note doesn't constitute a threat to public safety and why he shouldn't "butt out".
as we just learned, a conservative using prudential judgment when the Catechism offers vague guidance is the moral equivalent of advocating abortion on demand.
No, but a conservative who says the Magisterium is a threat to public safety and should butt out when it inconveniences American neoconservative priorities is remarkably similar to the Lefty who uses the same rhetoric to shove the Magisterium out of the picture. Prudential judgment, in Catholic understanding, means *taking the Churches teaching into account* when thinking a matter through. It does not means dismissing it as pollyanna crap that can be safely laughed off as stupid and worthless.
Fair enough, Mark, but in charity to Warminster, he didn't say that the Magesterium should butt out. He said "bishops," and you know as well as I do that individual bishops, groups of bishops, and even national conferences of bishops have been known to be moral cowards who misapply the teaching of the Church. Over-armament is bad. We know that because the Catechism sez so. But when Bishop Molesterenabler from the Diocese of Podunk says "the US has too many tanks," the possibility might exist that he doesn't know what the heck he's talking about.
Mark,
I stand by my initial post. You seem to be making assumptions about, for instance, the recent UN treaty that the US voted against. Your lampooning isn't very obvious. The linked article seems to achive nothing for you. I still don't know what you're trying to say about the new UN treaty that the US voted against, and whether the US's actions (or Catholic who support the actions) were ignoring Church teaching.
Anyway, I see nothing in the Catechism that you quoted which is problematic at ALL. I do not favor arms races because if I did, I'd be in favor of Iran getting nukes. I think that a spin on these sections of the Catechism is often undertaken, perhaps unnecessarily, by those who see something in it that they'd like, and also unnecessarily by those who see something in it they might dislike.
"So do you think Cardinal Ratzinger or Pope Benedict would endorse the notion that the teaching of the Church is a "threat to public safety" and bishops should just shut up when the Catechism inconveniences American priorities?"
No, of course not. That would be a stupid thing to say.
I do wish the Bishops were a bit more reticent when it comes to pronouncing on political issues. Political disputes tend to turn on factual questions that they on which they have no special authority and in many cases aren't particularly informed (no shame in that, they are busy men with plenty of more important things to do than study the effect of marginal tax rates on economic growth). The U.S. Bishops, in particular, have a bad history of letting their left-wing staffs write their documents for them, which hardly helps their credibility.
"The U.S. Bishops, in particular, have a bad history of letting their left-wing staffs write their documents for them, which hardly helps their credibility."
Please don't blame staffers for writing the documents for them. The bishops sign off on the documents and are therefore responsible for what they say. It is like blaming the 'evil minister' because one doesn't want to be critical of the king.
I think that this is a case of idealogy trumping religious values/beliefs. How many people really believe, in a meaningful way, the actual social gospel messages of giving everything to the poor, or turning the cheek or whatever other extremely difficult thing Christ told us to do. How about the US policy of immigrants? Is that REALLY in line with the Church's teaching? ARe fences on the border, or deportations or other things REALLY okay with what the Church teachings? or what about 'living wage' laws or other such high minded ideals?
In other words, if the teaching is easy, or something I agree with or if it is not something that bothers me, well then I am all for it. It it isn't, well then maybe I can just use the old 'prudential judgment' argument and safely ignore whatever the bishops' have to say
not that I don't do the same thing 
Pax
Josiah:
The thing is, I didn't quote the American bishops, nor their staffers. I quoted the Catechism. But that doesn't seem to stop a number of readers from saying "Prudential judgment means we can basically disregard what the Catechism says, except for the bits about abortion."
Mark,
You asked me a question about the Bishops. I answered your question.
As for the business of left-wing staffers, this was pretty well documented by Dinesh D'Souza in an article for Policy Review (which I'd be happy to send to anyone who wants to see it). The fact that the American Bishops put their signatures on documents they didn't write on subjects they didn't understand mean they weren't responsible for what they said, but it does make what they say somewhat less credible.
There is nothing in the quoted sections of the Catechism which are problematic. In fact, nothing in the Catechism is problematic. But that doesn't stop a number of left-wing Catholics from saying that the Catechism means we can basically disregard the prudential judgments of politiicans or voters.
The degree to which and the manner in which abortionists, the women who procure abortions, and those who aid or abet them ought to be criminally punished, as well as the scope of proper civil jurisdiction over abortion practices, are just as much matters of the prudential judgment of civil authorities as the degree to which we should fund and produce armaments. The political Right here seems to erroneously assume that the Church dictates these judgments with precision and certainty, while the judgments on war and military spending are simply matters of secular governmental discretionary judgment.
Wrong. Whether those who have abortions should receive the death penalty, a year in prison, a $100 fine, or any criminal punishment at all are matters within the prudential judgment of secular authorities. A bad prudential judgment by politicians in this regard is open to moral condemnation as much as a bad prudential judgment about the production and funding of armaments. The fact that abortion is always morally wrong, while production of armaments is not always morally wrong, has nothing to do with the fact that prudential judgments are involved in deciding exactly what should be done about either by secular authorities -- and that such judgments may or may not be imprudent and immoral.
The U.S. spends nearly as much as the entire rest of the world on armaments, sells over 50% of armaments sold to other nations, and sustains 730+ military bases abroad. The presumption must be against the prudence and morality, perhaps even the sanity, of such conduct.
The sections from the Catechism you quote are quite true, but they don't belong in the Catechism. They aren't part of divine revelation, and they aren't connected with it. The reason they should be heeded is because they are true, not because they are in the Catechism; and people who disregard them should be criticised, not for being bad Catholics, but simply for being in the wrong. So you can't disregard these assertions that are made in the Catechism, but you can disregard the fact that they are there.
Celine, I think I understand what you're getting at, but I'm not sure it works. You say it's an erroneous assumption that the Church has dictated judgments about abortion with precision and certainty. She hasn't? Maybe specific penalties have not been offered, but the objective immorality and necessity of society to protect innocent life has been upheld by the Church. In other words, I do not believe, and I do not wish to sound arrogant or presumptuous, that the Church would accept as a prudential judgment that abortion should be legal and go unpunished in a country. Just as She would not accept that prudential judgment could permit a legal structure which allowed for the murder of unwanted 3 year old children. The same Divine precept is involved.
So while I agree that "the degree to which and manner in which" are not delineated by the Church, your second paragraph implies ("or any punishment at all") that it is within the realm of prudential judgment for abortion to be legal. I think the Church is abundantly clear and precise about the obligations of society to its innocent, unborn life. Perhaps we do not disagree on this point, or perhaps I misunderstand you. I apologize if that is so. And to finish my thought, the same basic, fundamental clarity is lacking on the question of arms because a society acquiring weapons is not intrinsically evil.
The degree to which and the manner in which abortionists, the women who procure abortions, and those who aid or abet them ought to be criminally punished... are... matters of the prudential judgment of civil authorities...[.] The political Right here seems to erroneously assume that the Church dictates these judgments with precision and certainty,
Celine, you must know different conservatives than I do, because I have never once heard a conservative appeal to the Catechism to determine the precise criminal penalty for abortion. In fact, I've never heard anyone appeal to any teaching of the Church to determine a criminal penalty for anything.
"Dinesh D'Souza in an article for Policy Review"
Okay, great source, gets stuff posted on the Nat'l review. Clearly no agenda at work here
"on the question of arms because a society acquiring weapons is not intrinsically evil."
Yet, it is the instrumental use that makes them evil. Look at say Turkey and how the Turkish state, using US military hardware is treating its Kurdish people.
Is that the same thing as say abortion. Well, no, but it is an active evil that we should distance ourselves and our nation from. The same thing can be said about how US policy of sending military hardware to say South America isn't intrinsically evil, but knowing full well the instrumental use for which said weapons will be used, well, to me at least, that is evil
If I own a gun, that isn't evil. If my drunken friend comes over who is talking about killing his girlfriend/wife/kid and I sell him my gun, then I think I did something evil.
pax
Dale, I think you make a good point and I would agree with you that if we know or have reason to assume that the ends to which the weapons will be used are unjust and/or oppressive, it is wrong to sell them. But again, the international sale of weapons may not in itself be problematic if we are supplying a country that wants to maintain a military in order to protect itself should the need arise.
I wonder which parts of the Sermon on the Mount were Christ as moral teacher which were Christ as social activist!
It is ever so convenient to distinguish social justice from faith and morals, particularly if one can arbirtraliy assign activities to one column or the other.
From what the New Testament tell us, it appears that Christ was closer to being a left wing hippie than a right wing apologist.
Where people blame the church for codemning people to poverty I think it is because they do not see it as a strong enough advocate for peace. Too many people remember John Paul II as a capitalist and nothing but though he may have been more complex.
This image, carried by the church, through homilies that focus more on tabloid issues of abortion and gay marriage to influence elections,
do little to remind the people of the good work that the church does in feeding the homeless, helping in disaster areas and working to solve issues of war.
That these other issues are never talked about can sometimes leave people with the impression that these issues are not important moral issues as well, when indeed they are important issues as we live out the very dynamic life that is faith.
If people knew on a concious basis what the church talked about in terms of peace and justice, and the high standards it upholds, more people would esteem the church not as a bully pulpit but as a peace church that is not without it's flaws but is very much with it's morals and principles in being rooted in a peace as something worth being committed to.
Dale,
Of course D'Souza has an agenda. When did I say he didn't? But the facts presented in his article pretty much speak for themselves. The staffers who wrote the Bishops' documents for them also have an agenda. The difference is that theirs was a largely hidden agenda, which they tried to present as following from the Gospel.
I find the idea (expressed by several comments here) that you can read some sort of political platform out of the Gospels very surprising. So far as I can tell, neither Christ nor the early Christians were all that interested in politics.
Mark,
Per HJBoitel's comment, you really ought to add another item to the list you quoted from Anthony Sacromone in your SRTSCTIVF post: Jesus as Left-wing Hippie.
If the Catechism is talking about arms to be used in a purely offensive manner, that is so true.
However, arming a country defensively is a different matter. A star wars defense, defenses against biological weapons and WMDs and enough defensive power to defend the innocent in the country, even if that means weaponry sufficient to attack military targets in other countries, seems not only allowable, but mandatory. A government has a duty to protect its citizens.
It is unfair to compare conservate concern for abortion and this issue. Here those applying this doctrine must first determine what an appropriate amount of weaponry is, and then they can determine what too much would be. However, abortion is intrinsically evil and the only appropriate amount is zero. There is no room for conscience when the answer is always zero.
Such is not the case with arms, for the appropriate amount will depend on the situation. Therefore, one can accept the CCC, but also reject the Bishops statements because they do not have the background and training to authoratatively state what amount of arms is appropriate given the current socio-political-military situation for any given country. Those who have this background and have been duly elected must use prudence to determine that number. Of course leaders could be wrong, but the role of the Bishops is to insist on the standard to be applied, not the authoratative answer. Abortion is different because the answer does not depend on the situation, for it is always wrong. Sorry for spelling and other mistakes, I wrote this quickly. Bob
I want to thank Mark for keeping people like me honest with posts like this. If my own instincts perhaps incline me to too readily nod when folks on the Right like John Derbyshire write “I don't see how you can ever have enough nukes,” Mark helps remind me of the importance of starting from Catholic premises. It’s true that the quoted catechism passage simply lays down principles, the specific application of which sincere Christians will disagree. However, it’s the starting point that matters if you’re going to think with the Church.
As for discussions of “The Gospels show Jesus was quite a hippie,” “What Gospel are you reading? He was all about hellfire and brimstone!” Over time, I’ve come to embrace more of a both/and view instead of the either/or. To paraphrase Peter Kreeft (perhaps badly): Our Lord is both “softer” than the most bleeding-heart liberal, and more exacting than the toughest right-wing conservative.
Great post Mark- here's something else to consider- time after time I have heard it said that Pope John Paul II and Ronald Reagan were joined at the hip in dealing with the Evil Soviet Empire- if true then how do you explain JPII's encyclical "On Social Concern"? He blasted the notions and policies that dominated the Cold War era- I challenge any Catholic worth his or her salt to read this 1987 encyclical easily found at papalencyclicals.net, and then challenge your consciences if you still believe the false myth that faithful Catholic and faithful Republican are interchangeable terms.
Fair enough, Mark, but in charity to Warminster, he didn't say that the Magesterium should butt out. He said "bishops," and you know as well as I do that individual bishops, groups of bishops, and even national conferences of bishops have been known to be moral cowards who misapply the teaching of the Church.
Of course, and so does Mr. Warminster, which is why he changed the subject from the Magisterial teaching of the Church to the easy task of taking potshots at American bishops. I repeat: I did not quote anybody from the USCCB. I quoted the Magisterial teaching of the Church. And, true to the behavior of so many Cafeteria Conservatives, not a few of my readers immediately began giving dismissive reasons why we don't have to pay any attention to it at all and why it is, in fact, a threat to public safety and the product of idiots who should butt out. As I say, the rhetoric is remarkably similar to ESCR advocates who tell the bishops to shut up and tend to their pedophile problems rather than deal with the fact that this is the magisterial teaching of the Church they are contending with.
A general observation: "strong moral reservations". That's quite a circumlocution, isn't it? (I mean, is "the accumulation of arms" right or is it wrong?) What claim do "strong moral reservations" have on the conscience of the faithful? Are "strong moral reservations" more like teachings de fide credenda or more like pious opinions? I don't remember seeing the category "strong moral reservation" in Ott: is it something new?
A more specific observation: The arms race does not ensure peace. Far from eliminating the causes of war, it risks aggravating them. Spending enormous sums to produce ever new types of weapons impedes efforts to aid needy populations; it thwarts the development of peoples. Over-armament multiplies reasons for conflict and increases the danger of escalation. What exactly are the strong moral reservations? I see here a little litany of assertions, which may or may not be accurate, concerning the possible practical outcomes of arms race(s). Are they supposed to constitute the "strong moral reservations"? One would gather from the structure of the paragraph that the answer to my question should be "Yes"; but, how do assertions of dubious accuracy concerning practical outcomes amount to moral reservations, let alone moral dictates which must be heeded?
As an apropos aside, I wonder what the folks in Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, and other eastern European countries think about the arms build-up by the USA under Reagan. BTW, it might also be apropos to note that Reagan began the arms buildup for moral reasons: he thought that it was unconscionable that so many hundreds of millions of people were held hostage to the threat of nuclear annihilation and that the only realistic solution to that immoral situation was to make the Soviets spend themselves into destruction. Alas, history proved him completely wrong, no?
Honestly, the best case that I think could be made is that certain arms races may risk more harm than good while certain others might "risk" more good than harm. That any and/or all arms race(s) do the former does not seem to be in evidence.
It seems to me that this particular paragraph in the Catechism is so vague and ambiguous that either side of the issue can read into it, or out of it, whatever they'd like. Given that, I'm not sure what claim could be made that it binds the conscience of the faithful.
Mark, This is a good way of saying something without saying something. If you support unilateral nuclear disarmament, just say so. But at least do yourself a favor and read up on the dense debate that went on about this in the 1980s. Reality is more complicated than smug sarcastic comments would lead one to believe.
2315 "The accumulation of arms.... arms race.... Over-armament...." Why are these three different phrases (all italicized in the original) employed in the same paragraph? Are they meant to refer to the same activity or to different activities? or to different degrees of the same activity? or to the same activity with different motivations or ends? If they do not refer to the same activities, then do the "strong moral reservations" only apply to the referent "accumulation of arms"? If "strong moral reservations" also apply to "arms race" and "over-armament", why are different terms employed?
The accumulation of arms is not necessarily an arms race, is it? Nor is it necessarily over-armament, is it?
I don't think it's wise to hang very much weight off a small paragraph that legitimately gives rise to so many basic questions about its specific meaning.
Mark Shea,
I'm not about to oppose the Church on anything, so I'd you to answer a question for me:
Let's say to that the Evil Army Leaders of Nation A are creating weapons that can vaporize Nation B's( the peaceful nation) Troops before nation B's troops can get with a 100 miles of Nation A's troops. Would it licit for Nation B to develop the same type of weapon, if it's in self-defens?e
I'm NOT saying Nation 'B' represents the U.S. I'm just curious. Thanks for your time.
Sorry, the Anonymous post is mine.
Earlier in this thread, I said, inter alia, "From what the New Testament tell us, it appears that Christ was closer to being a left wing hippie than a right wing apologist."
The anonymous Publius suggests I said, "Jesus as Left-wing Hippie."
Del Torkelson quotes me as saying: “The Gospels show Jesus was quite a hippie,” [Torkelson's quote marks]
Strawmen of one's own creation tend to be easy to mock or challenge.
I stand by my comment.
HJBoitel: I didn't mean to suggest I was referring to your precise words. I probably did a poor job of communicating that. I meant to imply as much by also fact putting the fire and brimstone reply in quotes despite the fact that no one had made that precise comment. My bad.
However, my chief purposed was to allude to the college dorm-type bull sessions in which I am guesing others reading this blog have probably also engaged. In my experience, those discussions usually turn the meaning of the Goespel into something of a Rorschach test.
Striving to interpret scripture through the guidance of the Church generally prevents me from recreating Jesus in my own image. I'm not asserting that was your intention with the hippie comment--but I suppose your comment provided me an opportunity to say something I wish I would have during those late night bull sessions--which was my paraphrasing of Peter Kreeft.
Commenting by HaloScan
